The Argument from reasonable Non-Belief (ANB)

= = = Intro = = = The ANB presented will narrow the focus of the argument to Christianity exclusively, & will therefore expand the term "Non-Belief" to all positions which do not accept the truth of Christianity. My argument will also only consider "reasonable non-belief"- sincere, rational belief in any other worldview. Now this argument only applies to particular Christians, therefore theological views similar to that of John Hick (1) or Thomas Talbot (2) will find themselves less immune to such an argument, but as Vardas does in fact believe in Hell (3), the argument will most definitively apply to him. That being dealt with, the first thing to establish is the very nature of the Christian God. According to the Bible, the Christian God is omnipotent (Matt 19:26), omniscient (1 John 3:20) and omnibenevolent (Psalms 18:30). He is the Personal Creator of the Universe (Genesis 1) " Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) (4) These relevant points actually lead us to the first premise of the argument. Presented formally, the argument looks like this: P1 - If the Christian God exists, we have good reason to think reasonable non-belief in Christianity does not exist. P2 - Reasonable non-belief in Christianity does exist C - Therefore, we have good reason to think the Christian God does not exist. = = = Defending P1= = = a) Knowing the Christian God - Assuming that a necessary (but not sufficient condition) for salvation is developing a loving relationship with the Christian God is the first basis for defending P1. Now clearly, reasonable non-belief not only contradicts this, but, in many cases prevents such a relationship from taking place. Now, quite clearly, we can only love, respect & worship that which we think exists. All different avenues of reasonable non-belief prevent such a relationship, thereby inhibiting us from our real goal - a loving relationship with the Christian God. Now clearly, if the Christian God exists as defined, He wants a loving relationship with us, & threats to that relationship are threats to our own salvation, & as 1 Timothy 2:4 states, as He wants us all to be saved, then threats to this salvation seem contradictory to His desires. Thus, we have good reason to think that if the Christian God exists, then He desires that we have a relationship with Him, & things which prohibit this desire, such as reasonable non-belief in Christianity would not exist. b) The Consequences of belief - Again, if these beliefs are a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation, then the consequences of making a wrong decision will be one of eternal significance, with either maximal good or infinite suffering. Now again the line from 1 Timothy 2:4 is relevant here, as is James 5:11, "that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." Again, reasonable non-belief plays havoc here. If the Christian God sincerely wants us all to be saved (enunciated above), then humans who have inculpably been lead astray by reasonable non-belief will endure an unimaginable penalty. The Christian God, as stated, desires us all to be saved, and the existence of reasonable non-belief contradicts this so severely as before. Therefore, we have reason to affirm that if the Christian God exists, reasonable belief does not exist. c) Some more reasons - Also, the fact that some already claim to have "properly basic" knowledge of the Christian God, while others do not seems to suggest that the Christian God is not only capable of providing such feats, but actively does so in many cases. Lastly, if there is no reasonable non-belief, then we become more responsible for our own salvation. It is my contention that rather than the elimination of reasonable non-belief impinging upon free-will, such action would provide us with more responsibility, enable us to enter a relationship with the Christian God and avoid all the problems mentioned above. So yet again, it is clear that if the Christian God exists, then reasonable non-belief is contrary to many of His desires (specifically outlined in the Bible), and due to His nature, we have good reason to affirm P1 - that if the Christian God exists, we have good reason to think reasonable non-belief in Christianity does not exist = = = Defending P2 = = = a) Reasonableness - Both vardas & I seem to agree that the existence of reasonable non-belief is prima facie plausible and that it certainly can't be ruled out (5) , lessening my task for establishing P2. Now clearly, there are many individuals who come to disbelieve in Christianity based largely on rational grounds, people who were emotionally committed to Christianity, but were unable to sustain a belief for a variety of intellectually grounded factors. This includes people like Bart Ehrman &John Loftus, & as Christian Daniel Howard Snyder writes, " Even though some nonbelievers lack true benevolence, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that others possess it since they really do earnestly seek the truth about God, love the Good, assess the evidence judiciously, and, if anything, display a prejudice for God, not against Him." (6). Thus, we have one of many admission from Christians that reasonable non-belief does in fact exist. b) Diversity - More support for P2 actually comes from religious diversity. Members of Islam, Judaism and many other religions display a willingness to serve a God. Clearly, the fact that this is so again demonstrates beyond all doubt that non-belief in Christianity can stem not from a stubbornness of the will, but a genuinely sincere difference in what one believes is true. But let's take this one step further. Christians such as William Lane Craig actually use their own personal experience with Jesus Christ as the single biggest factor in their faith. If other religious people (as I'm sure they do) believe just as fervently that their own religious experience validates their beliefs, aren't they just as reasonable to conclude that their faith is right? It seems to me that the only way to assert otherwise is to argue against the virtue of personal experience as a reason for Christian belief - which no Christian really wants to do. Again, in the absence of a defeater, we see good grounds for concluding that reasonable non-belief in Christianity exists. c) Ignorance - Likewise, a strong reason for not believing in Christianity would be one of ignorance. All peoples who predate Christ, most of His contemporaries and much of the world hereafter are surely rational to lack belief in something they have never heard of. This seems undeniable, yet even this point alone is enough to establish P2. Also, a point related to that above is that people are simply unsure of what is true. How is one to KNOW, for instance that Christianity, and not Islam is the true religion? Both offer various claims and do so as the Word of God, promising Hell to all unbelievers. Another type of ignorance is that of many atheists and agnostics in the world who have never had a religious experience. If Christianity asserts an ability to personally experience God (which it does), then surely I am rational to disbelieve if no such experiences are forthcoming. Millions of people around the world (including myself) seem to be lacking such an ability, and are at least rational to suspend Christian belief on such a basis. Thus, Schellenberg concludes (7): " Given these different forms of support, it would take something like wilful blindness to fail to affirm that not all nonbelief is the product of wilful blindness (even if some of it is)." = = = Sources = = = (1) http://en.wikipedia.org..., (2), ibid, Thomas Talbott (3) (5) http://www.debate.org... (4) http://www.biblegateway.com... (6) (7) http://en.wikipedia.org...