Sometimes when you begin talking with an atheist about the existence of God, they will try to score a rhetorical point by getting you to admit a belief they deem ridiculous or unreasonable. The most common way they do this is by bringing up the virgin birth. Christopher Hitchens famously started a debate with Dinesh D’Souza by asking him if he believed in the virgin birth. Dinesh said, "Yes". Hitchens quipped, “I rest my case.” This is a witty response to be sure, but does it make sense?
If the question in a conversation is “Does God Exist?” then presumably the atheist should supply reasons why he thinks He does not, and the theist should supply reasons for why he thinks the opposite. Does the atheist assertion that the virgin birth could not have happened move the conversation forward at all?
No, it obviously does not.
Even the atheist would agree, that if God exists, then presumably he would have the power to miraculously impregnate a virgin woman. If He does not exist then it is correct that virgin birth is impossible. But you see this is the very question at stake, does He exist or doesn’t He? If He does, the story of the virgin birth is not hard at all to believe, so we need to get to the root question. This assertion does nothing to address this question.
As a Christian, the next time someone tries to embarrass you by getting you to admit a belief such as this calmly tell him, “Yes I do believe in the virgin birth, but what does that have to do with the question of the existence of God?” In other words, “How does that belief offer any evidence for, or against the existence of God?”<br>This is what is known as a “red herring” argument. The atheist is trying to get you to debate the validity of a singular event that has nothing to do with the question at hand. This is a strategy to get you off topic, flustered, and thus to score a rhetorical point. You could even concede this point right off the bat, tell him that your belief in the virgin birth has nothing to do with your belief in God, and move on quickly to the real topic at hand. Look out for these “red herrings” and try to stay on topic as much as possible, and you will avoid much frustration.
Oh Adam, the very different paths we have taken..
ReplyDeleteI am an atheist, but I won't argue that there is no god. We can prove the existence of jesus christ as much as we can prove the existence of the easter bunny. The absence of proof leads me to be skeptical and I simply believe that the probability of a supernatural creator existing is significantly less than the probability of one not existing.
On the contrary, some people react to the absence of proof by creating faith and so this debate will continue forever most likely because I don't think it is something that can be proved or disproved.
I will agree with you though that many atheists do portray a sense of anger. I started reading "The God Delusion" and stopped, because it seemed to have a rather negative connotation in general. Personally, I try not to pass judgement on the validity of anyone else's beliefs, even when I am not granted that same courtesy in return. I hope you do the same.
Just another atheist view point for you to consider. Take care, hope all is well! Congrats on getting married!
Hey Sarah! Thanks for the comment, and for reading my blog!
DeleteOne of your statements interests me. Your claim that "we can prove the existence of Jesus as much as we can prove the existence of the Easter Bunny."
The truth is that every single serious, historical scholar (include hardcore atheist ones) would disagree with you here. We have more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than we have for almost any other figure in ancient history.
Of course, proving that he existed does not prove he is God. But to say he never existed in the same way the the Easter Bunny never existed, flies in the face of everything we know about history, archaeology, and frankly common sense.
Thanks again for your kind words though, and I really appreciate you commenting on my blog. I would love to see more of it!
Good catch! You are indeed correct, I misspoke.. or mistyped rather. I was thinking of the existence of Jesus as a supernatural god, rather than as a historical human being, which I do agree he was.
DeleteThanks again for the kind words. I hope you'll read my blog over the next few weeks. I've got a special series starting up, and if you want to, I'd love to hear your take.
DeleteHey Adam,
DeleteNice to look at your arguments and the work your doing for the Lord.,., And yes history proclaims Jesus did exist.. One other strong point when debating about the virgin birth is tat atheists deny the possibility of life originating without a human sperm.,., well if wht they believe is right then they have to answer for the fact that they believe that life sprang from a star-the big bang theory.,., cos this itself is a virgin birth in another perspective- a Star explodin and bringin up life...an it makes for contradictin statements .,.,., And atheists believe in a self existing star and not a self existing God??? keep up the work bro, i'll try to check in here every tuesday,
And good to see a civilized conversation between you and the others , especially Sarah.,.
And sarah I would recommend You read the Book Lee Strobel's the Case For Christ., God Bless you,,, Never take anythin without questionin it, Never settle down without answers .,.,,.
One Last thought , Do you ever say "'God bless you''???
The fallacy you are trying to get away with is called 'The Straw Man Fallacy'. It normally betrays that either you've been fooled by it yourself or you know the thing you are purporting to attack is unassailable.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great point Rosa. These are definitley straw men in my opinion. But this is actually what this blog series is all about. Atheists use these "straw men" arguments all the time, and they can be readily knocked down. The purpose of this series is to equip Christians to expose the error of the common rhetoric of many atheists.
DeleteRemember these are not arguments for why I am a Christian. They are just short refuatations of weak, yet common atheist arguments.
Straw Man Fallacy is when you attack or defend an argument that was not made by the opposition. Like when you used Hitchen as an exemple. He did not say "I rest my case", he said "even if you could prove that Jesus came from a virgin you still have to prove he was god".
DeleteIf I am going to answer dumb arguments, there is no way not to be open to the "straw man" accusation. Perhaps you don't hold to this view, and that's good, becuase its idiotic. Many atheists say this kind of thing all the time, so I felt a quick refutation was necessary.
DeleteAs for Hitchens, he did say what I claim he said, but I assume he was joking in his usual witty matter. The reason I bring it up is becuase many less sophisticated atheists latch on to the joke, and make this crazy assertion again and again.
Incidentally, you are showcasing an interesting point. Bruno, it appears you are not interested in evidence at all, you'd prefer unbelief regardless of the strength of the evidence. Proven, virgin birth's wouldn't count on your view. I'm assuming a resurrection wouldn't count either? What would count as sufficient evidence in your view?
See... straw man again... I have never said anything like that or anything close to that. I was just telling you what Hitchens said about a virginal birth.
DeleteBruno,
DeleteYou accused me of answering a "straw man" pointing to the Hitchens quote as the example. You then offered a revised Hitchens quote to show the real position. Presumably, you don't hold that the revised position that you offered is also a "straw man" otherwise you would not have brought it up. Technically, you didnt say you held the position, that is true, so I am sorry for the assumption. But you cannot say that Hitchens quote is a straw man just becuase I responded to it, after you yourself offered it up. You defined "straw man" as a position not made by the opposition. You then stated the position in question. Therefore, by your own definition it cannot be a "straw man".