Proposed Title: What Do You Think?

Greetings and salutations! This is going to be a slightly long OP, I'm afraid. Please bear with me.

I am writing a collection of essays tentatively entitled "Why I Don't Believe in God...and Why You Shouldn't, Either." I must stress that it is not my aim to spew vitriol upon religious believers, nor is it my aim to belittle them. I do want to do what Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do not do, namely, seriously consider various arguments for God's existence, including ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, the fine-tuning argument, the argument from objective morality, and various others. That is not *all* I want to do. Originally, it was, but it became apparent to me that I had to present a nontheistic worldview, including an account of the basis of morality without God and an account of the meaning of life without God. (As you might guess, it is going to be a rather lengthy book.)

My concern is that the working title--"Why I Don't Believe in God...and Why You Shouldn't, Either"--might be found offensive by some reasonably sizeable percentage of religious believers, who would then turn away from the book when they might otherwise have picked it up. I have tried on Open Forums to get feedback on it, but have received disappointingly little. What do you think of the title?

I don't mean "Is it a good title?" I mean "Do you think people who might otherwise look at the book would pass it by because they felt insulted by its title?" And I suppose the concomitant question should be asked, too: Do you think people who might otherwise pass the book by might pick it up because of its title? But mainly, I'm concerned with the first question.

To those who choose to answer: thank you in advance.

Why are you in a Christian Group?  May Christ have mercy on you

Yes, it is a title that would cause nearly all theists to ignore your book.  A title like that makes indication that you are attempting a persuasive argument against the existence of God, so convicted theists are very unlikely to be interested. 

Your descriptions of the contents of the book seem to make indication that you are after most of the old straw-men in the philosophy of religion discussion, and so it is very doubtful that your book would break through any partisan barriers as you are hoping.  These "proofs" are non-functional, but well informed theists already know that.

So, you would really need to first be certain you are adding something new to the field (philosophy of religion) and then gear your book title to indicate that addition.  If you are just an atheist making the same old points about the weaknesses of bad arguments for God, then no title is going to fix the root problem and make your book interesting to people.  The real question for you is whether you actually have something to say.

People being offended doesn't enter into it.  What you need to understand is that intelligent theists have heard all this before, and if they are ever going to be interested in a book by an atheist, they would have to get a very strong sense that it will contain something new and worthy of their consideration.

When a group I'm in--The Atheists, or some such--started a match with this group, I e-mailed one of your members (I won't say who it was--I don't know that the member would want it made public, so I'll leave it up to that member to say; I'll use the masculine pronouns simply so that I don't have to keep saying "that member"), who sent me a very nice reply in which, among other things, he suggested I join the group and ask its members myself. So, I am.

BogatyrSvyatogor: I do not see myself as doing the devil's work. I am a seeker of truth. If someone ever persuades me that there is good reason to believe in Christianity--or in Islam, or in any other religion--then I will be pleased to have learned an important truth about the world. If someone ever persuades me that there is good reason to believe in a God of any kind, then I will be pleased to have learned an important truth about metaphysical reality. If someone ever persuades me that there is good reason to think that there is an afterlife, I will super-super-pleased. If someone ever persuades me that there is a good afterlife and a bad one, and that to get into the good one I have to do action X--like, say, believing in Jesus--then I will be super-pleased to have learned how to extend my conscious life beyond earthly death and to enjoy eternal bliss.

I don't think it's going to happen. I've examined various arguments for God's existence, and I find them all wanting.

Jebcc: I'm in this group, first of all, to learn the answer to the OP's question. Note that the OP's question has nothing to do with stirring doubts in believers. The book will, I hope, do that--but that's not what this particular thread is about. This thread is only about finding out whether or not believers would find the title offensive or insulting--not merely because it indicated that the book had to do with nonbelief, but because they thought, "I understand your saying you're going to explain why you don't believe, but how can you have the nerve to tell me what I should or should not believe?!?" and would walk off in a huff instead of picking up a book they might otherwise be interested in. Whom else should I ask--nonbelievers? Second--if people here want to discuss theology with me--I would be happy to discuss theology. Despite being a nonbeliever, I enjoy such conversations.

Naturally, I do not believe that there is a living Christ to have mercy on me or not to have mercy on me, but thank you for your good wishes, Jebcc.

Mindwalk,

Since you're here in a specifically Orthodox forum, you may be interested in this:

http://www.asna.ca/resources/dawkins-delusion.pdf

It's printed pamphlet style, so you'll have to start with the third column, read the second page, then read the first two columns on the first page.

The Orthodox understanding of God, Christ, salvation, afterlife, and the many other things you  mention here are probably not at all what you are accustomed to.

What I am interested in, really, is whether or not the proposed title would make those who might otherwise be interested turn away because they felt insulted. I'm sorry that many people would never read it at all, but I can't help that.

It's a very interesting article. (My writings are more directed at belief in a personal, theistic God than in, say, a deistic God.) I had a reply in mind until near its end, when it brought in belief in the Jesus and other things I don't remember offhand, when the Orthodox view became very mysterious to me. I'd like to discuss it more, but that's not what this thread is for, and while I'm not normally a stickler for keeping to the topic in a thread, I'm sort of an outsider here, and I'm not sure discussion of such matters that included my perspective would be welcome. Perhaps a new thread could be started for it?

P.S. There is an Atheists and Theists group specifically designed for exchanges between theists and nontheists. If people here don't want to hear my point of view--as salutary as I think it would be--then perhaps we could have our discussion there. Or simply in the Open Discussion group. I'd like to hear all about the Orthodox view, and I'd like to ask my questions about and raise my objections to the position described in the article.

Calm down guys! You are not obliged to discuss if you do not like the forum.

Read our public profile discription:

"A group for all Orthodox Christian Chess Players in all over the world.

You are ALL welcome (Orthodox or not) but with the respect to the people and the game!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_by_country

www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HehNS7zfnA4"

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/the-orthodox-christians-chess-players

Since I am not hiding my true views at all, I hardly see how I am a wolf "in sheep's clothing." Maybe I'm a wolf in wolf's clothing--but that's different. (Naturally, I simply think of myself as a person in person's clothing, and as a seeker of truth in a seeker of truth's clothing.)

Everyone should want to know the true motives of his conversants. However, no one should deliberately avoid criticism of his views. If his views cannot stand up to criticism, perhaps they are not worthy views--and if they are not worthy views, surely one should be pleased to learn that and to seek views that are worthy of his belief. If they can stand up to criticism, then he should be able to rebut criticism--and perhaps even convert critics to his point of view.

However, this particular thread is not about the criticism of believers' views. It is about whether or not a particular title would be found insulting.

Maybe I need to illustrate what I mean. In a discussion with theists, years ago, one of my fellows compared belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, saying that both God and Santa Claus were supposed to know when you'd been naughty and when you'd been nice and that both were supposed to reward you for being nice but punish you for being naughty and that both were supposed to have magical powers. Immediately, the nontheists in the discussion vanished. I was mystified. Fortunately, I had a reputation as a matter-of-fact sort of person--not the sort to engage in "flame wars"--and when I started a new topic to ask why they had gone, they answered me. They thought the reason should have been obvious, but they gave me an answer. They said they felt insulted--that the comparison of God to Santa Claus (or of belief in God to belief in Santa Claus--I can't remember which) was belittling (whether to God or to belief in God, I can't remember). And they apparently felt the way Mr. Spock felt on a Star Trek episode when Capt. Kirk and Dr. McCoy were exchanging barbs at his expense: "I see no reason to stand here and be insulted." (I had thought the comparison to Zeus might have been off limits, since Zeus was a deity people really had believed in and therefore the comparison might be thought to be sacrilegious--but no, the theists told me that that would have been fine. It was the comparison to Santa Claus they minded. I'm not a mind reader. I never would have known which they minded and which they didn't had they not told me.)

Anyway, what I fear is that those theists who are interested in the views of intelligent nontheists would be driven away by a title they found insulting. That's why I'm concerned with the question.

MindWalk,

I appreciate your attitude here.  You're very polite and well spoken.

Vis-a-vis your actual question, your market analysis might be ahead of mine.  My impressions of the situation are that most serious theological thinkers (who would tend to share approaches to the issue of theism with me, for example) usually just plain ignore the types of debates you're involved in (represented by Plantinga for instance).  My basic impression is that there is a very large group of silent theists who also wouldn't find his arguments persuasive, and so find all these debates a waste of time.  This group of people is not going to be interested in your book since they're really not a party to the discussion involved therein.

As for the couple of other posters, don't jumpt to too many conclusions about people like MindWalk.  A lot of "Christians" today are worshipping a non-existent sky-god...they are idolators, and no allies of ours.  A person like MindWalk who is actually willing to talk to us here is probably much more an ally in our work of trying to teach the truth about the real God than he is an enemy.  At the very least, he's an honest interlocutor, which is something all too rare today.

You are rightly trying to avoid bringing up the questions to which you allude after reading the article, so what I'll say is that the answers amount to: 1) Foundational (not incidental) Trinitarianism [the question of Trinity is first order in the question of God's existence, not second order and to be proved after we prove God]  2) The apophatic Tradition, especially in its Dionysian and Eastern form (thus, not its Thomist form).

pocklecod: Thank you for your kind words.

One point I make early on in my essays is that there are many different versions of God believed in by different people, and many different clusters of characteristics ascribed to God, and that different arguments for God's existence rely on different characterizations of God. Therefore, my criticism of any argument against a version of God that is not one's own should be treated as academic. But for practically any version of God, there will be believers in that version, so it's important to address as many of the arguments as possible. I gather that for you, overwhelmingly most of the arguments I'll examine simply don't apply to your version of God, so that you can treat them as academic.

I started the thread "Apophatic and Kataphatic" to discuss that article you linked to.

Mindwalk you are infected with a demonic influence.  Bogatyr  calls bullshit when he sees it and I agree with him.  I personally have no respect for your opinions and I wish you would leave this group.  Here we love Jesus Christ.  You are lost and you want to drag peripheral souls into damnation with you.  Get lost

Every human community up until the so called enlightenment beleived in God.  However now in modern america pieces of refuse like mindlwalk want to prove the point that somehow they are "existentially" different.  and if they use big words they are smart.  You are not unique mindwalk.  Every thought you have ever had was more cogently expressed by your forebears.  Which also means you aren't as smart as you think you are by half.  I want you to leave this group.  I belive, atheists are infected with a demonic influence.  If you were raised by Christian parents and you willfully turned your face from Christ then it is even clearer that you are a bad seed that needs to be Removed from the silo.  Get out of here.  I pray Jesus Christ ha mercy on your tortured soul.  at least as Christians we realize that we are sinners and we fail and we are not perfect.

MindWalk,

Indeed, a point which I'm glad you've noticed.  Many people seem not to have done so, which is a problem - people on both sides seem to assume that the terms of the debate are self-evident (in particular the definition of "God") which is patently untrue, and leads to useless discussion.

Jebcc,

You're not Orthodox either, but no one has demanded that you leave this group.  Shouldn't you extend a wee bit more courtesy?  Do you really think that the best way to spread the Gospel is to shout people down instead of taking their ideas seriously and responding to them as informed Christian intellectuals?

BogatyrSvyatogor,

You've missed my point again.  I do not engage in discussions with atheists because I think they're right - I do so because I disagree with them and I think it is very important to explain why I believe the truth taught in the Orthodox Church.  The rampancy of heresy is indeed no different now than it was for St. Ireneaus, which is why it is important for people like me in the Church to read what others say, understand their points, and articulate the reasons for which we disagree with them.  This is even more true when the interlocutor is himself willing to engage in polite and well-reasoned conversation with us, like MindWalk.

If your concern is pastoral (in other words, you're worried that I'll be seduced into atheism or some such thing) then please let your fears be allayed.  I am a former atheist, and I know very well why I stopped being an atheist and became Orthodox, and have absolutely no intention of going back.  Moreover, while I won't list out my official qualifications as a scholar and theologian, they are substantial.  While I would council many in the Church to be wary about these conversations if they are not well informed about our beliefs, you need not worry about me (though you can, of course, pray for me -please do).  Someone in the Church needs to engage these ideas if we are to teach the truth - and that kind of engagement is my job, quite literally.  Pray for me, a sinner.

MindWalk,

Let me be explicit in saying that I do not share Jebcc's desire for you to "get out of here" nor the implicit argument he makes that the worship of God in ancient human communities justifies similar worship prima facie, and especially not the idea that shouting you down is a good defense of theism.  He speaks for himself, not for Orthodoxy (he's not Orthodox) and not for all Christians.

Jebcc: While I do not think that the attitudes of believers have anything at all to do with the truth of their beliefs--or, concomitantly, with whether or not a nonbeliever should become a believer--I do think that an attitude like yours is not very conducive to bringing new believers into the flock. (It doesn't really seem like the attitude of a "good Christian," either. I think "Love thy neighbor" [or "Love thy neighbor as thyself"] is a really good maxim, and I'd like to see it put into action politically, which is something to discuss in another thread. But I find it odd how many believers in the divinity of the man who said "Love thy neighbor as thyself" don't seem to feel as though they ought to, when those neighbors happen not to be believers. Perhaps you think "neighbors" refers only to fellow believers?) While I am rarely moved to make acerbic replies, I am tempted to say to you, "Really? This is how you expect to gain converts? And this is what it means to you to be a good Christian? Really?" You keep saying you pray that Jesus will have mercy on my soul, but frankly, I don't believe you. I think you think my soul will be tortured forever, and you think you take pleasure in that prospect, awful as it is. I would never wish the same on you. I'm much too moral for that. Ironic, isn't it?

BogatyrSvyatogor: You point to two distinct problems--real problems, for anyone honestly seeking the truth and wanting to know what he should or should not believe. The first of them is a general epistemic problem. A good lawyer, as we all know, can argue quite articulately and eloquently in favor of practically any view; for almost any view, reason can be used to argue for it or against it. How, if very smart people can reach opposing conclusions, both using reason, how are we to rely on reason to reach correct conclusions at all? And whom should we take to be a reliable authority? How can we ever know what's really true? This is a general problem, and it is a serious one. My own approach is to say that that shows how easy it is to make mistakes. Religious people like to say that we are all fallible, but I'm not sure they realize just how fallible we are. Scientists come up with theories to fit facts, and the theories sound good--but then those theories' further implications are tested against reality by observation and, often enough, Nature says, "Sorry, no. That's not the way the world works. Try again." It is *really easy* to fall into logical or linguistic error, and if we are not *really careful*, we will fall into such errors and end up believing what's false (if we're lucky, we'll just believe something that's harmlessly false). It is *really important* to carefully analyze our language use and our reasoning, and other people's language use and other people's reasoning, and not simply accept it because it sounds nice or because the person seems persuasive.

The second problem you point to is specific to religion (although it might have application elsewhere, as, for example, in politics): believers can immunize their views against critical examination simply by saying that anyone who disagrees is doing the Devil's work; that doubt is implanted in us by The Great Deceiver and should be banished, and any line of reasoning tending to increase that doubt should not be listened to; and so on. Critical scrutiny--reasoned examination--becomes not only disagreeable but positively sinful in the believer's eyes, and the believer simply will not listen to criticism. (Some) Moslems do this. (Some) Christians do this. I have no doubt that (some) Tea Party members do this, or even that (some) Democrats do this. But it's worse in the case of religion, because not only is criticism made out to originate with those whose views are different than one's own, but it is made out to originate with the *enemy of all that good and holy and sacred*. And it is made out to be an attempt not to figure out which beliefs are rationally justified and which are not, but to be an attempt to *drive believers away from all that is good and holy and sacred*.

Now, I have no doubt that some people will try to spread false religious teachings, or will try to undermine your religious belief because they hate your church, and so on. But how does one overcome this sort of immunization when reasoning carefully and trying to work out what ought and ought not to be believed? How can the religious believer ever carefully examine his own beliefs if he won't allow any doubt about their truth? It is a real problem, both for believers and for those who try to engage in rational, critical discussion with believers. (I don't have a solution to that problem.)

It has been pointed out to me that some members might have lived in eastern Europe and might be used to atheists' being Communists and might be used to the oppression of the religious by Communists/atheists. I therefore want to state what I should think would go without saying: I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever he believes or whatever he chooses to believe or whatever he wants to believe. And I believe that everyone has the right to express his beliefs freely and to practice his religion freely (assuming it does not involve anything like human sacrifice). I will strenuously argue that rational human beings should not believe in God--but I do not mean that religious believers should be arrested by the Thought Police or be dragged off to re-education camps to have those beliefs cleansed from them by the latest psychological or pharmacological techniques. Everyone should be allowed to believe as he wishes and to talk about it freely and to worship as he wishes without anyone's imposing punishments upon him for it.

Incidentally, I am not Communist.

I'll give a simple example. There are Web sites that will tell you the Moon landing was faked. They give lots and lots of reasons to think that that's true. They're very convincing. Here's a post someone made to a forum, pictures and all, supposedly demonstrating that the Moon landing had to have been faked: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76620 Take a look. Tell me it isn't persuasive!

But there are also Web sites replying to all of the supposed evidence of a faked Moon landing. For example, see here: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html Or read about what Mythbusters did here: http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

We do, in fact, have to be careful about what we believe just because other people say so. I entirely agree with you about that! But we also have to listen to what critics of our views have to say. If believers in a faked Moon landing don't listen to their critics, they'll never change their minds. They'll forever believe something false.

Of course Peter warns against false prophets and those who would try to undermine Christian belief. He doesn't want his followers to stop believing what he wants them to believe, does he? But I'm not claiming to be a prophet. I'm only encouraging close examination of the reasons given for belief in God. If those reasons aren't good ones, then, Peter or no Peter, we shouldn't believe in God. Simple, yes?