Yesterday, I tweeted a link to my article "
Is
There Such a Thing as Rational Faith?" The point of that article was that
faith and reason are not contradictory. One reply to that was a tweet by
The_Apistevist, who identifies himself as an atheist on Twitter. He asked: "how
can belief without evidence be considered rational?" Now, I had never claimed
Christianity had no evidence, nor did I argue that one should never seek
evidence in matters of faith. Belief without evidence was his assumption.
Because I've engaged in these kinds of conversations before, I didn't
want to retread the evidence for Christianity. It's well-documented on
both the
ComeReason.org web site as well as this
blog. Most of the time, atheists will simply reject the evidence I offer,
stating it doesn't count for some arbitrary reason or another. For example,
testimony is evidence, but such is usually dismissed out of hand because the
content of that testimony is "religious."
So, I decided to take another
route. Is it true that no one should believe anything without evidence other
than a person's word? Could such a standard work in the real world? Below is the
full conversation with The_Apistevist . You can see how his own criteria quickly
devolve into an unworkable position.
Of course, at this point, The_Apistevist is caught in an intractable position. I am both demanding evidence AND I'm the one who rules whether or not whatever he offers me counts as evidence.
This is exactly the game many Internet atheists play regarding the existence of
God. He has no way of satisfying my criteria, so according to his own rules I am
justified in stopping the conversation because I cannot believe him when he
tells me he is honest.
How would the world worked if everyone took up
this position? How could you drive if you couldn't trust other drivers to obey
the traffic laws without first demanding evidence? How would commerce work?
I don't believe his claim that he demands evidence for every statement
another makes. He simply couldn't function this way. However, he would
rather be relegated to an unreasonable position than admit he holds beliefs
where he has no evidence other than the word of the person to whom he's
speaking. That truly is unreasonable.