SOME ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATHEISTS FROM THE FRANK TUREK BOOK STEALING FROM GOD
This book accuses atheists of engaging in twisted thinking where they use
ideas from God against God. That is a very big claim. It says that
every atheist who sees this will potentially deceive others and pretend they can
have their godless cake and eat it.
Quote: Atheists sometimes compare their nonbelief in God to their nonbelief in
Santa Claus. But the comparison fails because there is not only no evidence for
Santa Claus, there is positive evidence against Santa Claus. Our knowledge of
physics and the great distances involved provide positive evidence that it’s
physically impossible for one human being to dispense gifts to six billion
people all over the world in one night using a sleigh and reindeer. In other
words, we don’t just “lack a belief” in Santa Claus; we have reasons to believe
he doesn’t exist. On the other hand, as we’ll see later in this book, there is
positive evidence for the God of the Bible and no evidence that would make His
existence impossible. In fact, some classical theists call God a “necessary
being” because His existence appears necessary.
Comment: So no evidence for God and or positive evidence against God would put
him in the same league as Santa.
We are told the Santa thing is absurd. But if Santa is like an angel or God
gives him the power of miracles then this assertion is wrong. It refutes a straw
man Santa. That is not an honest approach at all.
Lacking belief in Santa makes you count as rejecting his existence. So some say
the same applies if you lack belief in God. Turek says the difference is Santa
is not needed to explain why there is something rather than nothing but God is.
The point about God is that he has magic power. It is that simple. It is not
about the magic being able to turn nothing into something to make all things or
if it is turning a child's wishes into Christmas presents? It is just the magic.
It is not even about if it is God or Santa. The magic rules both out as
nonsense. The bigger the wizard the bigger the nonsense.
If you can say there is more than just evidence lacking for Santa but there is
evidence that he is not real the same holds true for God. Santa is not God and
God is not Santa but that is not even the point. The point is they represent
magic and do magic. To refute Santa you have to assume his magic does not happen
so the same must be done for God. Fair is fair.
Remember too that religion calls God spirit. Spirit means something
that is non-material. It has no parts. But it is real. This is
not a clear statement. It could still be anything. Santa Claus
could be the best image of it.
Quote regarding atheists debunking a silly version of God:
“To be fair, many Christians don’t have the proper conception of God either.
They think God is something like a big angel or just a bigger version of
themselves.”
Comment: Then how do you show that you are not worshipping such a travesty? The
angel version is the God everybody wants. It is seen as his job to fix
everything that you have a problem with in your life. And when nothing happens
the way you want you turn against him. This God is not a bigger version of you
as such. You are making him all about what you want from him not him. It is
outrageous selfishness especially when people are starving in the world. So this
God is a reflection of what you are like but you can go a step further and when
you Joseph worship God you direct it towards a big Joseph in the sky. And many
do that it seems. Or do all do it? A person who is doing that will hide it for
its embarrassing. There is no way to tell. There is a lot of grey there. A
person who seems to love God for God’s own sake may still mostly or
significantly be adoring something that is too much about them or too much like
them. The selfish side explains their "devotion".
Quote: If you are mad at me for these comments, it means that in an important
sense you agree with me.
Comment: People being angry at you shows that they strongly feel you are right
but only when they cannot give good arguments against you to show you that you
are wrong. You can be angry at stupidity or what you think is dishonesty.
Quote: Chesterton said, “Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of
pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.”
Comment: Interesting. Turek argues then that we end up numb if we are atheists
or don't make God central. "No wonder atheism ultimately leads to despair. Life
is meaningless and no amount of temporal pleasure can cure that." That does not
fit the many atheists who spend time doing good works and who deny that their
life is bland and pointless.
What about barely-religious Christians who are happy? If they are weary of pleasure and are thus happy to sacrifice themselves and suffer for others then so what?
Notice how Turek is getting at the notion that atheism and its disciples are harmful - very harmful indeed. They supposedly rob the vulnerable of meaning. That can cause suicides it seems. Christians tend to think that atheists are directly or indirectly to blame for many suicides. It is hate towards atheists. Yet it is obvious that if God alone matters then you have to say there is no point without him. Worship is passive-aggressive against us atheists.
If getting weary of pleasure is what robs us of meaning and that makes
atheism dangerous then it also makes Christianity dangerous for even then if you
take the pleasure you can get and offer it to God it still lets you down.
Religious people report spiritual pleasure. Many like to pray for that reason.
When that pleasure disappoints and lets them down then the one good thing the
one perfect thing God or faith in him has failed you. It teaches you that you
have nothing left to lose. If that makes you feel flat or disappointed
everything else will only be worse. That loss can drive Islamists and Christians
to seek death as martyrs or kill others in the name of holy war. Read Ariel
Glucklich's Dying for Heaven: Holy Pleasure and Suicide Bombers—Why the Best
Qualities of Religion Are Also Its Most Dangerous
Finally
Here is that wonderful quote again, “While it is true that one can use bad
philosophy, it is impossible to use no philosophy.” I hope I have answered the
bad philosophy somewhat on this page.