Is asking “Am I going to Hell?” a good rebuttal to scientific arguments for theism?

A conflict of worldviews
A conflict of worldviews

I want to use this woman’s story to show how sensible atheists reach a belief in God.

Excerpt:

I don’t know when I first became a skeptic. It must have been around age 4, when my mother found me arguing with another child at a birthday party: “But how do you know what the Bible says is true?” By age 11, my atheism was so widely known in my middle school that a Christian boy threatened to come to my house and “shoot all the atheists.” My Christian friends in high school avoided talking to me about religion because they anticipated that I would tear down their poorly constructed arguments. And I did.

As I set off in 2008 to begin my freshman year studying government at Harvard (whose motto is Veritas, “Truth”), I could never have expected the change that awaited me.

It was a brisk November when I met John Joseph Porter. Our conversations initially revolved around conservative politics, but soon gravitated toward religion. He wrote an essay for the Ichthus, Harvard’s Christian journal, defending God’s existence. I critiqued it. On campus, we’d argue into the wee hours; when apart, we’d take our arguments to e-mail. Never before had I met a Christian who could respond to my most basic philosophical questions: How does one understand the Bible’s contradictions? Could an omnipotent God make a stone he could not lift? What about the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because God declared it so, or does God merely identify the good? To someone like me, with no Christian background, resorting to an answer like “It takes faith” could only be intellectual cowardice. Joseph didn’t do that.

And he did something else: He prodded me on how inconsistent I was as an atheist who nonetheless believed in right and wrong as objective, universal categories. Defenseless, I decided to take a seminar on meta-ethics. After all, atheists had been developing ethical systems for 200-some years. In what I now see as providential, my atheist professor assigned a paper by C. S. Lewis that resolved the Euthyphro dilemma, declaring, “God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.”

Joseph also pushed me on the origins of the universe. I had always believed in the Big Bang. But I was blissfully unaware that the man who first proposed it, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic priest. And I’d happily ignored the rabbit trail of a problem of what caused the Big Bang, and what caused that cause, and so on.

By Valentine’s Day, I began to believe in God. There was no intellectual shame in being a deist, after all, as I joined the respectable ranks of Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers.

I wouldn’t stay a deist for long. A Catholic friend gave me J. Budziszewski’s book Ask Me Anything, which included the Christian teaching that “love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person.” This theme—of love as sacrifice for true good—struck me. The Cross no longer seemed a grotesque symbol of divine sadism, but a remarkable act of love. And Christianity began to look less strangely mythical and more cosmically beautiful.

So, I want to point out the progression of her beliefs from atheist to deist to Christian. First, she listened to the scientific arguments for God’s existence, which took her to deism, which is a variety of theism where God just creates the universe and then doesn’t interfere with it after. Those arguments, the Big Bang and the cosmic fine-tuning, were enough for her to falsify atheism and prove some sort of theism. After that, she remained open to the evidence for Christian theism, and finally got there after looking at other evidence.

But this makes me think of how some of the atheists that I talk to do the exact opposite of what she did. I start off by explaining to them scientific evidence for a Creator and Designer. I explain the mainstream discoveries that confirm an origin of the universe (e.g. – light element abundance predictions and observations), and I cite specific examples of fine-tuning, (e.g. – the gravitational constant). I explain protein sequencing and folding, and calculate the probabilities of getting a protein by chance. I explain the sudden origin of the phyla in the Cambrian explosion, and show why naturalistic explanations fail. I talk about the fine-tuning needed to get galaxies, solar systems and planets to support life. But many of these atheists don’t become deists like the honest atheist in the story. Why not?

Well, the reason why not is because they interrupt the stream of scientific evidence coming out of my mouth and they start to ask me questions that have nothing to do with what we can know through science. See, evangelism is like building a house. You have to start with the foundation, the walls, the plumbing, the electricity, etc., but you can’t know all the specific details about furniture and decorations at the beginning. But militant atheists don’t care that you are able to establish the foundations of Christian theism – they want to jump right to the very fine-grained details, and use that to justify not not building anything at all. Just as you are proving all the main planks of a theistic worldview with science, they start asking “am I going to Hell?” and telling you “God is immoral for killing Canaanite children”, etc. They want to stop the construction of the house by demanding that you build everything at once. But, it is much easier to accept miracles like the virgin birth if you have a God who created the universe first. The foundation comes first, it makes the later stuff easier to do.

So rather than adjust their worldview to the strong scientific evidence, and then leave the puzzling about Hell and Old Testament history for later, they want to refute the good scientific arguments with “Am I going to Hell?”. How does complaining about Hell and unanswered prayer a response to scientific evidence? It’s not! But I think that this does explain why atheists remain atheists in the face of all the scientific evidence against naturalism. They insulate their worldview from the progress of science by focusing on their emotional disappointment that they are not God and that God isn’t doing what they want him to do. That’s the real issue. Authority and autonomy. In my experience, they are usually not accountable to science, although there are, thank God, exceptions to that rule.

10 thoughts on “Is asking “Am I going to Hell?” a good rebuttal to scientific arguments for theism?”

  1. Heh. I know Jordan (who just became a mom in the last month).

    She’s still a very articulate lady to this day. She’s had quite a journey so far (what she wrote is only the tip of the iceberg) and I’m sure God’s not done with her yet.

    https://jordanmonge.com/

    I think one thing to be sure of is that Christian Apologetics — and developing one’s ability to love God with one’s mind and learning from the best materials as you have outlined — does pay dividends. Apologetics does appeal to certain people and even certain types of people.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think a lot of people hecone Christians because they’ve made a mess of their lives in the past, and the new Christian cloak is kind of surface level. It’s dangerous because people paint a portrait themselves with Christian words in irder to feel better, escape judgment, get a husband, etc. I think apologetics is useful because it’s a dividing line between the posters and the people who want to serve.

      I am weary of people who are Christians for convenience, and I just think it’s important not to depend on someone who is just putting on a cloak for their feelings. Apologetics ability is a good thing to look for to tell if someone is trying to serve God rather than serve themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. As an athiest, “am I going to hell?” Is indeed not a valid comeback for an argument! However, and I’m not excusing it, some have had very negative experiences with perhaps intolerant religious family and friends who did lay on the heavy guilt trip and shunned them using hell as a threat. To them, any idea in defense of what they feel is the religion that shunned and ostracized them from the people they loved could be paired with those past threats as a knee jerk response. Not logical, but secular people are just as human as anyone, and can let emotions and bad experiences cloud their more rational judgments… Not every Christian is as open-minded and civil as you towards non believers.
    https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/

    Like

    1. I don’t like when Christians try to pressure people into behaviors of a Christian. I think it’s because Christians can be lazy and not want to do the work of studying and training to be convincing. it’s not surprising to me that atheists who get pressure and shame instead of arguments and evidence would be annoyed with Christianity. I think that’s a reasonable reaction to laziness by Christians.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. At the same time atheists should remember Christians have emotions too. Even if they doubt God and eternal consequences there can be actual concern because if Christians are correct there is no luxury in the implications of being wrong.

    It is the Pascal’s gambit idea. If we are wrong as a Christian and there is no God we will never know. But if we are right we will

    As an atheist or secular view they are used to things like if they tell someone a diet or practise is right or wrong. The only cost of being wrong can be measured in physical deaths, costs to the environment but they don’t have an eternal cost.

    Even an atheist committing an abortion by Christian idea would technically be sending them to be with God. But they were robbed if the chance to live this life. So even a practise that goes against many Christian principles does not fully destroy God’s plan.

    Like

  4. Greg, Pascal’s Wager only works if you assume the christian god is the correct and only god. Until that is demonstrated conclusively, the wager is pointless.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. In no particular order, several samples of responses to the question “Am I going to Hell?” (feel free to pick your favorite).

    1. “Why are you deflecting?”
    2. “I have no idea. Now, as I was saying…”
    3. “Good question. Why don’t you ask God?”
    4. “So, are you now admitting Christianity is true (and not just theism)?”
    5. “I don’t know. Do you want to spend eternity without Christ? It’s up to you.”
    6. “Since you now believe in God, heaven and hell, let’s talk about it.”

    Etc. etc. Any others?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s