There is not much to be said about DeStefano himself, he is the author of several books that dwell in spiritual topics from a Christian perspective. Nothing too unusual right? Well have a look at this gem. Well let's get started!
The first part of the article talks about the growing popularity of atheism in the United States, along with the decrease in the general Christian population. So far so good, I have no reason to argue with any of that. My reaction: "So what?". The author then jumps right into his tirade by making this observation:
Of course, it’s not quite fair to say that atheists believe in nothing. They do believe in something — the philosophical theory known as Materialism, which states that the only thing that exists is matter; that all substances and all phenomena in the universe are purely physical.I wont be too critical of this statement, because most atheists are materialists. I would be interested in hearing a non-materialist atheist present their case against materialism, but such individuals come too few and far between. However his next statement is where he really gets sloppy:
The problem is that this really isn’t a theory at all. It’s a superstition; a myth that basically says that everything in life — our thoughts, our emotions, our hopes, our ambitions, our passions, our memories, our philosophies, our politics, our beliefs in God and salvation and damnation — that all of this is merely the result of biochemical reactions and the movement of molecules in our brain.Here it seems as if he is advocating some form of dualism where thoughts, emotions, hopes, ambitions, etc... do not originate from the brain. This is pretty much is in conflict the standard understanding of how the brain works, and it really (at most) takes a 101 level of psychology to understand this. Although he provides us with an oversimplified understanding of brain activity, what he is getting at is easily understood. But aside from that, I am curious as to where he thinks things like emotions come from. He outright calls materialism a myth but gives no proper argument as to why this is the case. Anthony then continues:
I am not sure if DeStefano understands this, but the whole of "reality" IS reduced to what our senses tell us. That's the only way we can perceive anything at all! Notice how I quoted the word reality; I understand that our senses are not always seemingly accurate (they could be dead off), but it's the best we have. Why not just say DeStefano is wrong because our senses are notorious for lying to us, so any seemingly good argument he puts forth is an inaccurate interpretation of reality? Because that would be foolish. Just like his various analogies he puts forth. Let me tackle them all at once: Our senses corrected themselves in all of these instances. Our perception of the Earth being flat from our Earthbound point of view was corrected by our senses themselves in other ways. Yes, it's still possible we live in the Matrix, or that our senses are just completely off, however it's the best we have to use. So let's use them wisely.
What nonsense.We can't reduce the whole of reality to what our senses tell us for the simple reason that our senses are notorious for lying to us. Our senses tell us that the world is flat, and yet it's not. Our senses tell us that the world is chaotic, and yet we know that on both a micro and a macro level, it's incredibly organized. Our senses tell us that we're stationary, and yet we're really moving at incredible speeds. We just can't see it.
But the most important things in life can't be seen with the eyes. Ideas can't be seen. Love can't be seen. Honor can't be seen. This isn't a new concept. Judaism and Christianity and Islam and Buddhism have all taught for thousands of years that the highest forms of reality are invisible and mysterious. And these realities will never be reducible to clear-cut scientific formulae for the simple reason that they will never be fully comprehensible to the human mind. God didn't mean them to be.I will not be a prick here. I know when Anthony says, "Ideas can't be seen, Love can't be seen", he is trying to convey a message beyond what is put forth at face value. In other words: Reality can be beyond our materialistic perception. But it is still difficult to take him seriously when he uses understood emotions (love), and social concepts (honor) as examples. Also he is pretty vague when he says "the highest forms of reality are invisible and mysterious", and that we can't "reduce" them to scientific means. Perhaps he can give us some other examples? I find that a lot of properties/concepts that try to explain things beyond the physical are simply mirrors of already understood (or potentially yet to be understood) physical concepts. Certainly science has its limits and the Universe is very mysterious, but who really questions that?
After he quotes Einstein:
No less a genius than Albert Einstein once said: "The most beautiful thing we can experience in life is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: for his eyes are closed.", he then continues on with appealing to "mystery" claiming people are blind to the existence of miracles, angles, demons, and other such spiritual woo hoo. All of this and still has yet to formulate any sort of reason for believing in any of these to begin with.
All of a sudden we are met with a swift topic switch:
Atheists, of course, claim that all of this is absurd. Christianity, especially, they say, with its belief in Easter and the Resurrection, is nothing but "wishful thinking" — the product of weak human psychology; a psychology that is so afraid of death that it must create "delusional fantasies" in order to make life on Earth bearable.I don't often debate Christian theology. It is something I leave to those who have a good grounding in the subject. But since he is (once again) claiming all atheists think a certain way, I can comment on the matter. There is a part of me that says the belief in the Resurrection is wishful thinking, however I don't then conclude it's due to "weak human psychology". That's absolutely childish. Any educated atheist knows there is intense discussion and debate amongst theologians and Bible scholars on the topic with good arguments from both sides. He seems to think all atheists follow some Dawkinsian line of reasoning that states calling something delusional equals discrediting a belief system. I am beginning to wonder if DeStefano has ever talked to more than five atheists.
So, with this in mind, I can easily answer the next bombardment of questions presented:
But is it wishful thinking to believe in hell, the devil and demons? Is it wishful thinking to believe we're going to be judged and held accountable for every sin we've ever committed? Is it wishful thinking to believe the best way to live our life is to sacrifice our own desires for the sake of others? Is it wishful thinking to believe that we should discipline our natural bodily urges for the sake of some unseen "kingdom"?
Is it wishful thinking? It depends. Some people simply believe in the afterlife, a deity, and other unseen realms for feelgood purposes. I am a bit more hostile and more skeptical of afterlife concepts, because there is seemingly a lack of good argumentation from the pro-afterlife side. But there are many theists themselves who I have discussed the matter of god with who make very good arguments for the existence of a god. So it's safe to say they are beyond the realm of wishful thinking.And while we're at it, is it wishful thinking to believe God wants us to love our enemies? For goodness sake, what kind of demand is that?
The rest of the article is the most "ranty" portion:
If human beings were going to invent a religion based on wishful thinking, they could come up with something a lot "easier" than Christianity. After all, why not wish for a religion that promised eternal life in heaven, but at the same time allowed promiscuous sex, encouraged gluttony, did away with all the commandments, and forbade anyone to ever mention the idea of judgment and punishment?
He goes on about how Christianity somehow has merit because it's not the easiest fathomable religion out there. It seems like he thinks the fact humans follow commandments in religion that the religion itself has merit. Perhaps Anthony isn't aware of other religions that too have restrictions and regulations (Islam being a key example). Does this mean Islam is somehow more correct? I don't think Anthony would think so. So certainly humans could have just invented the concept of a god. Just like we create order in other aspects of our social life (like government and laws), it's not far fetched to think humans would create other authoritarian concepts with a metaphysical spin.Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? And yet, atheists persist in this ridiculous notion that human beings "invented" God merely because we're afraid of death and want to see our dead relatives again. Amazing.
He concludes:
After all of this Anthony then resorts to theological arm flexing, and then declares Christianity as the victor. Yet after this clear analysis of the article, we can say that his reasoning does not justify his conclusion in the least.
But atheists can scoff all they want. They can write all the bestselling books they want. No matter how hard they try, they will never succeed in making Christianity "a thing of the past." And they will never succeed in snuffing out that faith in God that all human beings naturally possess; a faith that is ingrained in our minds, hearts and souls forever. Why?Because aside from all the logical arguments for God's existence and all the miracles and all the truths contained in Scripture, one simple fact remains: 2,000 years ago, on that first, quiet Easter Sunday morning, Christ did rise.
