Malcolm is posting on a thread on alt.atheism,

Hints on debating atheists.

To answer the "writing on the Moon" argument we do not have to explain
everything that God does,

All we need to do
is to show that God's actions are reasonable,

Malcolm is posting on a thread on alt.atheism, I asked him if I could
post this excerpt from his book, here it is:

Twelve Common atheist arguments (refuted)

1) The "No Evidence" argument.

2) The "Writing on the Moon" argument.

3) The "Wicca" argument.

4) The "Deism" argument.

5) The "Jesus Myth" argument.

6) The "Mithraism" argument.

7) The "Babylon" argument.

8) The "Pauline Christianity" argument.

9) The "Evil Bible" argument.

10) The "Inquisition" argument.

11) The "Liberalism" argument.

12) The "Darwin" argument.


Hints on debating atheists.

The idea for these essays came from participating in religious groups
on Usenet. There are many atheists who post there, and the same
arguments seemed to be coming up time after time again. It was
therefore decided to list them, and discuss the merits of each.

It is not suggested that every argument will be offered by every
atheist. Some are incompatible, for instance the "Pauline Christianity"
and the "Mithraism" arguments, or the "Inquisition" and the "Wicca"
arguments. Some atheists are of course happy to believe that
Christianity was simultaneously invented by St Paul and copied from
Mithraism, or that all religions are equal in moral value, but
Christianity is especially evil. However many are more intelligent, and
don't fall into these obvious traps. It is very easy to offer a weak
argument in defence of a strong position. An atheist could very easily
find himself in agreement with eleven of the twelve chapters of this
book, but hold that one argument is valid. Refuting an atheist
argument does not establish the truth of Christianity; it just gets rid
of one objection.

The arguments themselves are a very mixed bag. Some are ridiculously
weak, some are powerful and I even find myself agreeing with the
occasional point. Some are made seriously, others are just cheap jibes
against the church. The strongest scientific argument is the "Darwin"
argument, and the strongest scholarly argument the "Babylon" argument.
The weakest is definitely the "Jesus Myth" argument, though the "Wicca"
and the "Mithraism" arguments come close. Some arguments, like the
"Deism" argument or the "Liberalism" argument, encompass huge areas of
discussion. Others, such as the "Pauline Christianity" argument, are
very narrow. Some merge into the others, there is no clear line to be
drawn between the "No Evidence" and the "Writing on the Moon"
arguments, for example, or between the "Liberalism" and the "Evil
Bible" arguments.

I have grouped related arguments together. Categories we can
distinguish are those arguments which deal with the concept of the
supernatural; the "No Evidence", the "Writing on the Moon" and the
"Deism" arguments, those which address the history of Christianity; the
"Jesus Myth", "Mithraism", "Babylon" and "Pauline Christianity"
arguments, those which assert that Christianity is evil; the "Evil
Bible", "Inquisition", and "Liberalism" arguments, and the "Darwin" and
"Wicca" arguments which attack the intellectual credentials of the
Christian church. I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible. If
you come across an argument not listed here, it is most likely some
version of the "Deism" argument, which is the hardest one to recognise.
However it is probable that new arguments will be advanced, or that I
have overlooked some already current.

I am writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, though I hope with a
fairly light touch. Biblically based Christians will disagree with my
treatment of biblical literalism, but mainstream Protestants should
find much to agree with, except maybe in the "Inquisition" and
"Liberalism" arguments, which deal particularly with the Catholic
Church as an institution. There are many points of disagreement amongst
Christians, and many arguments advanced that the Catholic Church is not
biblical, or has diverged too far from the original institution founded
by Christ, or has invented extraneous dogmas. These arguments against
Catholicism, made by other Christians, are not dealt with and might
even form the basis for a sequel. Only if an argument is used by a
significant number of atheists is it included here.

The book is intended as a handy guide for the Christian who gets
involved in debates with atheists on Usenet, or in the workplace, or in
the pub. He can look up the argument, read my discussion of it, and
present the atheist with a refutation. It is not a scholarly work. Some
of the arguments, such as the "Mithraism" argument, do deserve
scholarly treatment with footnotes and references and proper
attribution of sources. I have been content to summarise what scholarly
opinion is, rather than try to present myself as an authority on a wide
variety of historical and philosophical subjects. It is very difficult
to become an expert in a subject oneself, but relatively easy to
determine what the current academic consensus is.

The book is offered in the hope that it will convert some atheists, or
at least give Christians who are often intimidated by atheists some
confidence. To name is to conquer.

The "Writing on the Moon" argument (sample chapter).

This argument goes: "If God exists, why doesn't He write in huge
letters on the Moon 'Hello, I'm God, and I'm a Tridentine rite Roman
Catholic (or Baptist, or Jew or whatever)'. An omnipotent being should
be able to do that, and it would clear up a lot of problems."

It should immediately be apparent that this is connected to the "no
evidence" argument. If God exists, He is a fundamental feature, indeed
the fundamental feature, of the universe. Why then is His presence not
obvious? Why is atheism tenable as a philosophical position?

Most atheists, however usually spoil their case. As we can guess from
the tone of the "writing on the Moon" argument, they usually disbelieve
in God but add that for good measure certain Christian teachings are
wicked. The disfavoured teachings vary slightly from decade to decade,
but at the beginning of the twenty-first century usually focus on
sexuality. Abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex and divorce are all
held as necessary and legitimate choices, even if not always as
desirable. Organised religious activities are also seen as boring and a
waste of time. The institutional church is often held up to contempt.

These atheists frequently have some fairly definite ideas about the
type of society they want to see, and almost always the Church does not
feature on the list of favoured institutions. The last thing they want,
therefore, is this type of intervention from a divine being. God gives
us the freedom to come to our own conclusions. If we are going to
experiment with homosexual marriages, as is being currently proposed,
then so be it.

The primacy of human freedom has acquired an important place in
Christian apologetics, but it is important to note that the concept
does not appear in the Bible, nor in early tradition. In fact it is
only in unusual historical circumstances, such as in the first century
Roman Empire and in the twentieth century West, that it is possible for
someone to choose his religion. The peasant farmer cannot opt out of
the village harvest festival. The modern West is also unusual in that
there is no consensus amongst the ruling elite on religious matters.
Some are Christians, some are atheists, and there are religious and
secular Jews. Almost every other society has an established religion to
which every significant intellectual belongs. We mistake our current
situation for normality.

In the Middle Ages, Europe was Christian and the Catholic church had
largely unchallenged political power. However the result was not a
utopia. Despite the lack of technology, in many ways medieval life was
much better than life today. There were regular feast days providing
the pretext for a holiday, everyone got Sunday off, men drank several
pints of beer a day, there was no venereal disease, few single parent
families, everyone knew his neighbours. Most of this was attributable
to the church. There were few ideological disputes, but there were
still wars between nobles about personal affronts. Conduct was governed
by the laws of chivalry, but this didn't totally prevent atrocities.
The assumption in the "writing on the Moon" argument that being
governed by a wise and true religion will automatically remove human
deficiencies is not true. It merely removes one source of problems,
just as democracy removes the problems of unaccountable leadership, but
doesn't lead to a perfect political system.

There is a deeper sense in which freedom is necessary. Consider this
argument. "God is perfectly good and omnipotent. A prayer is only
worthwhile if it makes things better than before. However a perfectly
good and omnipotent being has already arranged things as well as
possible. Therefore prayer cannot improve things. Therefore prayer is
not worthwhile." Prayer could be replaced by any human activity, which
shows up the weakness of the argument. Zookeepers who look after
chimpanzees have found that if, instead of giving the animals their
food in a bowl, it is tied to trees and hidden in various locations
around the enclosure, welfare is improved. If action leads to no
consequences, there is no freedom, so a wise and loving creator
arranges things so that actions do have consequences. If you don't try
to obtain food, you will go hungry. If you don't pray, prayers won't be
answered.

Now let us imagine that Jesus, after the resurrection, had walked into
the Capitol in Rome and demanded that the Emperor worship Him as a god.
Certainly the Romans would have complied. However what would that have
proven? Only that if you are immune to capital punishment then you can
make whatever demands you want. It would just have been a rather
gentler version of the twelve legions of angels rejected in Gethsemane.

In the event Jesus was eventually worshipped by the Roman Emperor as a
god. However the change didn't come about through direct intervention
from God, but by three hundred years of steady evangelising efforts by
Christians. There were setbacks, internal disputes, and human failings.
Many Christians became martyrs, others were cowards; a lot would have
done hard unglamorous work for the church, such as putting up St Paul
for the night, others would have left this to other people. But
ultimately the church succeeded. Starting with twelve ordinary Jewish
men, Jesus brought the Roman Empire to its knees. Now every Christian
who was alive before the conversion of Constantine in 300AD contributed
in some way to that achievement, and can take justifiable pride.
Moreover, it was not brought about by military force, but by the
transparent superiority of Christian ethics over the Roman cults of
Venus and of Mars. Jesus won the moral as well as the practical
argument.

The "writing on the Moon" argument tends to assume that, if God just
reveals Himself, then all problems will be solved. However God must
reveal Himself as He is, not as He is not. The Israelites ate manna in
the wilderness, and then complained that it became boring. The apostles
had Jesus with them for a period of maybe three years, and saw many
signs and wonders. However Peter still denied his master, Judas still
betrayed Jesus. The presence of God, even in a very tangible way, does
not automatically override a human will, nor does it bring automatic
happiness. There is no reason to assume that dramatic miracles will
have any long-term effect on behaviour.

The Pope deals with the "writing on the Moon" argument in the book
"Crossing the Threshold of Hope" (In the section titled, "If God
exists, why is He hiding"). The Pope's argument is that God has
revealed too much, rather than too little, of Himself, because the
Christian revelation is of a man on the cross, and the human spirit
protests at such an extreme expression of love.

It is easy to see how this has happened. Imagine a father who works
twelve-hour shifts as a dustbin man so that his son can go to a private
school. When the son grows to adolescence, and is dressed in a smart
uniform, articulate, has many school friends from comfortable
middle-class backgrounds, and has ambitions to become a lawyer, is it
not likely that he will be ashamed of his father? He will forget that,
but for the work with the dustbins, he would have gone to the local
sink comprehensive and become a manual labourer himself.

Muslims reject the crucifixion. Islamic teaching is that Jesus, when He
said, "This is my body, which I give to you" gave His physical body to
Judas, to suffer the pains of crucifixion in His stead. It is also
quite common to hear Jews declare that they can never believe in a god
who comes down from heaven and is crucified. However for Christians it
is the central image of our faith. This is what God became incarnate to
do, not to rule in splendour but to bear the brunt of human hatred and
political machinations. The cross is a profound mystery, because as
well as the greatest evil it is also in some way the greatest good.
Jesus pronounces the words "It is accomplished", more meaningful in the
Latin "consummatus est", whilst still alive and suffering. The
disciples James and John ask for places on Jesus's right and left
hands, when He comes into His kingdom. Jesus replies that they do not
know what they are asking for, and the places have been allotted. At
the end of Mark's gospel, the mystery is revealed - the two places are
given to the two thieves. In John's gospel, three women are at the foot
of the cross, all called Mary, a virgin, a mother, and a *****. It is
obvious that this is an allusion to the triple goddess. It is equally
obvious that the evangelist is unaware of that fact. These are things
which are only hinted at, and it is likely that the full truth of what
the cross means is too much for humans to bear. The Pope's argument is
not some specious justification.

Why isn't God so obvious that He keeps popping up in scientific
equations? I suspect that this is an artefact of our current state of
knowledge. In earlier times there was no explanation for the motion of
the planets, nor for biology, so it was natural to attribute everything
to the creator. For instance it was thought that God personally opened
and closed every flower each day. Nowadays, though the mechanisms of
plant movement are exceedingly complex, we reject that kind of
explanation. We look for reasons associated with light sensitive cells
at the base of the petals instead. The modern sciences can be thought
of as a hierarchy of increasing levels of organisation, with physics at
the base, chemistry and biology in the middle, and the social sciences
at the top. We are very successful in explaining the middle, but the
very base and the very top are still shrouded in mystery. We have two
fundamental physical theories, relativity and quantum mechanics, that
have resisted unification. We don't have any theory of consciousness,
free will, or language. Most intriguingly, it seems that the
fundamental problems at the very top of the scientific ladder may be
connected with the theoretical difficulties at the base. Now
theologians are mainly concerned with the fundamentals of creation,
whether the universe has a beginning and an end, whether matter obeys
laws, and with the human condition, what it means to be a man. They are
not too interested with the middle, such as which particular chemical
bonds are more stable, or how insects manage to regulate their body
temperatures. In other words, the areas of science of theological
interest are precisely those areas which are least understood. This
does not prove that God exists, but it suggests that the absence of
theology from science may be a consequence of knowing the middle, but
not the extremes.

To answer the "writing on the Moon" argument we do not have to explain
everything that God does, and understand the reason for every action.
Ultimately we do not need to know why the twelve legions of angels were
rejected in favour of the cross, or why prayers are not always answered
with an unambiguous demonstration of God's presence. All we need to do
is to show that God's actions are reasonable, that there is some
plausible explanation for the failure of writing to appear on the Moon
other than that the writer does not exist.

Malcolm is posting on a thread on alt.atheism, I asked him if I could
post this excerpt from his book, here it is:

Twelve Common atheist arguments (refuted)

1) The "No Evidence" argument.

2) The "Writing on the Moon" argument.

3) The "Wicca" argument.

4) The "Deism" argument.

5) The "Jesus Myth" argument.

6) The "Mithraism" argument.

7) The "Babylon" argument.

8) The "Pauline Christianity" argument.

9) The "Evil Bible" argument.

10) The "Inquisition" argument.

11) The "Liberalism" argument.

12) The "Darwin" argument.


Hints on debating atheists.

It is not a scholarly work.

The book is offered in the hope that it will convert some atheists