Christians and Atheists Seeking the Same Thing?
Evangelical author Skye Jethani makes the insightful observation that some so-called Christians and some atheists have quite a bit in common when it comes to control. While some atheists (like Hitchens and Dawkins) want control without God, some evangelicals want control over God. He writes:
“The great irony is that while claiming submission to God, those advocating a life under God are actually seeking control over him through their religiosity. Pray X, sacrifice Y, avoid Z, and God’s blessings are guaranteed. They have reduced God to a predictable, controllable, even contemptible formula. Some evangelicals condemn the atheists for exalting themselves over God without realizing they are guilty of the same sin by other means.”
Tozer said the most important thought you have is the thought you have when you hear the word “God.” Indeed, many people are worshiping or rejecting a God of their own making. They have false notions of the one true God–He’s either a finite, moral monster who needs a cause (Dawkins and Hitchens) or a cosmic candyman who owes us if we behave a certain way (the “Word of Faith” believer). They set up a straw God and then easily knock him over or loose their faith when he falls down and doesn’t come through. That’s why I often ask people who don’t believe in God, or who are disappointed with God, “What kind of God don’t you believe in?” After they describe their God, the response is often, “I don’t believe in that God either.”
Jethani’s entire article is worth the read here.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Ha!
I read this article over the weekend and almost sent it to you.
Now I don’t know why I didn’t.
Sadly, though, this attitude is something I hear a lot on AFR, from both hosts and callers.
Luke
April 28th, 2010 at 10:05 am
“While some atheists (like Hitchens and Dawkins) want control without God”
Who are they trying to control? I always got the impression they were pro-freedom, no control. Dawkins has always said that if he could stop people worshipping, and get rid of churches, that he wouldn’t.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I don’t mean to sound like I am judging to harshly in my comment above. I was just trying to point out that this attitude is very prevalent.
You know the saying about atheists in Foxholes. I wonder how many of those non-atheists believe in that kind of god?
“G-d if you save me, I promise I will do… and never… again.”
April 28th, 2010 at 10:49 am
This definitely shows the danger of “creating God in the image of man” for both the non-Christian and Christian.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Nathan,
I think the control issue, certainly for Hitchens, is self-autonomy (just read his last chapter. He refuses to live under this “divine tyranny.”)
As C.S. Lewis put it, In the end there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who say to God, “Thy will be done.” and those to whom God says, “Thy will be done.” The first stays with God, the second is separated from Him.
Blessings,
Frank
April 28th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Thanks for clarifying Frank.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Dr. Turek,
It’s an interesting topic — that of the true G-d and those gods in which many people believe.
I feel like we already have an interesting discussion in the thread below, and there are a few questions out there for both you and John, so I hesitate to jump into it too much at this point. I know none of us have all that much time.
Thanks,
Luke
April 28th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
One problem is that god’s impossible to define. So anything you say about god is arguably restricting his definition and therefore “inaccurate” or “false.”
I tend to disregard anyone anyone who is *absolutely certain* (or even close) that they understand what god is or what his intentions are, if in fact he does exist.
April 29th, 2010 at 2:03 am
//I tend to disregard anyone anyone who is *absolutely certain* (or even close) that they understand what god is or what his intentions are, if in fact he does exist.//
That statement makes sense in the context of who you are - one who is agnostic about the existence of God - but, to one who knows He is real, it sounds very narrow. Can you disassociate yourself enough to see that? Please take this seriously as I (you know, “Mark”) am, after all, a former member of “the thinking set” who denied God and as such I -100%- understand where you are coming from. My question is: are you capable of imagining that He does exist? If so, given the conventions of Christianity (or any belief system with a set of rules), does it not naturally follow that its adherents would be certain as to whom God is? And of what are His intentions?
It says right there in the Bible who God is and what He intends for us. Regardless the veracity of the Book, how could one be an actual “Christian” w/o following His word?
It’s like you are saying, “Unless you have the same doubts as I, a non-believer, I can’t take you seriously.” Just looking for something to agree on. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s not unusual or insulting for party’s so diametrically opposed to think the other a bit daft -is it? I still think you’re nuts, just consistently so, I am merely asking that you allow me the same consideration. We both “know” something the other doesn’t “know” so how can either one of us “disregard anyone” that “knows” something we’re not privy to or are unable to comprehend?
Try this: If you knew what I know, you would be a believer -yes? Or do you know it and reject it because you, Tim, CAN’T see the same information in the same way a Christian does? Just as, if I knew what you know I would see things your way -right? Or am I capable of knowing/already know it and CAN’T see it like you do?
Sorry if this is boring, it just fascinates me that relatively equal I.Q.s can take similar data and come up w/ totally opposing views - on virtually every single issue. Isn’t that amazing? And (sometimes) people go from one camp to another! Maybe those are the ones to study. But then, I believe in absolute truth and will always say those who agree w/ me have found/are finding it.
How do you see it? Are you really completely opposed to the notion of absolute truth? Even your own?
April 29th, 2010 at 4:36 am
“He refuses to live under this “divine tyranny”
So effectively when you say ‘wants control’, you mean ‘rejects slavery’. In the same way one could describe a black man in 1820 as ‘wanting control’ in that he didn’t want to be made a slave. That’s not the meaning most people attach to ‘wants control’. You’re free to disagree that God = divine tyranny, but that doesn’t effect the context of ‘wanting control’.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:56 am
Nathan,
In addition to the time factor, this is one reason why I rarely engage in dialog with you and many other atheists here anymore. I quote a Christian author who makes a valid point about some on both sides wanting control, and instead of acknowledging the point has merit (which it clearly does), you want to split hairs on the definition of “wanting control.”
Hitchens is basically mad that he’s not God…. that he doesn’t get to make the rules. Even atheist Thomas Nagel admits that the “new atheists” have a “cosmic authority problem.” Nagel is right as anyone can see if they read Hitchens. I sent you a signed copy of Hitchens book. Did you NOT read that one too?
April 29th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Yes, I read Hitchen’s book. I did not get from it at all that he was mad at not being God. While I guess people can interpret different things from the same book, I really didn’t see anything like that in ‘God is not Great’.
I don’t think I was splitting hairs. To me ‘wanting control’ doesn’t sum up the position of Dawkins or Hitchens.
Frank, I’m sorry that you are insulted, or perhaps just disappointed, that you feel I didn’t give your book a decent crack of the whip. I promise you I did, and I explained before why ultimately there were just too many parts I had serious problems with.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
One thing I forgot to mention when I first read this post was that I actually agreed with part of it:
“The great irony is that while claiming submission to God, those advocating a life under God are actually seeking control over him through their religiosity. Pray X, sacrifice Y, avoid Z, and God’s blessings are guaranteed. They have reduced God to a predictable, controllable, even contemptible formula. Some evangelicals condemn the atheists for exalting themselves over God without realizing they are guilty of the same sin by other means.”
I always thought it was odd and contradictory of people to say, on one hand, that “god works in mysterious ways,” implying that we can’t know how he will act or react, and then on the other hand, state that “if you do X then Y will be guaranteed” (just watch Pat Robertson when he’s asking for donations, and you’ll see what I mean). I’ve opposed the so-called ‘Prosperity Gospel’ on similar grounds (but also other reasons). I just wanted to give kudos to Mr. Frank and to Mr. Jethani for acknowledging this problem.
However, I also want to say this:
While some atheists (like Hitchens and Dawkins) want control without God
I think it’s a bit inaccurate to portray Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Dawkins as though the *sole reason* (or even just a major reason) they disbelieve is because they want control in the sense that god supposedly controls the universe. I think it would take a megalomaniac of far more epic proportions than any of the “New Atheists” (or even most religious folks) are capable of, to say that they would actually desire control over the universe to the extent that god supposedly does.
Can’t speak on their behalf, but as far as I go….control over my own life (i.e. responsibility for my own moral decisions, etc. etc.) is more like a by-product of my disbelief than it is a motivation for not believing. It would be dishonest (and irrational) to believe something because it would be beneficial for that thing to be true, because believing it does not make it true (and not believing it doesn’t make it false).
*on a side note….I think people confuse whether or not a person believes something with a desire to believe or not believe. I believe a lot of things I’d rather not. I believe that people are murdered every day, I believe that someone stole Strung Out’s tour van with hundreds (probably thousands) of dollars’ worth of equipment inside, I believe that the sky is blue. But I don’t *want* to believe any of those things. It’d be better for all our sakes if they weren’t.
[/ramble]
May 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
“That’s why I often ask people who don’t believe in God, or who are disappointed with God, “What kind of God don’t you believe in?” After they describe their God, the response is often, “I don’t believe in that God either.”’
doesn’t this and the innumerable denominations of christianity (and other religions) point toward a kind of “christian/religious relativism”? seeing how not all of these religions can be right, doesn’t that edge towards all of them being wrong?
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
//doesn’t this and the innumerable denominations of christianity (and other religions) point toward a kind of “christian/religious relativism”? seeing how not all of these religions can be right, doesn’t that edge towards all of them being wrong?//
Yeah, cause we all know that people who really seek truth are monolithic. Just like scientists. And liberal democratics. It’s not about getting it supposedly right after all, it’s about consensus. Because, as any leftist can tell you, “You can fool all of the people some of the time - so let’s focus on getting that up to the “all of the time” quotient.”
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:13 am
Hitchens, whether or not he is mad at not being God, spends most sentences of his book literally calling Christians idiots. He uses the same recycled arguments as every atheist before and after him, but does so in a way that empowers the average weak-minded sheep of the modern day to be a part of a culture of hostility towards any spiritual belief. He assumes the authority to do so, simply because he’s “seen things” as a journalist. Whether or not it’s presumptuous for Frank to make that particular statement about Hitchens, it is not at all hard for anyone to see that Hitchens is very eager to close the book on God forever. That’s his whole bag. He uses the same arguments as every atheist before him but reframes them in a way that allows this generation’s intellectual sheep to go to graze in his pasture. He wants his 15 minutes of fame to last for all times. Because being at the right place at the right time only lasts about 15 minutes, but he wants to make sure to get into the generation-cultivating business as well, because journalists, like my fellow musicians, have no sense of shame. your ‘evidence’ for this is provided whenever you turn on the TV and see a stuttering, drunk man being interviewed by John Stewart, who urges his audience to hold on to the man’s every laboriously formed word. The man is just as bad at speaking as Bush, but let’s respect him because he goes to bat for us hip modern religiously confused young people who are demonstrably as susceptible to crap as the previous generation.
August 8th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“They have reduced God to a predictable, controllable, even contemptible formula. Some evangelicals condemn the atheists for exalting themselves over God without realizing they are guilty of the same sin by other means.”
That’s exactly right. God is eternal and with no limits and no one should think they have power over Him. We are to fully trust Him, because He has the full outlook in mind, and everything will ultimately work out for good… even though we don’t see it that way from our limited point of view.
God has shown ample evidence so as not to override our free-will of His existence. By noting the impact of the resurrection causing the growth of the church, there is no real reasonable reason to doubting Christ’s reliability. There are many false people claiming the name of Christ for their own gain, and we need to learn to identify between those who claim to be Christ followers vs. Christ Himself. People use the Truth of a claim for their own benefits many times… and many people use the solid foundation, impact, and influence of Christ to advance their agenda. That’s why we need to carefully examine things, and check our hearts before we jump into conclusions.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:23 am
(I’ve been a christian my whole life and am at this website because I have a lot of questions, so don’t think I’m just an atheist trying to talk trash)
One thing that has driven me away from the concept of god is something similar to this post, about people controlling god. It seems to me that people DO control god and change the idea of him over time. If you look at ancient tribes, even tribes today, in north and south america you can see that their entire lives were based in nature. Every day was a struggle against the elements and the animals they hunted were the greatest concern, as evidenced by some entire nations being nomadic. It is easy to see why the important things in their lives were their gods. Many of the religious systems of these peoples were based on a god for this animal, a god for that river, a god for the weather, and so on. These gods would take care of us if we took care of them.
As technology and agriculture, along with civilization, progressed, gods shifted into beings that needed to be pleased by humans so that we could have things like rain for our crops. This is when the sacrificing all began. These gods needed to be appeased with blood to give us rain.
It just really seems to me that god is pictured as whatever is needed at the time, or whatever stimulates a need for a god.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
^That’s….actually very interesting. I might twist that a little and ask, “does god ‘evolve?’”
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I know that it also seems that a monotheistic god fits into todays society because we are not nearly as based on communities any more and we live in small nuclear(i know i spelled it wrong) families were a personal god fits right in our pockets like an id card. That is why the two main religions in the world are monotheistic, because having a cast of gods just seems silly nowadays.