I always get a kick out of the Atheists god-haters who try to have discussions with Christians. (1)
They’re so arrogant in their unbelief and ignorance! This attitude of theirs usually manifests itself online via contentious debates in chatrooms, or on discussion forums. (2)
After wading through all the garbage that most of them consider “argumentation,” (which in reality means “slanderous statements, and insults about your mom”) the Christian at some point in the discussion, begins to hear actual objections raised by the Atheist.
On the whole, these objections are nothing more than an allusion to his or her personal experience.
This could be a simple, on the surface allusion, such as: “I know some Christians are ignorant and close minded, because there is this girl in my biology class; and SHE is a Christian, as well as ignorant and close minded!”
Or, it could be a more in-depth allusion, such as: “I know that Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is invalid, because I know that certain complex cellular mechanisms, working via natural processes, tend to climb towards complexity!”
In this article, I will show why Christians should never let an Atheist get away with alluding to personal experience (of any kind) to try and win an argument!
Simple Allusions:
Generally speaking today, most of the contentious, God-hating, Atheists that you will run across in a chatroom or forum, are metaphysical naturalists. They bow knee to their god of chaos, and worship at the alter of evolution!
Before you allow such a person to make arguments based on his or her personal experience, simply point out to them, that, given the truth of their evolutionary views, you (the Christian) have no reason to assume that they are telling the truth!
The strongest, smartest, and most cunning creatures survive, right? Suppose the cheetah, camouflages herself in the surrounding environment, so that she can more easily attack the nearby Gazelle? What is this, but a deception on the part of the Cheetah? “It’s ok over here Gazelle; it is safe; there is no danger!”
Utilizing deception as a means to get ahead is nothing new to this world, especially if you believe in Evolution. (3)
I have heard a particular argument many times from Atheists, that goes something like this:
“Preachers just want to get your money, and churches are out to rob you!”
When I ask them which particular denomination has robbery as a foundational creed, they always decline to answer. I usually follow it up with another question.
“Well, perhaps then, you can tell me the name of this particular church, so that we can see if they need to be disciplined by their denomination?”
They either say that they can’t remember the name, or that it was an independent church, acting on its own; specifically a church that is not listed in the phone book, nor has its own website.
How dang convenient, right?
So, in this particular case, the God-hater is lying about his or her experience, in order to make the argument: “Churches just want to get your money.” They expect you to grant to them the truth of their personal experience here.
Sorry I ain’t that kind! Especially given a belief in evolution, lying would be a prudent way to further a claim!
Complex Allusions:
Suppose though, that they can prove that they are not lying?
What if they try and argue based on more generally accepted experiences?
For example, I hear this argument all the time:
“Christianity was the bloodiest religion ever. More people died from Christianity, than any other religion! Look at the Crusades or the Witch Trials!”
No Christian would deny the reality of the Crusades or the witch trials. The unbeliever in this case, is appealing to experiences that none of us have ever experienced, but all present (generally) accept as actually having taken place.
Or suppose the God-hater makes the argument, “Noah’s Flood was impossible because there isn’t nearly enough water on Earth to cover the entire planet!”
There are two major problems with this, and I’ll point them out.
Problem 1: Perceptual foundations are incoherent, and useless to the unbeliever!
We all know that at times, our perceptions are false.
I’m sure if God has some woman in mind for me to fall in love with, the moment I first see her, I’ll probably see little hearts floating around my own head for an hour or so afterwards!
The guy who takes a hit of acid, thinks spiders are crawling all over him! The pilgrims, looked to the west, and saw “Far blue mountains.” Do you think they were disappointed when they reached those mountains and found out that they were really not blue after-all?
The point is, our perceptions; our empirical observations, often are plain wrong about reality.
In order to determine which of our perceptions are real, and which are mere hallucinations; we have to come up with some standard. But, this poses a problem doesn’t it? To establish a standard, you have to rely on the very empirical experiences that you are trying to provide a standard for in the first place!
The unbeliever has no way of providing a valid criteria for his or her own experiences, without begging the question, or being completely arbitrary. Because of this, no Christian should grant to them, the validity of their own sense perceptions! If the unbeliever cannot tell which of his experiences are true, and which are false, then the Christian should not grant them this right.
Make them earn it! (4)
Problem 2: Imprisoned by experience!
Even if I were nice enough to grant the unbelieving God-haters, the validity of their own sense perceptions; they still have the problem of coming up with coherent statements based off of these perceptions.
Let’s say that we grant them, that they really are seeing a piece of white chalk. How do you get from THAT perception, to an interesting statement like, “I love you,” or, "Christianity is the bloodiest religion ever?
The unbeliever would perhaps try to use deductive reasoning (5).
The classic deductive example would be:
Socrates is a man
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal!
But you see, here, in order for this to be valid, we have to know that ALL men are mortal! Unless the God-hater has personally experienced that ALL men are mortal, then he or she cannot make this argument! They can never know that all men are mortal, until they themselves die! (But then, they wouldn’t be around to argue anymore! Lol)
So, they cannot utilize deductive inferences in order to make statements based on their experiences.
Suppose they try using inductive inferences instead?
Every crow I have seen so far, was black, therefore, the next crow I see, will very probably be black.
Unfortunately the unbeliever cannot show that the required assumption here is certain, or even probably true! (6)
IN CONCLUSION:
Christians! Don’t EVER allow a God-hating Atheist to appeal to his or her own experiences in an attempt to validate an argument!
I have shown 1. that it is unlikely they are telling the truth; 2. That they cannot know the difference between true perceptions and false ones without begging the question; 3. Even if they could, they could not make valid assumptions based on these experiences (even if they were true!)
Don’t let them bog you down in discussions about the nature of thermodynamics, or textual criticism. Cut them off at the knees, and show them the foolishness of their own God-hating philosophy! Show them that it cannot stand!
This is after-all, what we’re commanded to do!
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” 2nd Corinthians 10:5
b[/b] If you’re an Atheist reading this, stop crying, I know you don’t think you believe in a “god” and therefore want to argue that you cannot possibly hate Him. Sorry to burst your bubble, but, you DO believe in God. It is not, however, the purpose of this particular blog to prove it.
b[/b] Unfortunately, some Christians respond in like manner, only serving to agitate the situation.
b[/b] Again, if you’re an Atheist reading this, stop crying! I’m using the term “evolution” here to describe the broad overarching system of thought, including gradual change through time, coupled with natural selection etc. I know that you think you’re an expert when it comes to the theory of Evolution, and I know that you greatly desire to discuss the particulars of this false myth. Unfortunately, such a semantic argument is irrelevant for the case I’m making here. For the purposes of this blog, “Evolution” involves all the particulars of your false myth, from the big bang, to complex life popping up out of mud puddles!
b[/b] That is not the end of their problems either. Even if we grant them the ability to make valid distinctions between what is real, and what is hallucination, they still have to provide a criteria for judging between the different perceptions themselves. They must give an account for the random particulars of their experience, and provide some way of classing these experiences together in a meaningful way. Their brains also must form abstract concepts based off of the empirical data provided by the eye. The unbeliever has to give an account of how sense perceptions are imputed to the brain in such a way that will form an abstract concept! All of these objections can get pretty philosophical and abstract, and so I’ll only briefly mention them here in this footnote.
b[/b] Deductive reasoning is moving from a universal truth, to a particular truth.
b[/b] Inductive reasoning is moving from a particular truth to a universal one. The classic Christian argument from induction is well known by many. I have also recently written a blog on it as well, so, I’ll not comment further on it here.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}