Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

Another thing to do with apologists is ask "Does this prove god, or is it a plot hole"? Most of the time, the arguments usually emphasize a need more than an actual substantial proof of a deity.

Is this your first ever post on this forum? If so, welcome. 

You bring up a point that's interesting to me. While I don't think most Christians would agree with "plot hole," I do think that a lot of them are happy to agree that there's no proof. And that Christianity is generally more about need than argument. 

And I think this is quite typical for the way human beings think. I don't think it's possible for everything we hold to be true to be backed up by readily available and substantial logical or empirical proof. 

So for example I knew a nurse here in Japan who was raised without any religion (nominally a Buddhist, but not seriously) who converted to Christianity after doing volunteer medical work in Brazil. She was impressed by the charity work she saw and developed a commitment to the values it exemplified. She was uninterested in theology, or arguments for the existence of a supreme being, or anything of that kind. If you asked her "do you really believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" her answer would be along the lines of "well, I guess that's what they say." 

Fortunately there are very few Christians in Japan, and almost none of the terrible TV evangelist type. Those who become Christian almost always do so out of charitable commitment. The first nursery schools here were set up by Christians, and the first women's colleges. They have a good reputation. 

I also knew a married couple -- both doctors, him from Hiroshima and her from Nagasaki. They were active in setting up the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which got the Nobel in 1985. I once had the bad manners to ask her if she really believed that God created the world in six days, and she answered that she had never thought about it before. It was not what the religion was about for her. 

Then there's Peter Hitchens, whose brother is more famous. (Peter in fact has been right about international relations far more often than his brother was.) When challenged to prove his Christian beliefs, Peter is clear that there is no proof, that his religion is about commitment. He understands that proof for either the existence or the non-existence of God is not going to be available, and that commitment is his choice. I think that far more Christians in the world are of this type. 

I know that this will seem insufficient to modern atheists, of the type who post on this forum. We like to believe that what we hold to be true could be, at least in theory, proven. But we are a minority in the world, and I don't feel comfortable saying that we are inherently better for thinking this way.