Atheist
Who Is the Number One Atheist? [Does It Even Matter?]
Let’s pretend Time magazine published an issue called “The Number One Atheist of All Time.”
Who’s picture do you think would be on the cover?
Christoper Hitchens? Dan Barker? Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris?
Maybe Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin or David Hume…
Or 9th century A. D. religious critic Ibn al-Rawandi…
Or even 5th century Athenian philosopher Socrates who was, for political reasons, accused of being ‘atheos’ (“refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state”).
What Makes These Atheists Great?
They’ve all published and advocated substantial arguments against the existence of God (except perhaps Socrates who didn’t really publish anything).
But what other qualifications make them a good candidate for the number one atheist? What metrics would help you find that atheist?
IQ? Logic of arguments? Level of publicity? Strength of outside voice?
Maybe it’s who they’ve debated…and the number of debates they’ve won. Or the number of best-selling books they’ve written against the existence of God…or for the proof of evolution.
Perhaps we also measure the depth of their hatred or the intensity of their bitterness. Calculate the number of times they can say the f-word in a sentence. Or count the number of theists they’ve tortured and murdered.
No doubt a person who excelled in all these areas would make a fine atheist. Maybe even the best.
But are these good indicators to measure the worth of the all-time greatest atheist? To be honest, I don’t think it really matters. Or that I even really care.
What’s important is this: Once God sets his sights on someone–whether a staunch, heavy-weight atheist or a lightweight, equivocating agnostic–that person is toast.
Take Saul of Tarsus, for example.
My Vote for Number One Anti-Christ
Before his conversion, Saul was a model opponent of Christianity. He had the pedigree:
Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee. Philippians 3:5
Furthermore, he was bred in the proper intellectual environment: the Mediterranean sea town Tarsus [modern day Turkey], a city well-known for it’s emphasis on knowledge.
He sustained a drive to advance up the Jerusalem temple leadership chain.
He even violently persecuted the followers of Jesus. In fact, the first time Saul makes an appearance in the Bible he is standing over the stoning of Stephen.
And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:1
So while Saul of Tarsus might not of been an atheist, he was by all standards a critic of Christianity. An anti-Christ if you will, who was systematically picking off the early church one-by-one.
And he looked unstoppable, which terrified first century Christians.
My Knees Would Buckle in the Face of This Anti-Christ
I have to confess: I would cower, too. And I have something else to confess: I sometimes waver when I think of contemporary opponents of Christianity.
People like Dawkins or Hitchens or Barker.
But there need be no alarm. Even the fiercest opponent of first century Christianity was no match for God:
And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Acts 9:4-5
After this menacing meeting with Jesus on the Damascus road the same Saul who breathed threats and murder eventually wrote [after his name was changed to Paul] this:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 1:1-4
Don’t Take Saul’s Conversion Lightly
This former Pharisee and Jew went from unconditional disgust for Gentiles [a disgust all Jews held] to a relentless drive to bring them the gospel…
A gospel he found prior to his conversion to be a ridiculous corruption of the messianic truth in the Old Testament canon…
A gospel that opposed everything he’d been taught to believe.
Yet, not only did he affirm the truth of this gospel…but he surrendered his life to this gospel and went on to spread it through the Mediterranean region, planting churches and growing believers.
What makes someone do that? Simple: Paul’s conversion is a testament to the irresistible call of God upon a believer’s life.
That’s Why They Call It Irresistible
The same kind of call former atheists like A. N. Wilson, Anthony Flew, Alice Cooper and ex-Korn guitarist Brian Welch experienced.
No matter the amount of intellectual backbone an atheist has…no amount of vicious threats or personal conviction or danger to a person’s life can resist the gracious sovereignty of God when he chooses to open the eyes and soften the heart and apply the work of Christ to an unbeliever’s soul.
In the end, the number one atheist of all time doesn’t stand a chance against the spirit of God–whether in this life or the next.
Anthony Horvath: Director of Apologetics Ministry Talks
I get the feeling that Anthony Horvath doesn’t sleep.
The guy’s got a lot going on.
For starters, he’s the director of Athanatos Christian Ministries, an organization “committed to applying the Christian world view in creative contexts that range from Christian apologetics to education to the edification of the church to literature and the arts.”
He’s also a public speaker on the pro-life circuit [for good reasons]. An author of two fiction books. The founder of a literary apologetics writing contest. And the brains behind this publishing group.
Throw in a wife and four children–and Anthony is busy. But very interesting. As you’re about to see.
1. Give me a little bio of you and your ministry.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and had every intention of becoming a pastor when, in my first year of college, abandoned my beliefs.
When faith returned, my new passion was Christian apologetics.
I graduated with a pastoral ministry degree with a minor in the Biblical languages and then proceeded to be a religion teacher and other church work positions.
In the midst of the professional church work I continued to do apologetics. I started with AOL and then moved to forum discussions.
About five years ago circumstances conspired so that I became a ’stay at home’ dad and apologetics my ‘full time’ activity. I am a father of four, and on account of the birth of my daughter who has spina bifida, my ministry has a distinctly pro-life bend in it, too.
2. What motivated you to start Athanatos Christian Ministries?
ACM made official what had been going on all along. There are any number of duties involved in running a ministry, much of them having nothing to do with ministry at all. People don’t appreciate this fact. I think small businessmen will understand, though.
Most of the ministry activities we’re doing now were started before ACM became an official non-profit. I chose the name ‘Athanatos,’ which is Greek for ‘immortal’ or ‘not dying’ rather than ‘Sntjohnny’ (my AOL presence my ministry began with) to cast a larger vision for an apologetics ministry.
“He has set eternity in the hearts of men…” Solomon said. As Lewis said, “We have never met a mere mortal.”
I take as my starting point that everyone is longing for truth and meaning and they pursue it as naturally as they breathe. ACM seeks to facilitate that pursuit by any means possible.
3. You state on Anthanatos website that you no longer believe “the best, exclusive use of my time is to reach out and contend with atheists.” I like how you qualified that statement, but I’ve found in my own experience that engaging atheists enhances my understanding of my faith and actually better prepares me to answer challenging questions from Christians. Would you agree with that statement or disagree.
Well, I can see how this might come across as not wanting to engage with atheists but perhaps the statement should be understood by contrast to what I was doing before. My discussion forum, slightly a ghost town now used to consume all of my time.
When I say ‘my time’ I mean something on the order of 40 to 60 hours a week.
This includes the loads of reading and research that one would have to do to write intelligently. I draw heavily on this experience as I seek to equip Christians.
I definitely think that that kind of engagement is useful, because it helps us bridge the gap between what we think people’s objections will be and what they actually are.
I still contend with atheists (and others!). It just isn’t as much of my time as before. Also, as alluded to before, much more of my time is needed to management and administration of the ministry, which is a reality I’m not particularly happy about.
4. In 2006, you said that the Church was actually creating atheists. What did you mean by that? You also said that if you made that statement today, it’d hardly get noticed. What’s changed in four years?
That 2006 pronouncement was born of my realization that many, if not most, if not even all, of the atheists I was conversing with had been raised in the Church.
This goes to the other reason why I’ve shifted my time to equipping Christians over against banging heads with atheists: I deemed it might be more practical to stop Christians from falling away in the first place rather than try to win them back after they were long gone.
The really controversial part of my 2006 pronouncement, though, was that the Church itself was instrumental in breeding atheists.
Now, a certain natural cycle of doubt and questioning and a certain amount of people deciding that Christianity doesn’t have the answers is to be expected and is not problematic on its face.
The problem is that the Church is doing a poor job making sure that people are asking the right questions and then exposing them to the best answers. It’s worse than that: much Christian education actually sets people up to be clobbered when they finally started thinking through their faith.
I think Ken Ham’s Already Gone documents this very well. That book represents a survey that he personally commissioned and to his surprise they discovered that those most likely to have hardened positions against Christianity were those who had been through Sunday School, VBS, Confirmation, and the like.
Nonbelievers who were ’softer’ on Christianity hadn’t actually been through any Christian programming! While I don’t agree with Ham’s total conclusions, I think his theory on why this particular phenomena is taking place is probably correct.
Since I made that pronouncement in 2006, there have been a variety of studies that have come out showing that a high percentage of unbelievers were raised in the Church. Ken Ham I mentioned. Barna has produced numerous reports indicating something is amiss. There are others, too.
It isn’t a controversial pronouncement any more because I think generally speaking it is agreed that there is something seriously, seriously wrong in the transmission of the faith.
The remaining dispute is over what is wrong and what to do about it.
The Puddle: An Elegant but Not-Perfect Analogy
When it comes to criticizing the fine-tuning argument, Douglas Adam’s puddle analogy takes the cake.
Adams first unveiled this analogy at a 1998 lecture at Digital Biota.
Since then it’s become the darling of the scientific community.
Richard Dawkins quoted it during an eulogy for Adams.
P Z Meyers been known to toss it around.
And occassionally skeptics and atheists will trot it out here on this blog.
Case in point: During an interview with an atheist named Billy, I asked, “What do you think of the fine-tuning argument?”
Billy gave a thoughtful, but rather unforgettable answer to my question, especially since someone else chimed in with this piece of snarky brevity: “Nonsense. Google Douglas Adams ‘puddle argument.”
That caught my attention because he seemed to imply Adam’s “puddle argument” was a show stopper.
I have to admit: I was spellbound.
What Is the Puddle Analogy?
Unfortunately, it took me about seven months to actually get around to looking up this “puddle argument.”
But I finally did.
In fact, I not only read the analogy, but I also watched a Dawkin’s video, read Adam’s original transcript in which the analogy was embedded…and even skimmed an objection.
But I didn’t get it. I was at a loss to what he meant by “non-sense.” And how exactly was this a show stopper?
Adams analogy is emotionally compelling [which I'll explain in a minute], no doubt. But not sure what it proves. Or why it’s so convincing.
Are people putting more weight on it than it can hold? That was my hunch. So I decided to find out.
Asking More Questions about the Puddle Analogy
The following day I emailed the original poster and let him know I finally did what he told me to do but wasn’t sure what he was getting at. I asked him if he could clarify. Here’s his response:
I think it quite accurately exposes the foolishness of the fine-tuning argument without any appeal to emotion in the same way as Russell’s teapot or the FSM expose the flaws of other religious arguments.
Okay. But how? He replied:
By showing that fitting an environment well is no reason to think you were designed for it, it designed for you, or that both were designed with each other in mind. The analogy of the puddle shows that quite well since clearly holes aren’t intelligently designed for puddles, regardless of what a puddle might like to think.
Okay. That makes sense. It illustrates that well. But how does it prove anything? I didn’t think that was the job of a parable. In truth, it’s not.
The Purpose of a Parable
What is a parable? A parable is nothing more than a short tale illustrating a moral lesson or some truth.
Think Paley’s Watchmaker or Jesus’ Prodigal Son or Aesop’s Fables.
But the parable themselves are not truth. They illustrate some truth you already hold. In other words, parables and analogies are built on presuppositions…
You are assuming something is already true. All you are doing with a parable is helping somebody understand that presupposition.
Let me give you an example.
An Example of a Biblical Parable
In the Prodigal Son parable the loving response of the human father to the son who returns after a period of wasteful living is an allegory of the love of God for the repentant sinner.
Our presupposition is that God exists.
In Adams’ puddle analogy, our presupposition is that the universe isn’t designed for life.
In both cases, we need to prove our presuppositions. A parable doesn’t do that on it’s own. And that’s what I mean when I say a parable can’t carry the weight of an argument but is instead an emotionally satisfying story that demonstrates something we already believe.
Another Problem with Parables
Furthermore, just like Paley’s Watchmaker analogy, Adams’ puddle argument makes arbitrary designations.
Why a puddle in a hole? Why not a blue jay finding another bird’s nest? Or a billiard ball falling into a pool pocket?
The variations are infinite.
Bottom line, I sincerely don’t think Adam’s intended his analogy to be adopted as a proof.
He’s smarter than that.
He intended it to be a moral lesson. He said as much when he concluded his analogy: “I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
Indeed, the world gives us mixed messages. And we often see what we want to see. This applies for both theist and atheist.
So I couldn’t agree more with Adams’ warning. But what do you think? Did I miss something? I’d like to develop this thought further.
The Enemy [It's Not Who You Think]
Books supporting evolution are not in short supply.
Stand just inside my local Barnes and Noble and you’ll see what I mean.
Lining a shelf of the new and notable science publications and you’ll see books like The Universe: Order Without Design.
Nothing unusual.
But it’s that last one–by none other than Richard Dawkins–that did it…
That got the gears going.
An Abundance of Books Easily Amuses Me
What surprised me most about this book was not that he wrote a book on the evidence of evolution…
But that he keeps on doing it. Systematically. Deliberately.
Naturally, his other books are just variations on the theme. The Blind Watchmaker. The God Delusion. The Selfish Gene.
Then there’s the hundreds more published by other authors. It’s a veritable cottage industry breaking into the big time.
But it’s also indicative of a sense of alarm about the future of evolution and the threat of superstition.
So, in the face of this sleepless opposition, what are Christians to do? Enter the Christian apologists.
Soon We Will Resort to Cage Matches
To be fair, neither is there a shortage of books AGAINST evolution.
For example, a month or two down the road Alistair McGrath, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, David Aikman–someone in the camp–will write a book called Evidence Against Evolution.
Or The REAL Greatest Show on the Earth: Evidence for Design.
No?
Well, I’m banking on history here, because this is nothing more than the thrust, counter-thrust, counter-counter-thrust, counter-counter-counter thrust of our current scientific-spiritual climate.
A climate brewing for the last forty years.
My observation boils down to this: We get our underwear in a wad, convinced our privileged nation is going to hell in a hand basket, and so we’ve got to roll up our sleeves and single handedly stop the steamroller called evolution.
Or atheism. Or pagan spirituality. Whatever you want to call it.
I’m Guilty, Too
Believe me, I hear that same voice every time a new book opposing Christianity is published.
Whether it’s by Ehrman, Dawkins, Young or Tolle.
I want to write the book that saws off the branch that evolution sits on. That pulls out the rug from under higher criticism. That drowns false prophets.
Vicious, I know.
And don’t get me wrong: This competition is healthy.
Yet in view of this growing, hostile reaction to Christianity, you need to keep these three things in mind as you hash out your plan of attack–or retreat.
Three Reasons Why You Should Chill
One, this shouldn’t surprise one thoughtful Christian at all. Jesus promised both joy AND opposition.
Second, evolution, like all scientific views, has a shelf life.
In fact, it may surprise many to learn that most biologists at the start of the 20th Century rejected Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged his theory with Mendelian genetics.
This is not an isolated event. The history of science is full of such turnabouts.
Whatever Happened to These Scientific Theories?
Ever heard of the geosynclinal theory? Of course not. It was buried alive by plate tetonics.
Geocentric view of the universe? Shoved aside by Copernicus and his trusty heliocentric view.
That phlogiston caused heat? Well, oxidation burned this one at the stake.
Yes, Darwinism remains the consensus. [As do the others.] How long? A lot longer, I believe, than most because it is truly a great idea.
But that’s where it remains. As an idea.
Didn’t See This Coming
My final and third point is this: the global south–the region that covers South America, Africa and China.
What’s so special about it? It’s a region of the world that’s experiencing unprecedented growth in Christianity.
And here’s the kicker: This is occurring in the face of rigid anti-religious cultures.
It’s really quite astonishing if you think about what’s going on in China, for example.
Millions of converts in a nation very unkind to Christianity.
And while not the poverty and persecution of the extremely repressive Cultural Revolution in 3 decades China’s gone from 3 million Christians to anywhere from 54 million to 130 million.
Conservately, that’s 18-fold jump in Christians. Go with the liberal number and we’re talking a 43-fold leap.
And get this.
This wave of Christianity is not led by foreign missionaries: Christianity in China spreads from person to person.
Government crackdowns and public scrutiny. Christians beaten, arrested and church leaders jailed. Converts remaining anonymous for fear of persecution.
As much as changed in China, much has remained the same. But Christianity spreads.
So, while we fight for legislation to protect our freedom of speech or prayer or our right to insist marriage should remain between a man and woman, our Christian culture weakens.
What Gives?
Quite frankly, we could use a little persecution. And not only of the academic sort.
In the West, we have lots of bandwidth to do much with. No surprise that Christianity comes in 356 colors.
And then some.
And neither is it a surprise that most Christians affirm the view that as long as people leave them alone they’ll leave them alone.
We are comfortable and want to stay that way.
Perhaps it would do us well be stripped of our freedoms. To be limited in our movement.
Perhaps creating laws that decreed publishing a book opposing evolution could lead to death. To make a stand against abortion punishable by torture.
I predict that much of what we know as the church today would run for the woods if this ever occurred…
Or commit outright treason against Christ. [I'm sounding rather alarmist myself, aren't I?]
A Conclusion
In a nutshell, rather than wring our hands over the fear that the sky is falling in, our time would be better spent if we simply rejoiced and made discipleship of the nations a singular and solitary pursuit.
If we first sharpened our sense of sound doctrine and gospel truth.
And that we started with our own people.
Once we get back on that horse, then we can get on with the business of trampling evolution. Whacha think?
Is the Gospel What the World Desperately Needs?
Love.
In the face of doctrine, creeds and faith systems…isn’t the important thing that we just love?
Isn’t love the superior truth we should be after?
Depends.
Depends on what motivates that love. What content is behind that love.
Faith systems like legalism and philistinism, moralism and secularism, lead to arrogance and superiority. Fist fights. Military coups.
Not love.
Only salvation via the Christian gospel can lead to a deep, humble, enemy-embracing love…a love the world desperately needs.
Let me explain.
Why the World Needs a Better Method of Salvation
If your method of salvation is performance based, then you are saved by your performance.
This, not surprisingly, leads to self-righteous arrogant behavior towards others who don’t measure up to your standard.
Think of legalism. Which leads to oppression. Tyranny.
Secularism isn’t any better.
A view that you’re the enlightened intellectual leads to smug feelings toward the dimwitted religious zealot.
Each group snubs the other.
What Christianity does differently is grinds out self-righteous thinking in a believer as he discovers and admits that he is a helpless sinner in need of grace.
It makes him humble before the people who are different from him.
Why the World Needs a Better Purpose Behind Salvation
And if the ultimate purpose of salvation is the restoration of the earth–the elimination of poverty, disease and death–then that should also be our mandate.
Our mandate should be the renewal of our cities. Our neighborhoods. Our homes.
That means we seek to bring peace where we live. We seek to make it a prosperous place…
A region non-believers want to live.
See, this idea that salvation’s ultimate goal is the renewal of heaven and earth humbles us: If God’s goal is the resurrection of ALL creation, why should we prefer anything different?
We should seek to serve our government. Corporations. Schools. Museums. No matter who runs them…
…which brings me to my next point.
Why the World Needs a Better Origin of Salvation
The Bible teaches that Jesus is not just a prophet or a teacher. It teaches he is God. It teaches he is Lord over all–
“Now wait a minute,” you say. “Doesn’t that view lead to a sense of superiority? Arrogance?”
No.
What it does is lead to inclusion. [I know that sounds counterintuitive, but hear me out. ]
One of the most dramatic shifts in society occurred when Christianity introduced the idea that all people–under a just and holy God–were equal.
Jew and Gentile. Greek and non-Greek. Husband and wife. Child and adult. Master and slave. Rich and poor.
All were alike.
Unlike the Greco-Roman separation of classes and races, Christianity compressed all people into one class: sinner.
And when early Christians recognized their position in this new class, it led to patient, humble and compassionate behavior.
Why would this happen?
Think.
In Jesus, ultimate reality appeared as a man.
God entered a world hostile to him. He poured himself out for a people who rejected him. And he died on a cross for those who didn’t deserve their crimes to be forgiven.
All for their salvation in the shadow of a wrathful God.
With that in mind, how can Christians trample and double-cross and snub others? With the truths of the gospel embraced deep in the Christian’s heart, it’s near impossible.
Conclusion
In the last couple days we’ve learned that we all have exclusive beliefs. Christianity included.
The question remains: which one is right? I submit Christianity.
I submit Christianity because of the power embedded in the gospel truths that can radically transform human beings into passionate agents of reconciliation–something the world desperately needs.
That is true love.
And if you are a Christian, take this truth deeper into your being. If you’re not, embrace it now…
The world needs you.
Search
Recent Posts
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Categories
Archives
