This article is the third and final part of a three part series exploring the faulty thinking of Atheism (You can read part 1 here and part 2 here). Militant Atheist Bob Seidensticker of Seattle, WA wrote a series of blog articles explaining his version of why God does not exist. Rather than answer each of his objections separately, I have chosen to look at his faulty underlying assumptions and comment on those. By knowing his reasoning, answering his specific objections becomes relatively simple. Responses 1-8 are found in part one of this series, and 9-16 are the responses you will find in part two. In today’s offering, we look numbers 17-24.
17. Seidensticker assumes that a good God could not allow evil to exist in the world (neither natural nor moral evil).
The problem of evil in the world is, indeed, a serious problem. But it is not a problem only Christians must deal with. Naturalists also have to give an answer to it using their own worldview presuppositions. As we look at the nature of the answers they give, we see that their answers have even less to back them up than those provided by the Christian faith. In fact, the answer to any philosophical problem that Naturalism offers is nothing more than the opinion of the person who offers it.
The truth is, Naturalism actually has no means of naming anything good or bad beyond the personal opinion of the one making the judgment. As we have already seen, an objective evaluation of any moral matter requires something objectively real to measure it against. Naturalism simply does not have that. It dismisses out of hand any kind of transcendent reality that would be necessary to make an objectively real moral judgment. Thus, since it cannot definitively call any particular thing in this world evil (either natural or moral), it certainly has no means for evaluating the morality of God.
But beyond that, we have already seen that Seidensticker does not even have an understanding of the moral framework that is expressed in the Bible. His assertion that God, or biblical morality, is evil, or that a “good” God would or would not do certain things, is simply beyond his personal knowledge.
18. Seidensticker dismisses the possibility that it is possible to know the purpose of creation and of human existence.
As if Seidensticker didn’t already have enough ways to make mistakes, he found another means of pretending that he is omniscient by claiming that the universe doesn’t look like it exists with mankind in mind. In his attempt at all knowingness, he asserts that the universe is unnecessarily big for it to have been created as part of God’s plan for humanity. Well, I didn’t realize that Seidensticker knew God’s plan for humanity. There is nothing in his article that indicates that he has even read the places in the Bible where God’s plan is explained. He simply makes up an explanation that suits his fancy. This argument is really not worth the paper it is written on.
The fact is, God made man for relationship with himself, and nowhere does Seidensticker indicate that he has any clue what that even means. Without understanding that, his forays into psychoanalyzing why God created the universe the way he did are rather meaningless.
19. Seidensticker mistakenly thinks the existence of pain and suffering means that either God is weak, uncaring, or even capricious.
Another common Atheist argument against the existence of God has to do with the existence of pain and suffering. This is, indeed, a serious matter that deserves serious treatment. Seidensticker’s shallow approach does not do that.
It is impossible in a short article like this to fully treat this issue. There have actually been scores of books written that are dedicated entirely to this topic. We can, though, at least hit the main points.
1. Seidensticker once again attempts to judge God and the Christian faith using values that he has made up based on his own personal preferences. Naturalism does not have its own objective values, so if he wants to make moral judgments like that, he has to borrow his moral values from some other place. On top of that, he asserts that since God does not act in ways that suit his personal value preferences, God is evil. The argument itself does not stand up to reason.
2. Seidensticker does not understand what the Bible actually does say about pain and suffering. He doesn’t understand the Fall and the effects of the Fall. He doesn’t understand how the decisions of human beings create evil effects. He doesn’t understand the nature of free will (and, in fact, as a Naturalist, has no way to even understand the existence of free will). And he doesn’t understand God’s concern for mankind and what he has done, and is doing, to mitigate the evil that does exist in the world.
3. Seidensticker does not believe what the Bible teaches about pain and suffering. Even if he did understand what it taught on the subject, as a Naturalist, he doesn’t believe it. On this topic too, attempts to judge the Christian faith based on his own personal naturalistic beliefs are futile. That is simply not a legitimate approach.
4. Seidensticker doesn’t understand the nature of God. He spends a lot of time judging God for acting in ways that he disapproves, but he does it based on total ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches about God. His naturalistic worldview does not allow for the concepts of righteousness, justice, and love to be objectively understood in a personal way. Until he gets that, he will continue to make statements and judgments that do not reflect the teachings of the Bible, and, indeed, of reality.
5. Seidensticker uses his own beliefs about pain and suffering to judge God because what the Bible teaches does not suit his preferences. If he wishes to make this a legitimate argument, he must first justify his own definitions and why they are correct (which he will find impossible to do), before any criticism of God and Christianity would be valid.
20. Seidensticker assumes that God has not revealed himself because not all “Christians” agree about all doctrinal issues.
Did you know that there are about 45,000 Christians denominations? (Well, there are actually several different ways to delineate denominations, but Seidensticker has chosen this number, for whatever reason, so we will just go with it for now.) He seems to think that just because there are many denominations that all of them resulted from Christians not being able to agree on how to interpret the Bible. Well, there is a certain amount of that, but that is only a valid point if the disagreements represent doctrines that are actually essential to the faith – which is not the case when dealing with actual Christian churches. While there are a lot of varying opinions related to non-essential beliefs that have resulted in the formation of a lot of different denominations, all genuine Christian churches agree on the essentials. Those that do not, even if they self-identify as Christian, do not represent genuine Christianity. Seidensticker simply does not know how to make that distinction.
21. Seidensticker assumes that since all apologetic arguments do not specifically prove that Christianity is the true religion, that all such arguments are false.
I guess that Seidensticker is not aware that questions on different topics must be answered in ways that are appropriate to the specific topic they are dealing with. It is so fascinating to look at some of the contorted ways Atheists try to discredit the Christian faith.
Taking just one example: Seidensticker takes issue with certain Christian apologists arguing for intelligent design because their argument does not prove the God of the Bible exists. Well, that argument is not dealing with whether or not the God of the Bible exists. It is dealing with evidence that a transcendent intelligent being exists. Different arguments have different purposes. Some, like the argument for intelligent design, are simply arguments for Theism in general, not specifically Christian Theism.
The truth is, Seidensticker would never accept someone criticizing him if they were using arguments that did not correspond with the point he was making. This kind of reasoning is simply not rational.
22. Seidensticker generalizes that since there are many self-identified Christians who are not faithful to the teachings of the Bible, that the faith itself is not true.
Another common Atheist assertion Seidensticker makes as an excuse to dismiss the existence of God is that since there are so many Christians who don’t act the way that the Bible says they ought to act, then the Christian faith obviously can’t be true. There are a couple of very serious problems with this claim.
First, the Bible is very clear that all human beings are sinners and separated from God because of sin – which is the reason he provided his revelation and a provision for salvation in the first place. And just because a person becomes a Christian does not mean the sin problem goes away. Seidensticker completely misses this point.
But the other reason this claim is bogus is because the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of human beings is not the factor that validates or invalidates the truth of the Christian faith. Christianity is true whether Christians faithfully follow it or not, and that truth plays out in reality regardless of the faithfulness of any human being. This argument is another meaningless rant.
23. Seidensticker assumes that right and wrong can be properly identified using his relativistic understanding of morality.
If Naturalism is true and nothing exists outside of the natural universe, that would automatically eliminate the possibility of the existence of God. And without a transcendent moral law giver, morality can be nothing more than the personal preferences of individuals or groups in society. With that as a starting point, there is no basis in Atheism for acknowledging any kind of moral truth, so moral beliefs must be completely relative to the individual or the group.
Interestingly, Seidensticker spends a lot of time claiming that God is immoral, or that Christians in various periods of history were immoral. So the question must be asked, “Why should his assertions about what is moral and immoral be accepted over anyone else? Based on the beliefs of a naturalistic worldview, there is no such thing as an objectively real or true moral belief. In order for Seidensticker, or any of his fellow Atheists, to make moral pronouncements, they must borrow them from somewhere else. If they dislike murder, or stealing, or genocide, or any other action that most people would consider wrong, they must do so based on their own personal preference, not because there is actually anything objectively wrong. So, Seidensticker accuses God and Christians of being immoral using a standard of immorality that is not even a part of his own belief system.
24. Seidensticker does not understand the concept of “Separation of Church and State.”
Some objections that Atheists put forth are so shallow that they are hardly worth responding to. Several are so common, though, that eventually something needs to be said. One such argument has to do with the concept of the separation of church and state.
In Seidensticker’s case, he combines his belief about this with an assertion that Christianity is so weak that it needs to lean on the government to support itself. Let’s take these one at a time.
First, contrary to the apparent beliefs of many Atheists, the concept of separation of church and state is not a part of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the first amendment to the Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The purpose of this amendment was not to eliminate religious faith from the public square, as many Atheists assert, but to keep the government from infringing on the rights of religious citizens. It specifically prohibits the federal government from establishing a state church and interfering with a citizen’s right to practice his or her religion – whatever that might be. This has nothing to do whatsoever with keeping religious people from exercising their faith in whatever way they see fit, and in whatever venue.
The thing Seidensticker and other Atheists tend to object to is that Christians, in particular, work to express their Christian values in ways that influence governance. What they don’t seem to realize is that there will always be some set of values that are the foundation of the legal and political system, and that the so called “secular” values they wish to impose are also religious in nature. They think they are trying to eliminate religious influence from the public square, but what they are actually attempting to do is substitute one set of religious values for another. The objection based on separation of church and state is simply a false argument.
As for Seidensticker’s assertion that Christians engagement of the political system is evidence of God’s weakness because he needs help to keep society in check, is simply silly. All this kind of argument shows is his lack of understanding of what he is talking about. He doesn’t understand: 1) the very source of values and what expressions inevitably emerge from the various worldview systems, 2) the nature of human society, 3) the nature of government in general (and particularly the nature of a Constitutional Republic like the U.S.), 4) nor what the Bible teaches about the role Christians should play in engaging society’s various institutions and why.
The entire argument Seidensticker makes regarding this topic is nothing more than non-coherent, non-factual babble. Sadly, he really believes what he is saying is correct, and he is not alone. It is a common argument, and I have had many discussions with Atheists on this very topic.
Conclusion
While Atheists generally refuse to acknowledge it, Atheism is, in its core essence, a religious belief system. It is based purely on faith in naturalistic presuppositions. In order for this belief system to be considered valid, it must somehow demonstrate that its core beliefs are true based on the naturalistic beliefs themselves. Of course, no Atheist has ever done this, nor can it be done.
Seidensticker is rather typical of the kind of Atheists that attack the Christian faith in a militant way. These individuals throw out generalizations with no means of backing them up, attack Christian beliefs based on their own unsupported worldview beliefs, and denigrate the Bible without ever having put forth any serious effort to study it. In the end, it is difficult to take seriously his criticisms.
No doubt, you periodically come across these kinds of people yourself. It can be rather intimidating to hear them come at you with such confidence – especially if you have not taken the opportunity to study up on it yourself. Hopefully the explanations in this series have not only given you the confidence to push back against militant Atheists, but have also provided you with some tools you can use to share with them the actual truth of the gospel.
© 2019 Freddy Davis