Though we often note the radical disparity between secularism and Christianity, that doesn’t stop many of us from tacitly assuming that our secular interlocutors will at least recognize the plausibility of our rational arguments for the faith. But they frequently don’t. Why? Is it because they’re less rational than they fancy themselves to be? Are they just stubborn? Is it because they don’t want there to be a god?

Though each of these questions might shed some light on the situation, I don’t think they go to the heart of the matter. Furthermore, I think they often serve as a pretext for dismissing our secular friend’s outlook, and patting ourselves on the back for having given it our best shot. (Sadly, I’m speaking from experience here.) I think a better question is: What am I missing? Why am I not being heard?

Consider the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection. Despite its illustrious track record with skeptics, many non-believers simply dismiss it out of hand. Why? It turns out that there’s a brilliant thinker behind the scenes, and we need to make his acquaintance.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume devoted an entire section of his seminal essay, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, to the subject of miracles. Unabashed in his ambitions, Hume’s stated aim was to provide an “everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion,” and to mount an argument against miracles that would prove “useful as long as the world endures.”[1]

Since the world is still enduring, it may prove useful for us to re-examine Hume’s thesis regarding miracles: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.”[2] Let’s temporarily bracket the question of whether this sentence is accurate or fair, and pause to admire its rhetorical finesse. Who would want to defend anything that constitutes a “violation of the laws of nature”? Who would want to argue against scientific evidence? What kind of person makes a habit of attacking the testimony of “unalterable experience”? More significantly, what sane person would want to trespass beyond the bounds of reason?

The success of Hume’s project is announced every time a non-believer rejects any miraculous claim on principle. Though few of us have actually read Hume—let alone his famous chapter on miracles— nearly all of us have absorbed its basic attitude on the subject.[3] Consequently, many skeptics categorically reject the very possibility of a miracle. In such a scenario, no evidence—no matter how compelling—is going to persuade your opponent.

“With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travelers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men and uncouth manners?” Hume thinks most of us are like special agent Fox Mulder from The X –Files: we want to believe the unbelievable. Many non-believers (particularly those in academic circles) share this conviction, and it is through this lens that they will view your arguments. What this means is that, at best, your secular listener will believe you’re a clever but incorrigible conspiracy theorist. At worst, she’ll think you’re a naïve dupe hiding from reality by defending the cosmic equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster.

How do we overcome this impasse? It’s as simple as it is challenging: Acknowledge the impasse, and then describe it. Bring to light the fact that Christians and non-believers are looking through radically different lenses, that we don’t just disagree; we have different starting points. Next comes empathy. Both believer and non-believer need to temporarily exchange lenses. If the skeptic is right, and the “world is everything that is the case,” then no divine note can intrude in the secular symphony.[4] You might not agree, but it makes sense. God is too big to fit into such a world. Likewise, if the Christian God exists, His Lordship over creation shouldn’t strain credibility to the breaking point. You might disagree, but you can understand that such a world is crafted by God and is thus open to his hand.

“If” is a powerful word. It opens many doors. Here are two powerful conversation starters:

If there is no god…

If God exists…

Posted by Cameron McAllister; RZIM – June 20, 2016

_____________________

[1] David Hume, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever ed. Christopher Hitchens (Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press, 2007), 32.

[2] Ibid., 34.

[3] Christians are far from immune. How do you respond when a reliable person tells you about a miracle in his or her life?

[4] Famous opening line from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003), 7.

 

http://www.rzim.org/