Cold Case Christianity: Do Atheists Believe in Just One Less God Than Christians?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled:

Do Atheists Believe in Just One Less God Than Christians?

Posted: 21 Sep 2018 01:13 AM PDT

 As an atheist, I used to challenge my Christian friends with a common objection heard across the Internet today. Although my formulation of the objection differed from time to time, it was a lot like the popular statement attributed to Stephen F. Roberts:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

My point was simple: All of us are atheists to some degree if you really think about it; we just disagree about which gods we reject. Christians are atheistic in their attitude toward, Zeus, Poseidon, Lakshmi, Vishnu, Cheonjiwang, Na Tuk Kong, Achamán, Huixtocihuatl and thousands of other historic gods. When asked, Christians typically offer the same reasons for rejecting these other “deities” that I would have offered for rejecting the God of Christianity. So (as I often claimed), if my believing friends simply approached Yahweh in the same way they approached other mythologies, they would inevitably take the final step toward rationality and reject all false gods.

I avoid that argument because Christianity, despite being false, obviously has more historical support than do the gods of other ancient religions.  You cannot get rid of Christianity quite as easily as you can get rid of Zeus.

This objection is still popular.

That's an unfortunate truth about modern-day culture.  Critical thinking has become an industry because the internet not only enables one to know more truth, it also facilitates ignorance.

I hear it (or read it) frequently in my efforts to make the case for Christianity now that I’m a believer. While there are certainly several valid responses, I’d like to offer one from my experience as a detective and case maker. I think it provides a brief, but rhetorically powerful rejoinder to this misguided, iconic objection.

In every criminal trial, a jury is asked to evaluate the actions of one defendant related to a particular crime. While there are millions of other people in the world who could have committed the crime under consideration (and indeed, millions of these people were actually available to commit the crime), only one has been charged. If the jury becomes convinced this defendant is the perpetrator, they will convict him based on their beliefs. They will convict the accused even though they haven’t examined the actions (or nature) of millions of other potential suspects.

 using the same logic, atheists can be reasonable to look at the evidence for Christianity and draw conclusions thereto, even if they haven't examined every supernaturalism argument in existence.

They’ll render a verdict based on the evidence related to this defendant, in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives.

So, atheists also can be reasonable to "render a verdict based on the evidence related to [god] in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives"

If the evidence is persuasive, the jurors will become true believers in the guilt of this man or woman, even as they reject millions of other options.

Same answer.

As Christians, we are just like the jurors on that trial. We make a decision about Jesus on the basis of the evidence related to Jesus, not the fact there may be many alternative candidates offered by others.

Then you cannot blame atheists for making a decision about 'god' on the basis of the available evidence, not the fact there may be many alternative candidates offered by others.

If the evidence is persuasive, we can reach our decision in good conscience, even if we are completely unfamiliar with other possibilities.

 Ditto the atheist.

Christianity makes claims of exclusivity; if Christianity is true, all other claims about God are false.

Correction, this is conservative Christianity which makes the claim of exclusivity.  It isn't like the liberal Christian inclusivists who believe in many other legitimate paths to God have never seen John 14:6 or the other standard biblical proof-texts that make up the exclusivist's entire reason for processing oxygen.

If the evidence supporting Christianity is convincing to us as the jury, we need look no further. In the end, our decision will be based on the strength (or weakness) of the case for Christianity, just like the decisions made by jurors related to a particular defendant must be based on the strength (or weakness) of the evidence.

And, as usual (and probably because you need to commit this error to sell books), you once again premise Christianity's truth entirely upon where the empirical evidence points...you leave no room in your argument for the biblical fact that there is an invisible subjective convicting of sin by the Holy Spirit that is also a part of, and more important than, the empirical evidence.  If you started pushing the subjective truth that the bible connects to one's ability to determine the truth of Christianity, logic would require that you stop promoting your book sales as obsessively as you do.  God has his part to play, which you cannot play for him, and since he played it for hundreds of years before internet, videos, printing press and electricity, you might consider that there is a genuine possibility you've blinded yourself too all these years:  the bible god, if he exists, thinks it much better for today's Christians to simply preach straight from the bible, plus nothing, and God will be responsible for making anybody sitting in the pews or on the street to become interested.

At the end of a trail, juries are “unbelievers” when it comes to every other potential suspect, because the evidence confirming the guilt of their particular defendant was sufficient. In a similar way, we can be confident “unbelievers” when it comes to every other potential god because the evidence for Christianity is more than sufficient.

Ditto the atheist.  Reasonableness in denying god's existence doesn't require refuting every possible argument for supernaturalism, for the same reason that the reasonableness of believing Jesus rose from the dead doesn't require refuting every possible argument for naturalism.