Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[SteveII]

It stands to reason there is only one correct concept of God. It also stands to reason that if the redemption of mankind through Christs is the single most important event in the history of the world, groundwork for that has to be laid for centuries or more. Concepts have to be understood and critical mass has to be built. This kind of continues in my comments below.

It is obvious that we are somehow wired to believe in God/higher power/supernatural/purpose/destiny etc. I think it is in this general context that William James is referring. When talking about Christians and the phrase "feel the presence" of God, you are no longer talking about a generic feeling--you are talking about the result of a personal relationship with the God through the Holy Spirit. This seems to be a logical progression from general to specific.

This progression also begins to deal with arguments about the Hiddenness of God. A typical atheist argument is that God would make a better case for himself. But isn't that just something akin to: God is hidden from me, therefore God is hidden from everybody, therefore God doesn't exist?

The “believing in holy texts before believing in God” thing was not meant as a jibe. It was a genuine observation. And it represents the heart of my problem with religions claiming a universal God. And my problem addresses the "scripture before God" thing. It seems like many theists assume God’s intention and essence are accurately portrayed in their scriptures, and that, using the scriptures, they can make definite statements about God’s nature. But what if (assuming they can do this) they might still make misstatements about the reality of God? What if they only know part of the story. This much is suggested by Christian scripture itself.

“Who is this that obscures my plans
   with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
   I will question you,
   and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
   Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

As an atheist, this verse has been tossed in my face a couple times. But remember: God isn’t addressing an atheist here. He’s addressing a theist. Job, a theist, has presumed knowledge of God that he does not have. If Job, a righteous man, is guilty of making presumptions about God, then how guilty might any other believer be? Just because you have read a book about God that your fellow believers hold in high esteem, does this mean that you won’t make assumptions about God that are not in error? Job made errors in his assumptions. Isn't it possible that you are prone to the same foibles as Job?

Not as much as you probably think. Job is the oldest book of the Bible. There are no written reference works at all from which he could work out a systematic theology. For starters, we have the book of Job! -- along with 65 other books spanning over 1500 years.  I'm sure that there are errors in various doctrines. However, there are only a few Christian doctrines where an error would be critical. But these doctrines are so thoroughly attested to/cross referenced that it is hard to see where the internal error could be. 

1. Deity of Christ
2. The true condition of man related to God
3. Salvation by Grace
4. The resurrection of Christ
5. There is only one God

I am going to present the case for the pluralistic hypothesis here. Of course, I’m an atheist, not a pluralist—but that doesn’t matter because I’m merely adopting the position to argue against the plausibility of a universal God who is only accurately described in the scriptures of a single culture.

I’ll start with a list of assumptions. I’m sure you are going to challenge some of them, so I’ve numbered them to make your task easier.

1) God exists.
2) God is a universal figure, not just the tribal god of the Israelites.
3) God is too vast a being for any human intellect to comprehend completely.
4) It is possible for a believer (no matter how devout or righteous) to make false assumptions about God.
5) God revealed himself to the authors of the Old Testament.
6) It is possible that (while they reported a genuine divine experience), the authors of the OT might have left some aspects of God undisclosed.
7) It is possible that (while they reported a genuine divine experience), the authors of the OT might have made false assumptions about God.

I expect pushback on #7. I expect no pushback on item #1. For the stuff in between, maybe. I’m going to defend #7 a bit before I proceed. To begin this defense, I’m going to differentiate it from the assumption that the Bible says anything erroneous about God. Even one who adopts the position of Biblical inerrancy might still accept #7. Look at the image below.


The image can be interpreted in two ways. You will either see a duck or a rabbit. Let’s say that you see the duck. You can make many statements about the image of the duck that are factually correct. For instance, you can say that its beak points to the left, that its eye is in X proportion to the rest of its head, etc. Any number of statements you make about the image of the duck can be true. Just because you haven’t said anything about the image of the rabbit, doesn’t mean that you’ve made false statements concerning the image in general.

Now consider a different individual who sees the image of the rabbit instead. He might make statements about the proportion of the rabbit’s ears along with a slew of other observations that seem irrelevant to one who is only considering the image of the duck. Both interpreters of the image might assume that they are speaking of two completely different things, even though both of them make factually correct statements about the same image.

I think you are prone to accept assumption #6. If not, I’m sure I’ll hear about it. But if so, you must conclude that two completely different interpretations of a single phenomenon may both be factually accurate (at least hypothetically).

I would say that #6 and #7 are certainly possible. But the probability plummets each time another author from another time or experience states/infers/expounds on the same characteristic of God. Even events make more sense (or have more meaning) when looking at the larger context. After several such cross-references, the likelihood of an error is very low. The Bible (as a set of documents) is by far, in order of magnitudes, the most analyzed in history. 

Look at the Gospels for example. The disciples clearly could not make sense of the bigger picture until after Christ's resurrection. While they had some OT information (they were not scholars by any stretch), a huge part of the meaning of anything Jesus said was lost on them. But they knew something was special so they paid attention. Today, we have the benefit of their experiences and memories to glean more information to put together with the OT and the Epistles. A cumulative case.

This is why I brought up James’s argument about "the unseen" in my previous post. Personally, I reject James’s assertion here. But, most theists find it a good argument—so much so, in fact, that they often present it in their case against atheism. A theist could go two ways with James’s argument.

Either:
1) Perception of God via an intuitive or emotional sense is possible.

OR

2) It isn’t.

You’ve already admitted to #1, so let’s see what follows from it:
Either:

1) Only Jews and Christians from a single segment of world history were allowed communion with God.

OR

2) Others from different cultures were allowed communion with God.

Again, as an inclusivist, you’ve already said you accept #2, but you may have some additional counterarguments to thrust at this particular either/or, so feel free. But assuming you accept #2, then:
Either:
1) Nothing written down by non-Jews is factually accurate about God.
OR
2) Non-Jews might have written down factually accurate statements about God.
Accepting #2 leads to pluralism. The pluralistic hypothesis likens God to the rabbit/duck image. Some people see a rabbit. Others see a duck. But all refer to a single entity when they produce statements about God.

You characterize my answers just fine. Regarding the last choice, I would go with #2. The obvious example of Job comes to mind. However, I disagree with your statement that #2 leads to pluralism. It may be a necessary condition for pluralism, but there are many stops on the train before you go that far. "Factually accurate" statements about God could come in the form of simple things like "God is Love" from some hippy with his own ideas about reality and who's bigger picture of God is way off.  Some "Great Spirit" religion might believe a whole bunch of true things about God. 

But the phrase religions pluralism means that two or more religions are valid. Getting some things about God right does not make your religions valid. It could be just one thing that as long as it is important enough component, it makes the whole religion invalid in relation to another religion. For example, if a religion does not have my #1-5 above, I don't consider the religion itself to be a valid path to God. 

This does not rule out the inclusivist view because God could use an otherwise invalid religion as a conceptual framework/starting place and then make additional  specific truths known to the individual. In this case, it was the additional specific truths that make salvation possible--NOT the invalid religion. 

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

7. There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me, O Arjuna! All this is strung on Me as clusters of gems on a string.
8. I am the wetness in water, O Arjuna! I am the light in the moon and the sun; I am the syllable Om in all the Vedas, sound in ether, and virility in men.
9. I am the sweet fragrance in earth and the brilliance in fire, the life in all beings; and I am austerity in ascetics.
10. Know Me, O Arjuna, as the eternal seed of all beings; I am the intelligence of the intelligent; the splendour of the splendid objects am I!

The concept of God is alive and well in all people of all times. It does not follow that we can't compare and contrast religions for truth value, internal consistency, applicability to human struggles, answers to question about origin/purpose/meaning, reflects/interprets the reality we live in, etc. 

I think it is pretty clear logically that there can be only one or no true religion.