There is nothing new under the sun. This is especially true, when it comes to arguments for and against the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument was “pioneered” in the last few decades by Dr. William Craig; however, the argument itself goes all the way back to medieval academics. The Transcendental Argument was popularized by Dr. Greg Bahnsen in his debate with Gordon Stein, but the problem for atheists posed by the Transcendental Argument goes all the way back to Greek philosophers.
So, of course, a new vision for apologetics on a satirical website won’t really be new, and if it were, you should flee because it’s probably heresy. Rather, it is looking back in history, or through the nooks and crannies of theological thought for “new” lanes for apologetic arguments.
Ordinarily, I like to stick to satire, however of late I have had two thoughts that I think are worth sharing. Think of them more as thought experiments, because obviously this will not be written at an academical level, rather a theology student thinking aloud.
I have two thought experiments to run.
So, here it goes.
A “New” Argument for Theism
The history of western theological thought for the last two thousand years could be viewed simply as a pendulum swing between Gnosticism and Materialism. Put succinctly, and perhaps over simplistically, Gnosticism is the belief that the spiritual or immaterial world is all there is, whereas materialism is the belief that the physical or material world is all there is. With the exception of what I will call “classical theism” which incorporates Judaism, Christianity and Islam, every major body of thought (at least since the advent of Christ) is either materialistic or gnostic.
New Spirituality, Hinduism and more broadly speaking pantheistic worldviews deny that the physical world is real and posit that the material world around us is some sort of an allusion. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Secularism, Marxism, and Postmodernism deny that the spiritual or immaterial world exists.
So, the question becomes, does either Gnosticism or materialism account for the world as it actually is? Could it be that the reality in which we live is both spiritual and physical, material and immaterial? For example, take the human mind. A materialist is forced to say that the biological function of the brain is all that there is, denying immaterial things such as thought. On the other hand, Gnostics must deny the existence of the biological reality of a brain and focus only on the immaterial thoughts. But the world in which we live has both material brains and immaterial thoughts.
By contrast, theism provides an account of the world in which both exist. An argument then might look something like this:
Premise 1: The world is not comprised of only the physical and the material.
Premise 2: The world is not comprised of only the spiritual and immaterial.
Conclusion: Therefore, the world has both a physical and spiritual component, a material and immaterial component.
A New Way of Looking at History
If one takes the time to read ancient through medieval history, you will find that the vast majority of historians from those periods had a “supernatural” understanding of history. Tales of gods coming to earth and meddling in human affairs, and stories of magical swords are replete throughout ancient and medieval “historical” works. Pre enlightenment, there would have been no quotation marks around the word history or historical. Supernatural intervention was simply the lense through which the medieval and ancients looked at the world.
Since the enlightenment though, everybody from secular scholars to Christian academics largely think that many of these documents have their root in real history, but accounts of magic and the supernatural can be safely disregarded. So, for example, when the account of the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 AD says that a priest miraculously put King Æthelstan’s broken sword back together, everybody immediately assumes that it is a fictious part of the record. The basic details of the battle are right, but obviously a miracle performing priest wasn’t part of the story.
But why?
Atheists read the Bible the same way that Christians read every other “fantastical” historical document. Functionally, our epistemological approach to history is identical to our secular friends. It is only when we come to the Bible that we have an epistemological change of heart and allow miracles and supernatural intervention to occur. Is it any wonder that atheists accuse us of special pleading?
So, as a thought experiment what if Christians read all of history the same way that we read the Bible? What if we understood the tales of the old pagan pantheons to be a record of demonic intervention in history? Theologically, this fits into the category of the Divine Council. The Divine Council refers the idea that there is a “heavenly host” that assists God in the administration of the universe. Obviously, following the fall of Lucifer, some angels became demons and no longer worked with God, but rather worked against him.
For a brief overview of the Divine Council in scripture see https://www.gotquestions.org/divine-council.html.
If we took the Divine Council seriously, might we have a better response to our secular friends and colleagues. We could simply say that we have a totally different epistemological approach to history than they do.
A Thought on the Last Few Decades of Apologetics
Christian apologetics and counter apologetics have largely been standard for the last few decades. By and large, you can predict what arguments an apologist is going to use, and what an atheist will say in response. If you’re listening to an apologetics podcast or lecture, it is more likely than not that whoever you are listening to is drawing from the work of C.S. Lewis, Dr. Gary Habermas or Dr. William Lane Craig. And there is nothing wrong with that, each of the above are brilliant men and brilliant apologists. That being said, it might be worth looking back through history for an argument or two that might surprise an atheist. I’m certainly not claiming I’ve successfully done that here, just some food for thought.