However, Lennox does believe that the best explanation for God is that of the personal, Christian God. From a purely “reasoning” point of view, without going into personal, subjective evidence*, that point of view does make perfect sense. Because if there is a God who created the world, why would he sit there and then maintain a cold distance from the world (and the people) he created? It makes more sense that he would create the world with some kind of purpose, rather than just for the sake of it. It makes more sense that he’d want the world to glorify him and want people to be in relationship with him, rather than not interact with him.

On that note, and slightly related- I like Dinesh D Souza’s way of explaining why Christianity “makes more sense” than other religions- on the basis that God bridged the gap between man and God by sending his son to spend time on earth. The doctrine of Grace then means that effectively, we don’t need to “earn” God’s favour. In comparison, for example, other religions are more legalistic in their approach- climbing the ladder, earning God’s favor- Muslims praying 5 times a day etc.

*There are two types of evidence- subjective personal evidence, and objective evidence. However obviously in debates and discussions, the objective, non-personal evidence is that which is debated.

I just want to point out that we agree that naturalists must be atheists as I noted in the post:

You might have noticed that if you are a materialist or naturalist, you couldn’t honestly say you believe in a thinking god, a god who’s like a ‘person’. It would be reasonable for Dr Lennox to say that materialists are also atheists or that naturalists are also atheists.

I don’t doubt that atheists with supernatural beliefs will struggle with the origin of the universe: most people do! Christianity and other theistic worldviews answer with a fairly lame ‘goddidit’ which doesn’t really explain anything. You still have to explain the origin of the god with the added trouble that the god you’re trying to explain is undetectable and indescribable.

Atheism with supernaturalism is certainly a struggle to defend intellectually. Most vocal atheists approach the god question skeptically and with reverent regard to evidence. That same process also seens to lead to a naturalistic worldview. But there’s still a big leap from the simple rejection of god fairy-tales and the conclusion that there are no supernatural forces or beings.

By implying this entailment, Lennox tells us we become materialists simply by rejecting personal gods. That’s still utter rubbish.

The essence of my post was this- Thanks for that, however I do understand the definition of those terms, and I don’t think I’ve misrepresented them or the way they “follow each other”. If I have, please show me where.

My only assumption was that a naturalist will automatically be an atheist.

Also, an atheist who believes in supernaturalism will still run into the same problems with the origin of the universe, because they reject the idea of a supernatural being who is big enough to create the universe supernaturally- ie: God. The only two ideas for the creation of the universe which I’ve seen anyone put forward are the following: God, or it happened naturally. Any atheist rejects the first possibility and therefore encompasses the second.

Theism/atheism answers the question of belief “do you believe in a god?”. Unless you DO believe in a god (of any type) you are an atheist.

Gnosticism/agnosticism answers the question of knowledge. “Do you know there is/is not a god?”. You will find very few people who can truly say that they KNOW that their BELIEF in god is true. If you say “I believe in god and i know he exists”, the burden of proof is then on you to show objective evidence to back up your claims. This is also true of anybody who says “I do not believe in god and I know there is no god”. To be able to prove that NO god of any type exists is a much heavier burden. One would have to possess knowledge of everything that does exist and then be able to show that there are no gods in the data set.

A fool says in his heart there is no god, a wise man asks for evidence.

Then there’s the question of what the world consists of. This is answered by the naturalism/supernaturalism propositions. A naturalist finds evidence only for a natural world and a supernaturalist BELIEVES that there are supernatural forces in the world. As with atheism, a person who does not believe that supernatural forces exist is a naturalist, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they profess knowledge of the non-existence of supernatural entities.

These terms all answer different questions, so to say that one necessarily follows the other is a blunt display of your ignorance of what you are talking about. It may be true that AN atheist believes that they KNOW god does not exist and it may also be true that AN atheist believes that supernatural forces exist. By no means can any combination of belief, knowledge and nature be supposed to necessarily exist for ALL of any one of the groups.

Believers often fall into the trap of trying to make an analogy between religion and atheism, but it is like comparing apples with buffalo. Religion offers people an entire lens through which to view the world, it provides answers (often wrong) for a huge variety of questions, it’s a social community, an afterlife theology and many other things. Atheism is just a statement of non-belief in any god or gods. There is no atheist dogma, no further mandated beliefs that follow from that point. It’s a single position on a single question and cannot be compared to an entire worldview.

You CAN flatly reject an idea that something DOES exist. That’s what you’re doing- you reject the idea of a God.

“I am an atheist because the concept of god just does not enter my thought processes. I did not sit down one day to weigh up the pros and cons of god’s existance any more than I had to decide whether or not I should believe in zartyflug”

Perhaps you should give it a thought then. There’s clearly a lot of questions which don’t have answers, if you take the position of naturalism. If you’re an atheist (but not a naturalist), then you’re in the same boat, but to a slightly lesser degree.

For example- How did the universe begin? ie: What preceded the big bang? What allowed the big bang to happen?

What’s the purpose of life? Why do people believe in Jesus Christ as a “God”?

I challenge you to think about those questions, and there are plenty more which’d give you good food for thought, but they are a good starting point.

I’ve been thinking lately about the lack of answers that naturalism and to a lesser extent, supernaturalist atheism provide. Maybe one reason why a lot of people are theists or Christians on an intellectual level is not because their belief system provides all the answers, but because it provides better and more believable answers than naturalism or atheism.

I beg to disagree. How can you flatly reject something that does not exist. It is even harder to reject something which cannot be defined. Do you for example flatly reject zartyflug?

I am an atheist because the concept of god just does not enter my thought processes. I did not sit down one day to weigh up the pros and cons of god’s existance any more than I had to decide whether or not I should believe in zartyflug.

There are a million and one bizare ideas out there and the idea of god just happens to be one of them. Why waste mind space on any of them?

In other words, what you’re saying here is: Many people find supernatural beliefs to be supported by the belief that a supreme deity does not exist.

“Some people might see not-believing in God only believe in other nonsense as irrational (as trav does above). They are avoiding one glaringly obvious factor - belief in the supernatural is an inherently IRRATIONAL behaviour”

You’re kind of proving my point here- it’s very strange to believe in the supernatural whilst rejecting the supreme manifestation of that supernaturality. Where does the spiritual world come from, if not from a being who started it?

I’d also argue that believing in the supernatural is not an irrational behaviour in light of strong evidence on several counts that supernatural events have taken place. For example, strong evidence for the historicity of the gospel accounts of Jesus life, and strong scientific evidence that the universe is fine tuned for life-ie: Life couldn’t exist without ridiculously tiny parameters coming together in an obscenely improbably fashion.

And that evidence comes from working within the framework of the natural world in front of us, without even beginning to ponder how the universe actually came about in the first place. In other words, with the scientific evidence we have, it appears that the universe was fine tuned. But science hasn’t doesn’t a good job of telling us how the universe came about in the first place. And that makes perfect sense if you’re willing to consider the possibility of an intelligent origin for the universe. Unfortunatly, many people’s eyes are closed to this possibility.

Who, then are the close minded people? The people who are willing to consider supernatural and/or natural causes for things and events, or people who are only willing to consider naturalistic causes?

I think general supernatural beliefs and belief in god/s are definitely separate events.

Plenty of atheists still believe in hocus pocus crap from fairies to homeopathy to John Edwards.

Many find this belief strongly supported by their atheism, and feel that non-belief in a supreme deity is a key part of it.

Association between non-belief in God and belief in other forms of superstition is strong link in the misconception of atheists as demon-worshippers etc.

Being an atheist or a self-declared “skeptic” (of God) does not make you immune to be stupid or gullible on other accounts.

Some people might see not-believing in God only believe in other nonsense as irrational (as trav does above). They are avoiding one glaringly obvious factor - belief in the supernatural is an inherently IRRATIONAL behaviour. Try to rationalise it is asking for a headache.

Secondly, as for this statement:

“If the Bible flat-out contradicts reality, no amount of context or interpretation will change that.”

I just read your whole post, yet you fail to provide any solid examples of the bible “flat out contradicting reality”

Interesting reading for sure. Credit where it’s due. But after reading your three opening posts on this blog, I’m seeing more style than substance. More rhetoric than evidence.

Who knows, maybe you’ll impress me yet. You’re only three posts in, after all. But I can only judge you on what you’ve already written, and it’s far from impressive.

Firstly let me get something clear before I raise the issue. An atheist by any definition is someone who flatly rejects the idea of God. Either you believe in God or you don’t. An atheist doesn’t, and is therefore rejecting belief.

Now, onto my question:

Why WOULD you believe in the existence of spirits or talking to the dead, whilst at the same time flatly rejecting the idea of God?

It seems to be a completely illogical, contradictory point of view. Many people will disagree, but I just fail to understand how you can reconcile those two positions. On one hand if you believe in the supernatural, then you believe that there’s more to life than what we can see, and that there’s a dimension which exists but which isn’t subject to physical laws. If you believe that we have spirits inside of us then presumably you also believe we have more purpose than can be assumed by looking only at the physical.

Therefore my question is: Why WOULD you believe in a supernatural realm, whilst at the same time flatly rejecting the idea of a God who could create that realm?

Clearly, any belief in a spiritual realm is more consistent with theism (either mono or poly, doesnt matter) than with athiesm.

Note, I’m not suggesting you’d need to be of any particular known religious system. I’m saying surely if you believe in the supernatural, it’s more consistent with that to believe in a God or Gods, than it is to flatly reject the idea.