Atheists are Magic

Among e/Evangelicals a good deal of weight is given to people who go from atheism to some form of theism. Especially if part of their story involves being a super-atheist as in, "I thought people who believed in God were dumb and I did everything to discredit religion, but in my investigations I came to see I could no longer deny there is a God." So they come to a point where they believe in God, and because they're real smart, they show we ought to believe in God too. Okay. I get that. There is a use to their certainty. I guess if I'm interested in a concept of God that is sufficiently comprehensible their work at describing God that way should make me feel better. I don't know why it follows that the God known in Christianity would follow from that, (so that these types are superstars in Christian apologetics is a bit problematic to me... apologetics is a bit problematic to me, so... whatever, I guess) but I do understand the desire to be in good company, the desire to not look foolish, the need to have what we believe be affirmed by others, the need to know that what we believe is rooted in more than belief.

Almost as a rule, their atheism is of the type that asked, "How could a loving God do such and such that seems contrary to that identity?" or "How could an all powerful God not intervene in something I don't like." That doesn't seem like atheism to me. It seems more like misotheism or antitheism or like being one who contends with God. Atheism would seem to preclude those kinds of questions. I mean, I'm an atheist when it comes to Thor, Zeus, Quetzacuatl, or Anubis. Who else? I don't know. But again, whatever. Maybe asking those questions really does make one an atheist, in which case I find it strange that I ask those questions and don't consider myself an atheist. Something there's got to give.

What I find problematic with this, and it's there with Creation Science © or even Aquinas' proofs, bearing weight is that we, if I may say "we," think that this concept of god (now proved...which is silly) must be The God everyone knows rather than the product of its own culture or narrative that is distinct from who we are as a people of a particular faith. The fact that we do not make that distinction, that the proved concept of god is the same as a named god described in a Christian's reading of the Bible, is how our loyalties are revealed.

I'm sure we're not outright saying we pledge loyalty or believe in The God of Late Western Capitalism. We say we just believe in God and if the ways by which we understand the world, the culture in which knowledge is validated as knowledge- Late Western Capitalism- says this is the idea of God that is proved, well, it must be our God since there is only one God. Right? All truth is God's truth, as we say. There's no need to examine ourselves or confront the ways we know God because it's how we know God and if we challenged that we would be challenging the way we say we know God and who wants to do that?

But back to the e/Evangelical Magi. I have nothing against someone like Lee Strobel or Antony Flew (their names just happened across my desk) explaining why they cannot be atheists. And I think it's a good thing to share devotional experiences. But I find no value in expressing devotion to the uncertainty of atheism (perhaps positively stated as Apologetics). (Plus, there's probably no net gain- it's maybe even a loss- if we're doing body counts for the "atheist to theist" versus "theist to atheist" game.) And if there is some "we" concerned with being the church- a people confronted and called out by God- we ought to be careful to see that the concept of god built by our knowledge does not seem like the kind of thing that would want to lead us to being that people (as if it could want). Rather it would be completely invested (as if it could invest) in our buying into the system that builds and maintains that concept of The God.