Pints With Aquinas - 41: 4 arguments from atheists refuted, with Dr. Randal Rauser

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas episode 41. I'm Matt Fradd. Today I'll be interviewing Dr. Randall Rouser about four arguments or protestations from atheists and I let him knock them out of the park. Thanks for joining us at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I would normally pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy. However, today instead, we're going to be joined by theologian Dr. Randall Rouser. Now, this interview you're about to hear is only part of the entire interview. Those who support Pints with Aquinas for as little as $2 a month have access to an ever-growing audio library.

Starting point is 00:00:59 And so this is part of a conversation we had. If you support the show, you can hear the whole thing. In the whole conversation, we talk about 10 arguments against the existence of God. In today's episode, you're going to hear four, but don't worry. It's more than just a tease. You'll get a lot out of the show. I am joined today with theologian and Canadian and Baptist Randall Rouser. G'day, Randall.

Starting point is 00:01:25 Woo-hoo! Good to be with you, Matt. Thanks very much. It's good to have you with us. I've admired your work from afar. I often go back and listen to things, talks of yours, interviews you've done more than once. I keep getting a lot out of them and I'm excited to introduce you to our audience today. Well, I'm happy for the opportunity. Tell us a bit about yourself, for those who don't know you. Well, you kind of stole my thunder by saying I'm a Canadian and a Baptist. I'm also married and a theologian. I teach at an evangelical school where I've been for 15 years.

Starting point is 00:02:03 I've published about 10 books now in areas of Christian worldview, apologetics, and theology. And I just love talking on those same topics. My latest book just came out. It's a debate and dialogue with an atheist, which I think we need a lot more of in our day, where there's kind of less heated dialogue. There's more open conversation.

Starting point is 00:02:24 That's what we were going after in that book. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to what we're going to do. Yeah, there tends to be, you know, people do tend to fall in line with what they see and what's sort of in the air. You know, for example, back in the 80s and 90s, I think there was a lot of hostility between Protestants and Catholics, and it was almost like the whole atheist thing caught us by surprise,

Starting point is 00:02:49 and we realized, oh, wait, we should stop bickering about these things a little bit and realize that there's a much larger, you know, foe at the door, if you will. But then I even noticed a lot of kind of hostility between, you know, theists and atheists. Of course, everyone's noticed that since the God delusion. But I think that you are one of the first people to kind of try and, I mean, at least on a bigger scale, to try and change that conversation. And I think in, just like we've seen hostility between Protestants and Catholics, I think we're beginning, I hope, I hope,

Starting point is 00:03:21 we're beginning to see more of a, I don't know, I hope we're beginning to see more of a, I don't know, a good dialogue and a friendly dialogue between atheists and theists. I'm not sure what you think. Sometimes it still feels like you could be a voice crying in the wilderness. But then I'll get, for example, I'll get an email out of nowhere from an atheist who's been reading my blog for a few years very quietly, and then he or she will share how what they've been reading has affected them and changed them. And it doesn't mean they necessarily become a theist, but their attitudes toward the woods as best we can, improve the conversation, let God take care of the rest. Tell us about this book you just put out, because this is an example of an atheist and a Christian who have different worldviews, strongly disagree with each other on matters they find important, and yet are able to do it in a civil way. They don't fall into the pitfall of just being nasty, and they don't fall into the pitfall of sort of brushing aside those areas of difference that are actually significant. It's a great book. I enjoyed it. Would you tell us a bit about that? I want people to get it.

Starting point is 00:04:42 Sure. So, the title is An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar. And the book is written very much as a conversation might unfold in a bar or a coffee shop where there are two people going back and forth. I know one reader described it as almost like reading a play, a stage play, where they're just literally going back and forth having a conversation. And we work through seven big topics in seven chapters. And we really make it, try to make a point of using some bad jokes along the way to keep it light. Because I think often, when people get into disagreements, they don't handle it well. they get defensive they get aggressive they speak louder and faster and i think we really need to be intentional about realizing we don't all have

Starting point is 00:05:30 to agree on everything that we can disagree civilly and learn from one another and still be friends at the end of the day and so that's really what the point of the book was and along the way to introduce some interesting arguments my co--author Justin Schieber, he defends three arguments for atheism. I defend three arguments for theism. And in each case, these are arguments you don't usually encounter. For example, I present an argument from the mathematical structure of reality as something supportive of theism. Justin points out the problem of religious disagreement as evidence against theism. And so, we have arguments like these, we flesh them out,

Starting point is 00:06:11 and I think it's a lot of fun and it'll hopefully be helpful for people. I have to say, though, my favorite book that you wrote is the Swedish, listen to this, dear listeners, right? This is the name of the book. I don't know what publisher in their right mind would have let you name this book, but here we go. The Swedish Atheist, The Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails. Yes, that was a piece of inspiration there. That was brilliant. I love the book. I loved it.

Starting point is 00:06:39 I didn't come up with the title. The publisher came up with that title. But when you read that book, you'll find out where the title comes from came up with that title but when you read that book you'll find out where the title comes from it's so much fun it's so it's so uh you're not like i'm gonna shut up in a minute i know i'm saying a lot of nice things about you this will be the last thing and then i'll i'll slam you okay but um you're a really good author actually and so it's not just you've got all the head knowledge you're able to put it in a way that's not just easy to comprehend, but it's kind of like beautiful.

Starting point is 00:07:07 I'd even use that word. Almost like cozy. You look forward. The way you write is, I don't know how to put it. It's just warm and fun. It's a good book. Well, thank you. Anyway, you're welcome.

Starting point is 00:07:24 I'll put the links to these books in the description of the podcast. But today what we wanted to do is just talk about some objections to the existence of God. I went online earlier, Randall, and I looked up this website. It was like 40 arguments against the existence of God, and I couldn't believe how bad most of them were. I'm sure there's, you know, Christian websites out there that are arguments against atheism that are also terrible. But anyway, today, what we want to do is look at 10 arguments against the existence of God, and I'm just going to throw them at you, and I want you to just sort of like respond as much as you like. Obviously, you know, a lot

Starting point is 00:08:07 more could be said in response to each of these objections. But the goal here is to kind of give a short response because a lot of these things are offered as sort of short retorts or, you know, slurs sometimes. And sometimes it's nice before kind of digging deeper, just to sort of get a brief response. So, we know that there is one and then have that fleshed out a little bit later. Perfect. Sounds good. Yeah. All right. So, let's do this. First of all, God is basic. It's just, look, it's stupid. It's stupid in that it's like Santa Claus for adults. You know, we all recognize, you know, when you're a kid, you like the idea of Santa, it made you happy, gave you something to look forward to. And this is sort of where Christians are at. They're afraid of life, probably, maybe not all of them, but,

Starting point is 00:09:04 you know, maybe it's certainly afraid of death. And yeah, who life, probably, maybe not all of them, but, you know, it's certainly afraid of death. And yeah, who the hell doesn't like the idea of a theme park up in the clouds? I'd like that, says the atheist, but, you know, it's just sort of childish. Right. Yeah, that's a very common one today. You'll find God being compared, like you said, to Santa Claus, to fairies, to leprechauns, to invisible pink unicorns, to flying spaghetti monsters, to all sorts of things. And I think in all these different comparisons, there are somewhat of a different focus in them. compared to Santa Claus, I think sometimes part of the point that's being made is it's comparing the way that Santa sort of watches out. You know, he knows if you've been naughty, he knows if you've been nice, and he'll reward you if you're nice. And God's the same way. And the argument there is Christians have an inferior morality because they're just acting,

Starting point is 00:10:04 behaving because they want to get a reward, just like Santa's going to give you the gift, or if you're not, he'll give you a lump in your stocking and God will send you to hell. A lump of coal in your stocking. And on that point, I would just say, you know, there are some people who treat belief in God somewhat like that, that they're going to believe because they want to get some treasure in heaven. And I think that that does deserve critique. I mean, that's a really wrong way to think about it. I think that what we should really think in that regard is that the treasure, the reward that God is going to give us in heaven ultimately is restored relationship with Him and His people in a renewed creation. It's not getting a bunch of material stuff. And in fact,

Starting point is 00:10:45 that's what we were made for. We were made to be in relationship with God. Elton John had a great song many years ago called Skyline Pigeon, where he talks about a pigeon that's locked up in a cage and just longs to be set free so it can fly. And I think that's what the Christian gospel offers us, very different from Santa Claus. Now, one other thing I think that's relevant here is I think that's what the Christian gospel offers us, very different from Santa Claus. Now, one other thing I think that's relevant here is I think people often compare God to Santa Claus because, well, children grow up and they grow out of Santa Claus and they realize you don't need Santa Claus to explain the world anymore. You can just appeal to your parents, giving you the gifts and so on. And the idea is that when people grow up, they likewise leave belief in God behind. And I think that that is

Starting point is 00:11:30 just a faulty analogy, because the fact is that while children normally do leave belief in Santa Claus behind, there are many intelligent people, including many of the world's leading scientists, philosophers, and theologians, who continue to believe in God, and for excellent reasons. So, it's simply a silly analogy at that point. I've heard you say elsewhere, Randall, that it's very easy to isolate one part of any sort of discipline and make it look absurd. For example, do you want to talk about that. Well, just go ahead. You're going to say, for example, well, the example I was going to give is the one you gave, you know, regarding a pizza, for example, if somebody said, well, you know, really what that pizza is, is pockets of empty space, whatever, vibrating pockets of energy or something, you'd say,

Starting point is 00:12:22 well, that is ridiculous. Why would anyone believe that? And yet, apparently that is the way things are, and you need to do a little bit more work in trying to sympathetically understand where the person's coming from. So, for example, if you just isolate one element of Christian theism, like, you know, reunion with your loved ones, for example, or whatever. It might be easy to make that look rather childish or silly. Yeah. Or certainly belief, let's say, in the Trinity. So, this idea that the one God is three distinct and divine persons, and furthermore, that the second person, God the Son, took on a human nature and became the man Jesus. You can easily just take those beliefs and mock them,

Starting point is 00:13:13 which is sometimes what people do. Right. I'm thinking of that meme where it says, yeah, because God loved you, he became a man and then killed himself and then rose himself from the dead and now he can be in heaven. Like, that sounds stupid, you know? Yes. Now, so in that case, that of course isn't the doctrine of the Trinity because that's treating God as if there's only one divine person who kills himself. So, that's a problem right there. But yes, you're right that what that kind of meme does is it simply isolates the beliefs so that they can be mocked rather than asking the question, why did people come to these beliefs in the Trinity? Why did they come to the belief in the incarnation or the resurrection? And, you know,

Starting point is 00:13:56 you have to invest the time to come to understand that because otherwise, yeah, you can do that with anything. Like you gave the example of of what the physicist defines a pizza to be which is largely empty space and vibrating packets of energy that are colorless and odorless and yet that is according to physics what the pizza is composed of and if you first encounter the definition of a pizza from a physicist without ever understanding why they came to believe that you you can mock it. But what you have to do is invest the time and understand why a scientist believes the pizza is like that. And I would say the same thing, what would Christians say about the Trinity or

Starting point is 00:14:33 other Christian beliefs? Okay, here's a second objection. Look, you, Randall, are an atheist with respect to every other god humans have come up with, but I as an atheist just go one step further. I'm consistent. Yeah, so a couple things. I've certainly heard Richard Dawkins and many other new atheists say that. I would say, first of all, that it's just confused in terms of what atheism is to say that I'm an atheist with respect, let's say, to Allah. That's just confused. So here, consider an analogy. Imagine a bachelor saying to a married man, you're a bachelor with respect to every woman other than your wife. I just go one woman further. Well, no. Great analogy. You're a bachelor and i'm i'm a married man and that's a

Starting point is 00:15:26 huge difference it's all the difference in the world and similarly a person who rejects every god but one is still a theist so i think that that is just confused now the point as well i think is the difference between theism and atheism is really enormous, because the theist says that ultimate reality, the ground of all being, that which is unconditionally and non-dependently real, is personal. In fact, is a person. Or, in the Trinity, three persons. The atheist says the ultimate source of reality, whatever it is, is not a person. It's impersonal. And that is a huge difference.

Starting point is 00:16:09 So this idea that there's really this close space between the atheist and the theist, monotheist, is just mistaken and quite misleading. Yeah, thank you. What about this idea, and I've heard Christopher Hitchens say this, I believe, in his debate with William Lane Craig, that, look, granted, religion had its place in the past, you know. It was our attempt to discover the truths about reality. It's the way we explained things that we couldn't make sense of. But now we have science, and so we no longer need religion. In the Summa Theologiae, before Aquinas lays out his famous five proofs for the existence of God, he offers only two objections to God's existence, which is interesting, actually, because,

Starting point is 00:16:58 you know, I'm reading his work right now, it's called De Marlo on evil. And most of the articles involve about a dozen, sometimes 20 or so objections, which I think is just a sign of a brilliant mind right there. If you can come up with 20 decent objections to the thing you want to prove. So, it's noteworthy that Aquinas would only come up with two. Anyway, and so one of these is this idea that science has made, you know, the God hypothesis superfluous. Right. Yeah, that's a very popular one today. I mean, I guess the one thing I want to say at the beginning is that science is amazing, okay, and has unpacked large, vast dimensions of the world. I'll just give a very practical example. Two years ago, the Western

Starting point is 00:17:52 world was gripped with the terror of a deadly hemorrhagic fever called the Ebola virus. And I remember watching on television doctors and military personnel in hazmat suits in West Africa grabbing people that were sick off the street and forcibly restraining them and driving away in military vehicles to put them into quarantine. That's how serious it was. Thousands of people were dying from this Ebola virus. Well, just within the last two weeks, it has been announced that scientists have developed a vaccine for Ebola that is almost 100% effective. That's incredible. That's just amazing. And that's a gift from science. But when I look at that, I say, that's a gift from the hands of God who gave us science. Well, scientists can discover a vaccine for Ebola, but science cannot tell you whether a life devoted to fighting deadly viruses

Starting point is 00:18:53 in sub-Saharan Africa is better than a life devoted to giving breast implants to aging women in Boca Raton. Those kinds of questions are questions of meaning, purpose, and value. How are you going to live your life and why? What is going to get you up in the morning? And no scientific hypothesis or theory is going to answer those questions. Those are questions that are religious in nature. So when people think, well, we have science now, that'll explain everything. I think really what they're often doing is expressing the view we call scientism, which is really an elevation of science to explain everything, which it was never intended to.

Starting point is 00:19:34 So science has its sphere. It unpacks the natural world for us. It can develop vaccines for hemorrhagic fevers. But science is not there to tell us what meaning, purpose, and value are. And that's the sphere of religion or of Christianity. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. This idea of scientism, maybe you want to speak to this, this idea of it being self-refuting, you know, it's a, scientism at least is a sort of philosophical axiom that one begins with, not something one arrives at after a scientific hypothesis has been validated.

Starting point is 00:20:11 Exactly. So scientism is the view that really the only legitimate knowledge is scientific knowledge. And of course, the problem there is that claim itself is not a piece of scientific knowledge. there is that claim itself is not a piece of scientific knowledge. And therefore, if you accept the claim, you must reject it because it undercuts itself. It's self-referentially defeating. It's kind of like saying, everything I say is false. Well, if that's true, it's false. And if scientism is true, then it's false. You have to reject it. So, that's kind of a, your listeners may want to play that back again to get that point, but I think it's a really important one because scientism is a self-refuting. As you said, it's a philosophical view, not a scientific one, and yet it is the view that science is the only form of knowledge. So that's self-defeating.

Starting point is 00:20:57 Hey, I know you're a Baptist, but I also know that you're well-read. So have you read Ratzinger? Before he was Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a book called An Introduction to Christianity. Did you ever read that? No, I mean, the only Ratzinger... Oh, no, I was thinking of Pope John Paul. Never mind. Yeah, yeah. So, tell me more. Well, I just want to read you this quote because it goes along with what we're saying and it's really fantastic. He says this, however vigorously one may assert that he is a pure positivist who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he'll never be free of the secret

Starting point is 00:21:36 uncertainty whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the non-believer is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world, which he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. And he ends just with this line here. experience as a continual temptation. So, for the unbeliever, faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world. In short, there is no escape from the dilemma of being man. That's eloquent. Very well said. That reminds me of this quote, which I've seen attributed to C.S. Lewis, but I haven't found it in his writing. So, but it says, believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts. Or no, it says, believe, yeah, believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts, but also, no. Let me, let me begin. Back that up. Okay. So, believe your doubts and doubt your beliefs, but also believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts.

Starting point is 00:23:06 There is also a place to doubt that which you are doubting. I think sometimes, you know, there can be, in the Western world, the last 400 years, we've been very one-sided in our understanding of reason, where reason has been closely aligned with doubting. reason where reason has been closely aligned with doubting. And if that's all you have, then you would really have a very irrational person, because rationality is found in the proper balance between credulous belief and excessive doubt. To find the middle ground of where is it appropriate to put your faith and trust, and where is it not? And that's where you want to find true reason. Yeah, that's a great point. I've heard Peter Kreeft say something similar, you know, why doesn't the skeptic be more skeptical of his skepticism? But of course, to be skeptical

Starting point is 00:23:58 of one's skepticism is only to become more certain. Yes, nicely said. Yeah. All right, well, let's move on to the fourth one. And this is this idea that, look, people tend to accept the beliefs of their parents. You know, you're a Christian, Randall, probably because you were raised one. Now, this isn't always true, but it is true for a lot of people. Yes. Yes, it certainly is. So, I think the general point here is, well, but see, it's not yet an objection, it's an observation, right? It has to be turned into an objection. And I assume the objection... Here's the objection, that is, it's just culturally

Starting point is 00:24:39 relative. Religion is culturally relative, okay? If you, Randall, were born in India, maybe you'd be a Buddhist or a Muslim or something else. That's really the only credibility, you know, the only reason you think Christianity is true now is because you were raised Christian. Yeah, that, of course, it wouldn't follow that religion is culturally relative. What only would follow is maybe that you would, at most, you would lose your justification for accepting the religion you presently accept, but it wouldn't follow that all religion is relativized. But let me just push back on it.

Starting point is 00:25:17 So I think the general point here, then, is that people adopt particular beliefs because of the social conditions in which they live. And I think, well, there's certainly a lot of truth to that, but it's also not something limited to religious beliefs. It also includes ethical beliefs, social beliefs, cultural beliefs, political beliefs. If you live in Texas, you're more likely to have voted Trump. If you live in California, you're more likely to have voted for Hillary Clinton. And that's a demographic reality. If you were born in the 16th century, you'd be more likely to think slavery was a morally permissible economic relationship.

Starting point is 00:25:57 If you're in the 21st century, less so. So this is true of all our beliefs, including atheism. It's not restricted to one set of beliefs, such as religious beliefs. So then the question is, well, would it supposedly follow then that, I mean, if we took this line of skepticism, it would follow that all our beliefs were subject to the same skepticism because they all arise and are formed in social conditions. And I think that that's just an absurd consequence. But I would even push back further, and I would point out that the person who raises that kind of objection is themselves raising the objection in part because of the social conditions

Starting point is 00:26:39 in which they have been raised in and are living in. Because those kinds of skeptical ideas are popular in the universities today in the West. And so that very argument, that objection, undercuts itself, because you now ought to be skeptical of it, because it likewise was formed in social conditions. I think really the proper way to think about the fact that we are influenced by our social conditions is simply just to recognize that nobody has a God's eye point of view, and we should have an appropriate humility as we try to reflect on our beliefs and account for the fact that they are often formed through social pressure and conditioning.

Starting point is 00:27:19 But I don't think that that justifies a general skepticism about all our beliefs, and certainly not just about our religious beliefs. Thank you so much for tuning in to Pints with Aquinas this week. I want to thank everybody who is supporting the show. If you'd like to support the show and listen to the rest of this conversation, as well as other interviews, go to pintswithaquinas.com and click the Patreon banner. By supporting for as little as $2 a month, you'll get different gifts. And the more you give, the more I give you back. I'm just honored by your support. If you can't afford it, that's totally fine too. Thank you so much for being just a supporter. Thank you for listening. I pray that these

Starting point is 00:27:58 podcasts are a blessing to you and are helping you in your relationship with Jesus Christ. God bless you. To carry you To carry you To carry you To carry you

Pints With Aquinas - 41: 4 arguments from atheists refuted, with Dr. Randal Rauser

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.