They say that it is better not to argue about religion, like tastes and politics. However, oddly enough, in the twenty-first century it is the question of the existence of God that causes unusually heated discussions. According to statistics, more than 70% of the population of our country are Orthodox Christians. However, more and more often voices are heard in society of those who consider themselves “militant atheists.”
If they do not believe in the existence of the Lord, why do they like to argue about Him so much? Should believers get into these debates? It is very difficult for a believer to discuss with people who are convinced that there is no God.
Here are the words of priest Dmitry Berezin:
Both the existence of God and His absence are unprovable in principle within the limits of natural science, which atheists readily take advantage of. According to all the laws of logic, the Creator of the world “out of nothing” should not be an integral part of this world, and therefore should not obey the laws of this world, and therefore cannot be defined within the framework of natural science disciplines.
Therefore, the biggest mistake would be to attempt to influence atheistic consciousness by proving the existence of the Lord scientifically.
How can you talk about faith with non-believers? Many theologians have devoted their works to the study of this issue. In our article, we have collected advice from priests, scientists and publicists on how to act in order to sow the seeds of doubt in the soul of the average atheist.
Is it worth arguing
Opinion of priest Konstantin Parkhomenko:
Never knock down the ice: how to save trees from return frosts
The star of “The Last Hero” told how and with whom he spent the period of self-isolation
NASA has come up with “eternal” tires for bicycles. They do not need to be inflated with air.
The question here is this: if you feel the strength to conduct such a debate (although it’s better not to argue - it’s not productive, but to have a conversation), then you can talk about faith. If you feel your intellectual weakness and are afraid that you will not only not defend the faith, but also strengthen the positions of your opponents, or even embarrass yourself, it is better not to have such a debate.
In this case, the priest believes, it would not be shameful to humbly admit to a lack of awareness in matters of faith and advise turning to a priest or someone more competent.
What atheists believe
Atheists are people who deny the existence of the soul and any immaterial beings. Atheists not only do not believe in the existence of God, but are also convinced that all religions on Earth are of exclusively human origin. Atheists believe the following:
- mathematical methods and experiments will always be able to reveal the natural essence of mysterious phenomena;
- rationalism will be able to explain the “supernatural” from a logical point of view;
- man is a part of the natural world and thanks to reason he occupies a special place in it.
Currently, there are several prerequisites for the spread of atheism:
- people are not familiar with religion and its essence due to lack of interest in this topic;
- people believe that the presence or absence of faith does not in any way affect the course of life itself.
What arguments can you give?
In a dispute with atheists, according to priest Dmitry Berezin, the following arguments can be given:
1. Science still can’t explain everything. People who undertake to criticize the Bible treat it as if it were a textbook of physics, chemistry or biology. They cannot admit in any way that it is the Word of God to people, says the priest. It is easier for them to believe that, according to science, in the beginning there was an egg (or a point, or something undefined), the explosion of which led to the origin of galaxies, stars, etc. But they cannot believe that in the beginning of everything there was God Word. However, the priest reminds us, science today does not have answers to millions of questions. The sum of all human knowledge about the structure of the world is an insignificant grain of sand.
Eastern beauty: 4 spouses of Ravshana Kurkova, whom she sincerely loved
The mayor of Moscow spoke in his blog about the improvement of Krasnaya Presnya
A note for spicy food lovers: why mustard is harmful to health
2. Religion has nothing against science. These are simply two different approaches to explaining the phenomenon of the existence of the universe.
According to Galileo:
The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how it works.
The scientist noted that if the Holy Scriptures are interpreted literally, one can assume that the Lord has hands, emotions, etc.
The article “How to respond to the arguments of militant atheists...”, which the author, Father Dmitry Berezin, calls “an encyclopedic dictionary of a believer,” also provides arguments that will help defeat any militant atheist, peaceful atheist, and even complete blasphemer in a dispute.
3. The essence of faith is faith, there is no need to try to understand it.
4. The Bible should not be taken completely literally; it is a multifaceted source consisting of books from different periods.
“It’s really expensive”: Vasilisa Volodina announced the cost of an hour of her consultation
How to achieve a natural result when highlighting your hair: 5 best ways
They became beauty icons in Arab countries: the most popular bloggers of the East
5. Faith gives meaning to life and gives people comfort.
6. Christianity is the foundation of European culture.
7. Religion makes a person better.
8. Wars and troubles are the admonition that God sends us.
9. The Christian faith changed our civilization by turning animals into humans.
10. Different religions in today's multicultural society in Russia coexist peacefully and are ready for dialogue.
It must be said that the priest accompanied his arguments with a reservation:
Yes, we tried. And it would have worked if they could think logically.
Decoding God among atheists
How Hegel's disciples discovered that God was dead
Author Artemy Magun
In the 19th century, criticism of religion and the development of atheism were invariably associated with the development of the revolutionary movement and social rebellion. Christianity was the official religion, so speaking against it was the same as writing something against Lenin in the Soviet Union. That is, it was an insult to existing morals, undermining ideological foundations. Therefore, the political and religious lines went together here. But as the rebellion against the authoritarian structures of the state of that time grew - I said that it all started with the revolution - then, accordingly, more and more rebel philosophers arose who dared to say something against God, and even against those principles of goodness and beauty and compassion, on which this God, in general, was built.
Atheism as such was, in fact, prohibited. And we can truly talk about it as a mass phenomenon only in the 19th century, that is, relatively historically recently. In the 19th century, some especially revolutionary-minded people said that they did not believe in God. Actually, it started with the French Revolution. The very end of the 18th century, when radical revolutionaries already announced a campaign of de-Christianization. Criticism arose of the Christian religion as being contrary to democracy, common sense, and so on. Nevertheless, even the French revolutionaries believed that some form of religiosity was generally desirable.
Somewhere in the 1840s, the German intelligentsia, followers and students of Hegel used his dialectics to refute religion, in general the very principle of God. (At the same time, Hegel himself was a very Christian-oriented person; he really thought that he was developing Christian philosophy.) They were very atheist-minded. This is Bruno Bauer, and David Strauss, and Karl Marx, known to us all. The most famous atheistic theologian among them was Ludwig Feuerbach, also a follower of Hegel. A very interesting, strong philosopher who Marx attacked at one point, which is why people sometimes have a caricatured idea of him. But it's actually an important philosophy.
Feuerbach said two things. First, what we attribute to God is the quality of people, man, humanity. For example, we say: “God is threefold” or “God is love.” But love is a feeling that arises between people. The Trinity also comprehends the ability of people to communicate. But instead of people communicating more with each other, trusting others, they become isolated, alienated from each other and instead attribute these qualities to themselves. To whom? God.
That is, religion is the alienation of purely human properties. It is clear that in each of us these properties are indeed not fully developed. That is, we say: “God is good,” “God is love.” In us, these qualities, of course, are not fully developed; we remember that God is in some sense an ideal. From Feuerbach's point of view, there is an alienation between man and God. God is a figure of alienation. Human qualities, such as love, goodness, justice, happiness, are taken and attributed to God, and then a person, as it were, should not cultivate them. As a result, love is ascribed to God, and people quietly hate each other in bourgeois society and isolate themselves from each other; Kindness is ascribed to God, and in bourgeois society the principle of selfishness and purity reigns. But at the same time they pray to God. The agency of God works in such an alienating way.
Accordingly, there is still a very important point about what God is. Firstly, he does not exist as a subject, as a personal figure. And what we call God is actually a quality of a person. Note, not the man himself. Sometimes Feuerbach is misunderstood: they say that God is actually a person. No, not a person, but a quality of a person. In logical terms, the quality of God is the quality of man, and, accordingly, God himself is a quality. God is a predicate, not a subject. Predicate, not subject. And we mistakenly attribute to predicates that actually go beyond the person as such, the properties of that particular person. The qualities of a person are superior to him. They contain ideality, the desire for perfection, for something exceptional. This is true. This is a characteristic feature of people, of humanity. But this does not mean that there is some God behind these predicates. No one is behind them. This is actually a very complex and interesting theory that anticipates many things already in the twentieth century.
Another later follower of, in general, the same Young Hegelian school that criticized Christianity in the 1840s is the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He lived later and worked in the 1870s and 80s. But I repeat, ideologically he is close to this mentioned school.
You probably know about Nietzsche. At the very least, you have heard that “God is dead.” And not only “God died,” but “We killed him.” Nietzsche really says this phrase, and he says a lot of unpleasant things about Christianity. He calls it, in particular, Platonism for the people, that is, he criticizes it both for Platonizing idealism, moralism, and for plebeianism, which he sees there precisely in conversations about pity, mercy and the importance of compassion for the weak. Nietzsche doesn't like all this. But what does “God is dead” mean? This does not mean that religion was a mistake and we are now moving to atheism. Perhaps Nietzsche would agree that we need to move on to something else, but that is not the point. The point is that in our culture, and even religion, God is present, but present as a dead one. God is written into all our institutions. I have already said that without God it is difficult to imagine modern science, modern politics, or at least political theory. Not to mention morality, which at the time of the 19th century remained quite strict and ascetic. All this exists, and it is as if God also exists. But God has ceased to be a fact of living faith, says Nietzsche. God is dead in the sense that he is just a reference, a figure. Few people will really communicate with God, pray to him as a really existing individual. God has lost this living reality of his in a world that is too carried away by secular life, economics, and politics.
He died in the sense that structurally he is, he should be, but he smacks of death. Like another contemporary of Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, suddenly the body of a saint begins to stink. Dostoevsky, however, still retains his faith, but Nietzsche does not. Accordingly, Nietzsche’s contemporary situation is bureaucracy, the cult of profit and cleanliness, money, which becomes such an ersatz God. These are precisely the institutions of a dead God. True, Nietzsche believes that the time bomb - a dead God - was embedded in Christianity itself, since in Christianity, as you know, God also dies, but not completely, then he is resurrected. But nevertheless, the idea of the death of God is there. Therefore, his lyrical hero asks what these churches around me are if not the tombstone of God. That is, Christianity has already buried God, he just still functioned for some time, and now we have post-post-Christianity, in which the death of Christ has already occurred absolutely and irrevocably. Bureaucracy reigns, and, by the way, crying also reigns. A person who has lost God, even if he never existed before, still worries, and modernity is under the yoke of very, very serious depression, melancholy, negativity, injected into it by Christianity.
Of course, Nietzsche has very strong arguments. And they were very popular in the twentieth century as well. But partly one can object to him. We remember that God in Christianity is not just an authority. And this is not just a statement of death, of course. Death is only a moment. God here is not a thing, Feuerbach is right here, but he is a kind of dynamic structure, I would say, a certain rhythm that is transmitted to all parts of the world. What if we think of God as an event of divinity, as a throw into existence, into the universe, like the Big Bang. Only the Big Bang is a physical concept, but here we are talking about a metaphysical idea. Christianity would probably respond to the reproaches of Feuerbach and Nietzsche in this way. Moreover, this is a rhythm that includes both the triumph of life, energy, and the triumph of death and weakness, defeat.
In Christianity there is that common sense idea that if we constantly fill ourselves or others with energy, then it is not very clear why this is done if it already exists. But in fact there is some attitude, some rhythm. Energy is thrown in, then dissipates, cools, and we feel emptiness. In God there is negativity, as philosophers say, that is, the moment of overcoming oneself, the moment of transcendence - going beyond one’s own limits, the moment of even destruction. Nietzsche sees this correctly, but there is nothing wrong with it. This is just a sound idea in theology. It must be said that many theologians, starting from the late Middle Ages and right up to the 19th century, noticed this. We noticed that in reality, if we think about God, then he is not only the first principle and the highest good, but in God there is also this prime meridian, a take-off point that should be no one’s, no one’s. Exclusion zone. Alienation in this case is already in a good sense. A mystic like Meister Eckhart, a German medieval theologian, said that God, in essence - at least the divinity in God - is nothing, emptiness. God is not reduced to nothing. God then relies on this nothingness and creates. But it has this underlying basis. And much later, already in modern times, in the 19th century, Friedrich Schelling, the famous German idealist and friend of Hegel, came to the same conclusions. Schelling argues that in God there is a so-called ground. This foundation is unrealized, suspended, an essence that precedes all being, without which there would be no freedom in God and there would be no freedom in the world. This is some absolute possibility. And Schelling in this rationalistic age needs such a God, a God of potentiality, a God of freedom.
So how can believers argue with atheists?
Anyone interested in this question should familiarize themselves with the work of a modern theologian, Doctor of Philosophy, Yuri Chernomorets. His article is called “Public Dispute with Atheists: Main Aspects of Theory and Practice.” It is a printed version of the training recently conducted by Yu. Chernomorets in Kyiv. Every believer can use the scientist’s tips in his own conversations with non-believing colleagues, relatives, friends, and so on).
According to the scientist, a Christian who is ready to enter into a discussion should be primarily interested in the interlocutor, even if he is an atheist. In order to convince him, it is necessary to understand what positions he adheres to on the issue under discussion. It is necessary to study the worldview of each type in order to understand how to build public communication with them. The choice of style of arguing with him depends on the type of opponent.
We remove all things from the car: safe methods of parking with protection against burglary
A cup of coffee, a walk to work: changes in daily routine reduce the risk of dementia
You can also have sweets: a nutritionist said that it’s not harmful to eat sweets in the morning
About types of atheists
According to the author of the article, today there are three of them:
1. The post-Soviet atheist philosopher was brought up on Marx, knows Hegel very well and has absorbed Soviet philosophical culture.
2. Atheist-postmodernist. This is how the author defines this type:
Postmodernism denies all truth and the possibility of truth in general. Postmodernists reject Christianity on the same grounds on which they reject modernism with its scientific rationalism. Christians and modernists believe in truth. Postmodernists - no. What will be more tolerant of Christianity—modernism or postmodernism—remains a mystery.
Such people can be found among cultural scientists, writes the philosopher. Disputing with them requires a special strategy.
3. Atheist scientist. Such, in the author’s opinion, are found at every step among the so-called “techies” - biologists, physicists, etc., whose attitudes partially overlap with the worldview of the first two types. Arguing with them is especially difficult because they lack a clear philosophical position.
How to debate
According to the author of the article, in a dispute with a post-Soviet atheistic philosopher, the minimum program would be to achieve recognition that belief in God has a right to exist. The author says the following about a conversation with a postmodernist type:
Our job is to testify that Christianity knows all the so-called truths of postmodernism about man and his situation, but nevertheless insists on the existence of God, on the existence of absolute norms of good and evil, justice and injustice, beauty and ugliness, grace and “charm.” Christianity knows that all this exists, despite the fact that the world and man are completely mired in evil, and it seems that they are hopelessly mired...
Arguing with an atheist scientist is the hardest thing to do. Indeed, according to his scientific worldview, true knowledge is that which is confirmed experimentally.
We can testify to scientists about our sense of the beauty of the world, about our understanding of the non-randomness of this beauty. And we can testify that the world is beautiful, no matter what. The only thing that is vile in the world and that should not exist is human sins. The only thing that disfigures the beauty of the world is human crimes.
History of atheism
The term “atheism” appeared in France in the 16th century, but its ideas began to emerge during the times of Ancient Sumer, Antiquity and Ancient Egypt. Around 2100 BC in Ancient Egypt, the “Harper's Song” was composed, which criticizes the religious view of the world. She questions the existence of the afterlife and encourages people to value earthly life.
Diagoras was known not only as a poet, but also as the “first atheist” in Ancient Greece, criticizing religion and mysticism. Another ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus disputed life after death, and the Roman poet Lucretius believed that if gods exist, then they are indifferent to people and their lives.
The most famous critics of the Renaissance were Leonardo da Vinci and Machiavelli. Leonardo believed that it is not “divine revelation”, but experience and experiment that are the source of knowledge. That it is not religion that unveils the secrets of nature, but scientific research. For him, the life process is a continuous natural alternation of birth and death.
Karl Marx tried to scientifically substantiate atheism, therefore he wrote that “the origin of religion is the result of man’s dependence on the elemental forces of nature and the impossibility of changing it.”
Karl Marx tried to explain atheism from a scientific point of view
In the 20th century, atheism gained great popularity in many countries, and especially in the USSR, where it was actively supported by the state. The USSR was not limited to propaganda alone: in the 1920s and 1930s there were mass arrests and criminal prosecution of the clergy.
Currently, in “Western civilization” there is a decline in interest in religion: people are visiting temples and performing religious rituals less and less. Sociologist Robert Inglehart is sure that the richer a country becomes, the faster its inhabitants abandon their faith and vice versa. In the book “The Sudden Decline of Religion: Why It Happened and What Happens Next?” he argues that while people live poorly, they pray and believe, but as soon as wealth appears, they believe that this is only their merit, and not God’s.
