Conversation with an Atheist

I recently had the pleasure of exchanging ideas with an atheist friend of mine, Jessica Vineyard. I am hoping that by reading this dialogue, Christians can better understand where atheists are coming from, and atheists can better understand Christian beliefs.

Jessica: On this day, December 15, in 2011, the worldwide atheist community lost one of the most incredible voices of reason of our time. We miss you, Hitch. This video beautifully portrays my worldview. Should anyone think I'm spiritual, I would like to disabuse you of that notion. I am not.

[The video she is discussing is here: https://youtu.be/D-ZUXyGWvJY]

Roger: One of Christopher Hitchens's great admirers was Robert Barron, the Catholic Bishop of Los Angeles. Here is a YouTube of him explaining why he so appreciated the wit and wisdom of Christopher Hitchens, even though they were seemingly at odds in their beliefs.

[The video he refers to is here: https://youtu.be/vW8yBnpN48w]

Jessica: I had to laugh in the first two minutes, when Barron said he thought atheists listened to him (Barron) because they "secretly" wanted to hear about God. That is hysterical, and it is certainly wishful thinking on his part.

Then he said Hitch was "interested" in religion because "he came back to it all the time." He also claimed that Hitch "seriously misconstrued what serious religious people mean when they say 'God.'" Barron goes on to claim that Hitch (and his millions of fans) describe God as "sky daddy," etc. These are just two examples of Barron's completely false characterization of Hitch (and his fans).

Hitch was so far beyond Barron's silly critiques that it's highly disingenuous for Barron to claim that Hitch was part of this type of juvenile defense of atheism. I can't imagine a more insulting thing to say about a person Barron has just touted as one of the most brilliant writers of modern times. Every criticism he has of Hitch is clearly and falsely twisted to fit his listening audience. And how convenient to hold this interview A WEEK AFTER HITCH DIED.

I found Barron arrogant, his criticisms of Hitch disingenuous, and he's clearly pandering to his own audience, most of whom have no idea of the absolutely brilliant evisceration of religion Hitch so eloquently performed throughout his lifetime. But hey, thanks for sharing an easy target at which any intellectual atheist could aim rapier-sharp wit.

Roger: This is from Chapter 1 of Hitchens's book, God Is Not Great.

Imagine that you can perform a feat of which I am incapable. Imagine, in other words, that you can picture an infinitely benign and all-powerful creator, who conceived of you, then made and shaped you, brought you into the world he had made for you, and now supervises and cares for you even while you sleep. Imagine, further, that if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose.

What Bishop Barron was saying is that this is a juvenile understanding about God, although it is an understanding of God shared by most atheists and most fundamentalists. In fact, atheists and fundamentalists, in my experience, agree on much more than they disagree on. They both agree on how God is to be defined. They only thing they disagree on is whether or not they believe that that God actually exists. In this regard, I am aligned with the atheists. I don't believe that that God exists either.

Bishop Barron is saying the same thing I am saying. This definition of God is ridiculous and doesn't deserve belief. I assume that you would agree with both Hitchens and Barron (and me) on this point.

As the great theologian Paul Tillich said, "to ask whether or not God exists is to betray a naivety on the very nature of God." To rephrase this, to ask whether God exists is like asking if existence exists. The statement itself is almost meaningless.

I hope I didn’t upset you by bringing this up. I enjoy learning from people who disagree with me, but I know not everybody shares my enthusiasm in this regard.

Jessica: You didn't upset me, Roger, not even a little! I do get passionate in such discussions, as it is so obvious to me that no god exists who has any impact on our lives whatsoever. If no god impacts our lives (except in what we think inside our own minds), then what in the world is the point of a god? The world looks exactly the same with or without a god, so again, what is its point?

I had one more thought I wanted to add. When one's best defense is "you don't understand the definition of God," it seems to me to completely avoid all the other points that Hitch so brilliantly articulates about why religion is poison. Just a thought.

Roger: I would not say "you don't understand the definition of God." I think the definition of God that Hitchens gives is perfectly reasonable and you show a good understanding of it. And it is a definition shared by many people, especially fundamentalists and, dare I say it, atheists. I would just say two things about Hitchen's definition. One, by his definition, I don't believe in God either. And neither, for that matter, does Bishop Barron. And two, it might be worth exploring other ideas about God that might offer opportunities for deeper meaning. Or might not.

One thing I should make clear is that this is not a judgment on anybody, least of all you. I admire you for being willing to challenge the norms of society. I don't think any less of you for your beliefs (or lack thereof). And I don't think any more of somebody simply because they say they believe in God. In fact, when I encounter somebody who tells me they believe in God, I instinctively get nervous. "Uh oh... what is this God you believe in? Do I need to be worried?"

To get back to your earlier question, How do I define God? I follow the biblical definition given in 1 John 4:8: “God is Love.” Not God is loving, or God loves us or even God is like love, but God IS love. The word used for love is, in the original Greek, agape, which is the purest form of love that can ever be imagined. It is the ideal of what love can be. The original Greek emphasizes this. Instead of the expected "Theos estin agape" (God is love), the original Greek says, "Theos agape estin" (God love is!).

Note that this definition doesn't bring us any closer to a proof that God either does or doesn't exist, although I would argue that the question itself is flawed. I don't know how to prove that love exists or doesn't exist. I only know that you can experience love, or not experience love. And for me, living a life fully experiencing love (at least, as much as I am able to) feels richer and more meaningful than living a life that lacks the experience of love.

You may say that this says nothing, you can live a life filled with love without believing in God. That is true. I know many loving people who disavow the existence of God and I am sure you are one of them.

But I use the word God to indicate that this love is not just something that I can experience, it is literally the grounding of all that is. So when I say I am grounded in God, I am saying I am grounded in the belief that love is the fundamental source of all that is. It is not just being, it is the source of all being; it is not just an experience within existence, it is existence itself. And that profoundly impacts the way I see and interact with the world.

You asked earlier how a belief in God changes me. That is how it changes me.

Jessica: That's a great explanation. However, it simply exchanges the word "God" for "love." I, too, live my life in love. I, too, am grounded in love. I believe in love. I do NOT believe love is the "source of all being" (what does that even mean?) or "the nature of existence" (ditto).

My belief in living a life of love doesn't "change" me; it's who I am. So we're basically on the same page; you simply use the definition of God as people like me use the definition of love. In other words, take God away, and love still exists, and nothing is different. One can't say the opposite: take away love, and God still exists.

You have a unique view of God that is not the standard definition of most believers. Hitchens speaks to the common beliefs of the religious masses, which is that there is a supernatural "being" (for lack of a better word) that runs the show, that they pray to for interception, that promises them a place in heaven. It is undeniable that most Christians in America fall under this category. He is not speaking to people whose nuanced definitions of God are neither common nor accepted by mainstream Christians. Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks, Christopher Hitchens, for being a brilliant, articulate, erudite, polemic voice of reason in a world that believes in manmade religions, including those based on the Bible, a book written in the Bronze Age by people who had no clue about even washing their hands before eating.

Roger: Actually, my view of God is not unique, and is widely shared among Christians. In contrast, Hitchens's view of God and, apparently, yours, is shared only by a fringe group of fundamentalists. I don't think you could find a single respected theologian outside of the most fundamentalist universities who would agree that Hichens’s views of God are even remotely reflective of what they believe. A short list of living or recently living influential theologians who write about beliefs similar to mine include Fr. Thomas Keating, Sr. Joan Chittister, Fr. John Main, Fr. Richard Rohr, Fr. Vincent Pizzuto, Beverly Lanzetta, John Dominic Crossan, Matthew Fox, Marcus Borg, Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault, James Finley, Fr. Thomas Merton, Fr. Laurence Freeman, and, obviously, Bishop Barron. I could easily add another 20 names to this list. I doubt you could find one who would agree with Hitchens's description of Christian beliefs.

That is not to say that Hitchens is not doing a valuable service by pointing out the rather obvious flaws in fundamentalism. However he is misleading many people by portraying the views of a fanatical few as the views of Christians in general.

If you don't believe me, try this test. Take Hitchen's statement about Christian beliefs to 10 atheists and 10 self identified Christians. Ask each if they think these views accurately represent what Christians believe. I predict 10 out of 10 of the atheists will agree that they do. And I predict that 0 out of 10 of self identified Christians will so agree.

So which group do you think is better qualified to tell you what Christians believe?

Jessica: I think you would find your prediction about atheists wrong. Among a random ten atheists I can think of whom I know, all philanthropic and community-minded friends, one grew up in a Christian cult, four grew up in fundamentalist or deeply religious families, one grew up a “none,” and three grew up in moderately Christian families (as did I; Easter service, Sunday school, etc.).

None of these people would agree that Hitchens’s statement is the be-all, end-all definition of Christian belief, and all would know that Hitch had a much wider understanding of Christianity than what he wrote as an attention-grabbing opening paragraph in a book. So does that cover both groups at once?

(As a side note, I belong to an atheist Meetup group in California, and we had an open forum during which we all discussed our religious upbringings.)

As a final note, I think I could ask a hundred random people what they believe regarding a higher power, and not a single answer would be the same as another. Just another reason it’s all hoo-ha to me. I spent twenty years searching for a god to believe in, only to come to the conclusion that there is nothing there.

Thanks for the conversation, Roger.

Roger: Ironically, I spent twenty years trying not to believe in God, only to be faced with a crisis in which I was forced to face a new reality.

Thank you, Jessica!

---

My full blog index is here.
Did you know you can receive these blogs directly in your email? Signup with MailChimp here.