Two of my favourite heathens: Ebonmuse [1] and Greta Christina [2] recently answered what were assumed (before they were read) to be atheist-stumping questions, assembled by some bloke called Lee Strobel and posed on Hemant Mehta’s very friendly blog [3].
The questions, summarised, were of this calibre:
(1) Assuming that events of Jesus’ life are accepted historical facts, please provide a naturalistic explanation of the events following the crucifixion.
[4]
(2) The universe is remarkably fine-tuned for life, doesn’t this suggest involvement by a higher entity?
(3) Explain how something can come from nothing.
(4) Do you ever doubt your atheism?
(5) Can we trust our minds to be relaying to us an accurate picture of the universe?
Both Greta’s and Ebonmuses’s responses, while more or less echoing my own thoughts on each topic, are of a succintness and calibre that for now escapes me (but I will have a crack, probably in the comments). Both GC and EM easily debunk such things in their sleep (heck, I suspect most of us atheobloggists have done something similar to at least one of these questions in one or more comment threads on this very blog). In fact, not only do Greta & Ebonmuse passionately yet efficiently dismember each question in their responses, they then link to larger essays written by them previously on the precise topics being raised, showing not only that they’re at least two steps ahead of these Big Theological Guns (excuse me while I put my kevlar jacket back in my wardrobe and stand by that open window) but also that only a committed theologian could attempt to stump atheists with questions they’ve already answered, repeatedly & comprehensively. Additionally, this also shows that these supposedly elite theological SWAT snipers have equally lacklustre skills in both research – especially of their opponents’ viewpoints – and in critical thinking in general.
I’ll leave you with Ebonmuse’s tasty final response:
For me, when viewing all Strobel’s questions, what stands out about them is their ordinariness. I concur with Greta Christina [2] that these arguments, far from being anything new or unusual, are no different – and no more difficult to defeat – than those of the run-of-the-mill amateur apologists that most atheists encounter on a routine basis. That’s not surprising, of course, since most of those people take their cues from the leading apologists.
But for the same reason, it’s meaningful because this should give us confidence – confidence that we truly can stand up to the superstars of modern apologetics and answer the best that they have to offer. It’s not even difficult. Any reasonably well-versed atheist should be able to shoot down these arguments without a problem. If this is truly the best they have to offer, then we can be all but certain that the evidentiary base of Christianity does not have anywhere near the depth or breadth that would justify an atheist’s conversion.
EM makes a good point – the reason the amateur apologists of the type many of deal with daily ask such soft questions is because they’re not asking their own questions! More often than not they’re usually repeating what the apparent best minds in apologetics have to say. If that summarised list up top is the best they’ve got (and I’m yet to hear better from anyone, be they the AB of Canterbury or some comment-thread fundie troll), then they have some work to do – “hard yakka”, as some call it Down Here.
Now, go and read the full questions and the full responses. Very entertaining and well-written, as we’ve come to expect. Check planetatheism.com [5] as well for further responses to these, *ahem*, high-velocity atheist-converting questions.
These top-drawer theos really could’ve saved themselves some time with a quick Google. But hey, these “stumpers” have given many of us something to sharpen our claws on. So, thanks Lee Strobel! Whoever you are.
[edited to include original URL of Strobel’s questions as posed to Hemant]
Print this post [6]
[7]