This article is part two of a three part series exploring the faulty thinking of Atheism (You can read part 1 here). More specifically, militant Atheist Bob Seidensticker of Seattle, WA wrote a series of blog articles explaining his version of why God does not exist. Rather than answer each of his objections individually, I have opted to look at his faulty underlying assumptions and comment on those. Responses 1-8 are found in part one of this series. In today’s offering, we look numbers 9-16. Part three will look at numbers 17-24.
9. Seidensticker makes assumptions about biblical beliefs that are not true.
I am not sure where Seidensticker got his understanding of the Christian faith, but it was not from the Bible. One of his techniques is to assert that most people do not really understand the faith they identify with, they only hold it because they grew up in an environment where that faith was accepted. It seems to me that this must also be the case for Seidensticker himself. There are many places throughout his blogs where he makes assertions about the Bible, the meaning of certain biblical passages, and the theology of various doctrines, and he is totally clueless. What he ends up doing is condemning what he thinks are the teachings of the Bible, but is actually bashing beliefs that are not biblical beliefs at all. This actually makes his rants against the Bible totally meaningless.
On a side note, Seidensticker mentioned that one of his favorite resources is The Skeptics Annotated Bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). All I can say is that this resource is a complete joke. The owner of that website uses the same basic irrational rationale as Seidensticker to develop his argumentation.
10. Seidensticker does not understand the nature of the Bible.
In my interaction with numerous Atheists, criticism of the Bible is a common theme. Seidensticker does not disappoint on this front, either. These militant Atheists like to cherry pick verses or passages of Scripture and say they are not consistent with a God of love, that it contradicts other biblical passages, and the like.
It amazes me how most of these people who have absolutely no training in biblical hermeneutics (interpretation) are such experts when it comes to knowing the contents of the Bible. First of all, they deal with it as if it were a single volume. Actually, the Bible is a collection of 66 separate books consisting of many genres, and was written over a 1500 year period by about 40 different authors who have different backgrounds and different purposes in mind as they wrote. The very idea that someone could simply cherry pick verses and passages and claim inconsistencies and contradictions without understanding the text itself is ludicrous.
In Seidensticker’s case, he creates his own interpretive structure and dismisses Christian theologians and apologists out of hand because they don’t agree with him. Beyond that, his interpretive structure is not based on a Theistic understanding of reality (which is the worldview foundation of all of the people who actually wrote the text). Rather, he interprets based on naturalistic worldview beliefs. Seidensticker’s criticisms in this arena are simply meaningless.
11. Seidensticker does not understand the true nature of the God who is revealed in the Bible and assumes it to be something other than what it actually is.
Seidensticker spends a lot of time accusing God of immorality, and of being evil and a sadist, but as you read what he is says, you have to wonder if he has actually read the Bible at all, and if he understands what it actually teaches. He makes his evaluations using an approach to morality (see #17 in part three of this series) that has no means of support.
In particular, he has no grasp of the biblical concepts of justice and righteousness. His evaluation of what is moral is based completely on his own personal preferences, not on what is actually objectively real. Because of that, one cannot take seriously anything he says about God and his actions in the world.
12. Seidensticker does not know how to distinguish the essential core beliefs of the Christian faith from the many non-essentials represented in the doctrinal statements of various Christian denominations.
One of Seidensticker’s favorite means of putting down Christianity is to point out that there are so many different Christian denominations. This, to him, is proof that Christians can’t agree on what the Bible teaches, and thus the Bible cannot be true.
What Seidensticker doesn’t seem to realize is that there is a certain set of Christian doctrines that are core essentials. These are the doctrines that relate directly to a person’s eternal salvation. There are other doctrines that, while important, are not essential to the Christian faith. All true Christians (regardless of denominational affiliation) believe the core essentials, and even if people get the non-essentials dead wrong, it does not affect their eternal salvation.
He also doesn’t seem to realize that the reason some new denominations form has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with style preference. Many people simply enjoy worshiping in an environment that is culturally comfortable to them. There are other situations where new denominations form because there are simply no (or few) options available where a particular group of people are located.
Seidensticker’s lack of understanding about the Christian faith, then, makes anything he says about it wrong. None of the points he tries to make using this kind of argument about why it must be wrong can be taken seriously.
13. Seidensticker doesn’t realize the individual nature of genuine faith (truth).
Back in #5 (in part 1 of this series), we noted that Seidensticker made the assumption that because people in countries dominated by a particular religion tend to belong to that religion, religious beliefs are largely dictated by one’s culture. Essentially what he is asserting with that is that culture determines individual belief. That brings us to another expression of a naturalistic worldview that creates problems for him. Since the ultimate value in Naturalism is survival, the collective must have priority over the individual. Based on naturalistic belief, this principle plays out in every part of life – politics, sociology, psychology, and even in theology.
As such, when dealing with the topic of people’s beliefs, he makes collectivist assumptions about how people acquire their faith that are simply not true. While the family and society have a great influence on a person’s faith, particularly early in life, in the end people decide for themselves what they will believe. It is amazing just how many militant Atheists grew up in very religious homes – yet somehow came to a place in life where they decided, individually, that they no longer believed in God. The assertions Seidensticker makes in this regard are simply not true.
14. Seidensticker does not know how to distinguish between authentic Christianity and pseudo-Christianity.
Another often used technique designed to argue against the existence of God involves setting up a strawman to knock down. This is done by selectively picking out examples of people who claim to be Christians but who do what the critic considers to be bad things. Seidensticker likes to pick on televangelists in particular, but certainly doesn’t limit his criticism to them. He has also done the same thing pointing back to historical events when “the church” acted contrary to Christian principles.
Seidensticker’s main problem in using this argument is that he tries to make human wrongdoing the standard for judging Christianity rather than the teachings of the faith itself. Just because a person self-identifies as a Christian doesn’t mean he actually is one, and just because a genuine Christian might do wrong (or even evil) acts, does not mean that the faith itself is wrong. If Seidensticker wishes to make a legitimate argument about the rightness of Christianity, the very first thing he must do is understand the actual teachings of the faith – which he obviously does not.
15. Seidensticker believes that if God actually did exist, he would be discoverable using empirical means (empirically discernable answers to prayer, etc.).
Another problem Seidensticker has is a corollary to a couple of the issues we have already dealt with. However, as he makes a big deal of this matter in several of his points, it is useful to address it directly.
Seidensticker, several times, asserts that if prayer actually worked, scientists would be able to take empirical measurements to prove it actually does. In asserting this, he even quotes some “scientific studies” to make his point. Obviously he never actually delved into the actual mechanics of these studies to see the obvious problems with the studies themselves.
But that is not even the biggest problem with his assertions. His main problem is that he has no understanding of the purpose or nature of prayer. He seems to assume that God is nothing more than a cosmic vending machine that people can insert a prayer into and get the result they prayed for. The problem people have when they begin with false assumptions is that they end up with false results. That is true here of Seidensticker’s contentions.
Christianity is not a mechanical religion, but a relational one. The purpose of prayer is not to “get stuff from God,” but to interact with him in a personal relationship. Seidensticker is once again trying to evaluate Christian Theism using the beliefs of Naturalism and it is simply not possible. This is another case where his methodology is untenable.
16. Seidensticker speaks as if he has knowledge about what the universe would look like if God truly existed.
Perhaps one of Seidensticker’s most outlandish assertions is that he looks at the makeup of the universe and declares that if God actually existed it wouldn’t be like what we have. In making this kind of assertion, he either pretends to be omniscient himself, or he is totally delusional. Obviously, he does not have the ability to know that kind of information.
What he has actually done is to create in his mind what he thinks God would be like if God existed, and then imagined what kind of creation this God would make. It seems that he imagines some kind of paradisaical earth where there is all pleasure and no pain, and where everyone just gets everything they want. Seidensticker’s imaginary paradise is a fiction that doesn’t reflect anything that is taught in the Bible about the nature of God, the nature of the natural universe, or the nature of eternity.
What this Means
As can be seen in this second series of eight responses, Seidensticker’s atheistic beliefs simply do not reflect reality. He continues to make accusations that are illogical and false. Keep your eye out for my next article of this series – part three. There we will look at the final eight problems regarding Seidensticker’s attack on Christianity.
© 2019 Freddy Davis