Christian Leader Says Atheists Are Actively Suppressing God’s Truth: Is That a Kind of Bigotry?

Something I am currently pondering,,,

So it has been a while since I have posted anything here.  It is not for lack of material, but lack of brain cells and motivation.  Here is a small piece of counter-ap from Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist. 

The video in question,,,

The primary "revelatory" verbiage, Romans 1:18-19: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." (NIV, to v 23 for a fuller context)

Some thoughts:

He compared us to people trying to hide a beach ball underwater, doing everything we can to keep it down. (He’s wrong, of course. Atheists are saying there’s no beach ball at all. We’re not fighting the truth; we believe in a very different reality altogether.)

To which, this comment replied concerning this so-called truth "That's easy to do once it's deflated."  Taken a step

further, it is presupposing god and begs the question, "If there is a god and he has a plan, then why do Christians have to tell me to change? Do they doubt god's plan?"

PastorBob666 adds this, which touches on Rick Warren, god's plan (necessity of prayer), and Psalms 139:16, "Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death."

Continuing, NOGODZ20 makes this observation,"[t]here are a number of passages in the bible (Romans 13:4, for instance) that talk about servants of its god carrying out their deity's wrathful vengeance. Why does an "all-powerful" sky jockey always need human flunkies to perform that so-called vengeance?"

A point my cohort in crime likes to oft repeat, "If your god cannot endure questions, criticism or insults, then he/she/it is psychologically weak."

Thomas Paine on revelation,

Disbelief in the biblical texts being revelation from God. “Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals,,,as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.”  In short order Paine attacks the one claim that is the anchor of every church's dogma: that the church does the work of a Deity as revealed by the Deity.

One has to take into consideration Paine's use of the term revelation, "Revelation is a communication of something which the person to whom that thing is revealed did not know before." In other words, "Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man." "It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."

Paine expands on this point, but fundamentally the only proof that a particular scripture is divine revelations is because we are told that it is. Being that all the reporters are human and capable of being deceived, and of deceiving, one has no reason to treat scripture any differently than other pieces of literature.

And, a "variation" of Divine Command Theory - [t]he theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands.

The initial assumption made by Mr. Koukl is that the Bible is the supreme source of information and everything else is secondary. If the Bible says that it is obvious that his god exists, then as far as he is concerned it is obvious. If the Bible says that those who don't believe in this god are doing so out of rebellion, then as far as he is concerned that is the case.

Everything else follows from those assumptions. Whether it is possible to get people who hold such positions to revise their opinions looks difficult to me. I guess one could start with "how do you know that the Bible is correct there?" ... but I suspect one could go round in dogmatic circles.

As a counter to Koukl's asinine tripe, Hemant cites Randal Rauser.  This point in particular is interesting as Rauser in a comment defends his position.

That’s what Randal Rauser wants to know. Rauser is an evangelical Christian and seminary professor, and he says Koukl is wrong to assume these things about those who question God:

When Christians categorically deride all atheists without exception as evincing sinful rebellion in virtue of failing to affirm the proposition “God exists”, and they persist in doing so based on such grossly inadequate evidence as Greg Koukl [provides], then it seems to me they are culpable of bigotry.

Rauser even proposes a word for this type of unfair characterization of all atheists:

… it seems to me time to promote a succinct term which can be invoked to flag anti-atheist bigotry. To that end, I propose “misoatheism”. The word derives from “misos” (Greek for “hatred”) and atheism. And it parallels another little used term: misotheism (hatred of God). [Emphasis in the original]

I like the word, though I’m not sure Koukl’s beliefs warrant it. He’s not necessarily guilty of bigotry against atheists — it’s not like he’s treating us differently or suggesting we be treated differently. He’s just flat-out ignorant about why we don’t believe in his God. He needs to be educated because he just doesn’t know any better.

Rauser responds in a comment,

Your fair-mindedness is evident in your reluctance to call Koukl's treatment of atheists as bigoted because it may be borne of ignorance. That's a fair caution. At the same time, I would add that there is such a thing as *culpable ignorance*. If Koukl's bread-and-butter as a Christian apologist is to be engaging with folks of diverse perspectives, particularly atheists, they he must surely base his interactions on some awareness of the views of real, live atheists. Failure to do so in favor of prefabricated categories leaves him culpable to the charge of bigotry.

Imagine, for example, that you meet a Caucasian lifelong resident of Kentucky who says that "immigrants are lazy. They just don't want to work." Undoubtedly, he's ignorant. But I'd suggest he's also liable to the bigotry charge. How much more is Koukl, a Christian apologist of a leading radio and online ministry (Stand to Reason) culpable when he renders sweeping charges based on indefensible generalizations?

Basically Rauser is highlighting Koukl's use of "arguing against a straw-man" which we have all seen and experienced.  (And as discussions go, we atheists are guilty of it as well.)  He is just assigning a nice label of "culpable ignorance" to it.  So I am troubled by Hemant's reaction to the charge of bigotry; maybe he prefers the terms dogmatic or intolerant.  (Or maybe he is being too "friendly".)

But I think the point Rauser was addressing, in using the terms "culpable ignorance" and bigotry, is more of concern in regards to "professional apologists" - Craig, Slick, Sye Ten, Eric Hovind, Turek etc.. In response to this Upton Sinclair quote -[i]t is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it - Rauser responds,

Salary is one problem. Social expectations is another, and in many cases may be far more powerful. I think we're all beholden to pressures that would try to wean us away from pure objectivity in the assessment of our beliefs. The real constitution of a free thinker is defined in the will to resist those pressures and follow the evidence where it leads.

Further down he continues,

It's not always easy to discern, but I'll say this: it is a reasonable expectation that those who make their living based on critical interaction with certain groups (as Koukl does as a professional Christian apologist) will engage with those groups in a fair and charitable manner. 

In other words, "professional" Christian apologetics is a money making scheme.  Hence why we see the proliferation of Sye Ten and Slick wannabees.  Hence the increase in presuppositionalist type arguments or the regurgitation of "old" apologia.  In regards to "social expectations" it is a matter of one-up-man-ship or who can be most annoying.  (My vote, Matt "I'll take my ball and go home" Slick with Sye Ten a very close second.  Although Frank Turek can be a whinny-ass and annoying as well.)

I think Rauser sums it up well his POV with this comment, from his original piece that Hemant links to:

It gives me no pleasure to call out others on bigotry, but it has to be done. Not only is such prejudice indefensible, but it also perpetuates a delusional triumphalism and superiority in the Christian community whilst alienating the very people the apologist allegedly wants to reach.

But to counter, I will repeat this, "I find the whole topic of Christian apologetics abhorrent.  In my opinion, it is the most asinine subject of study and if one carefully listens to the professionals you will understand why.  Three words, 'intellectual word salad' or as coined in a recent conversation 'intellectual incoherence.'"  Taken down to the brass-tacks, apologists are defending an ideology, that in the words of the book they are defending should be "clearly seen" (v20) but is not without the mind-games or 'intellectual word salad'.

What is ironic, Rauser is engaging in apologia of Christian apologetics. Or, 'Koukl is not a true apologist because,,,.'
___
Just an FYI::  Although I am not familiar with Greg Koukl, he is not a n00b to the apologetic scene as noted in the comments.

Christian Leader Says Atheists Are Actively Suppressing God’s Truth: Is That a Kind of Bigotry?