Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[The Valkyrie]

For an atheist (ostensibly with an "open mind") to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because he commences the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:

1. No miracles can occur in the nature of things.
   
2. #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.
   
3. The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.
   
4. Some atheists even claim (or suspect) that Jesus didn't exist at all (making such a topic even more absurd and ludicrous (given that premise) than it already is in atheist eyes).  
   

Somehow, despite these presuppositions, the atheist still manages to say with a straight face that he is being open minded about whether the resurrection happened and that he is examining the issues honestly and without bias. Sure he is.

Why do atheists honestly believe that their examination of the resurrection is an objective endeavor on their part, as if they will come to any other conclusion than the foregone one that they have already decided long since, upon the adoption of their atheism?

In addition to these objections to Christianity, it is a given in atheist circle that the Catholic Church must always be criticized, and this is true even if atheists are offering contradictory criticisms simultaneously. For example, some atheists are quick to criticize the popes (and the Church as a whole) for supposedly declaring things by fiat and with raw power, apart from rational deliberation and intellectual reflection. Yet, if the popes wait centuries to let the Church reflect and ponder important issues (as in the case of the Assumption [1950] or  papal infallibility [1870]), then the popes get blasted for being indecisive and lacking authority.

It's the amusing, ironic spectacle of people illogically accusing Christians of being illogical. If Christians do one thing, it’s because they are wrong and stupid and illogical; if they do the exact opposite, it’s because they are still wrong and stupid and illogical. And on and on it goes. The only thing that critics of Catholicism "know" about it with certainty is that the Catholic Church is always wrong.

And if Christians actually engage atheist arguments with counter-arguments, then their integrity is called into question because they’re simply making it all up anyway. But if they don’t respond to the atheist arguments, then it means the atheist is on to something, and Christians are refusing to acknowledge it. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Some atheists (especially former Christians) specialize in relentlessly trying to poke holes in the Bible and dredging up any conceivable so-called "contradiction" that they can find. It's the hyper-rationalistic, "can't see the forest for the trees" game. Such a person approaches the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Their minds are already made up. If they go looking for errors and "contradictions" they will assuredly always "find" them.

And if a Christian spends what is almost certain to be a significant amount time required to research and refute one of these "contradictions" in order to show how it is not, in fact, a contradiction, the atheists simply ignore that as of no consequence and go their merry way seeking out more of the same. It never ends. It's like a boat with a hundred holes in the bottom. The Christian painstakingly patches up the last one while the atheist on the other side of the boat merrily drills another one to patch.

This scatter shot approach gives the atheists a big advantage. They just keep flinging charges from all categories of apologetics until they hit an area where the Christian under fire isn’t very strong. Then they declare victory by default, since the apologist is forced to say “I don’t know.” Saying “I don’t know” is the mark of an excellent scientist, but a terrible apologist, apparently. But if a theist should fail to ever admit they don’t know something, this is a sure sign they’re full of it. So, theism loses again, either way.

In all likelihood, judging from these experiences, any Christian responses will likely have no effect on the hard-core atheist. But they can help other Christians to see the bankruptcy of atheist anti-biblical arguments and those on the fence to avoid falling into the same errors of logic and fallacious worldviews built upon such errors.

And that is the whole goal of apologetics: to help people (by God's grace) to avoid theological and philosophical errors and to be more confident in their Christian and Catholic beliefs by understanding the solid intellectual rationales for them.

Apologists remove obstacles and roadblocks. What each person will do with that information is a function of their minds and free wills and God's grace, and that is out of the apologist's hands.

Because:

1:  There is absolutely no credible evidence that miracles occur or, for that matter, that the deity itself exists.
2:  See 1, above, except that very few atheists claim that gods don't exist.
3.  It's not Just that the documents don't hold with historical knowledge and facts, it's also that they contradict each other and, in some cases, even themselves.  Archaeological evidence does, however, contradict much of what is written in the bible.  The fact that certain historical people and places existed does not give credence to the supernatural claims.
4.  Personally I don't doubt that Jesus, or someone like him may have existed, but I believe the stories have been greatly exaggerated for the benefit of promoting Christianity.