Rejecting Christ: A Challenge to Theistic Beliefs and Apologetics
Written on
Brian Holdsworth, a Catholic apologist with a substantial YouTube following, has recently attacked what he deems "the worst argument from atheists." This argument, popularized by figures like Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais, suggests that while many people reject most gods, atheists simply reject one more than theists. Dawkins articulates this notion in The God Delusion, stating, “We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
Holdsworth acknowledges the cleverness of this statement, calling it logical, but cautions that “rhetoric without sound logic is merely sophistry.” He elaborates on the importance of understanding logic before employing persuasive rhetoric, claiming that our abandonment of classical education has allowed sophistry to dominate modern discourse.
This perspective is particularly amusing, given that a Catholic apologist is hardly the ideal spokesperson for critical thinking on religious matters; Catholic apologetics is rife with sophistry. In his critique, Holdsworth sets up a strawman by misrepresenting the atheist argument. The "Prophet of Zod," a notable critic of Christianity, highlights this tendency in Holdsworth’s work, particularly in his video “The Myth of the Angry Atheist.”
Holdsworth dismisses the claim that rejecting one god makes theist beliefs inconsistent, stating:
> "It simply doesn’t follow that because you believe in one less god than I do, that I’m practically an atheist too. It doesn’t follow that God doesn’t exist, or that atheism is true or that theism is false."
His response is ironically uncharitable, as he resorts to strawman tactics rather than accurately representing the argument. The phrase "slogan" rather than "argument" underscores the fact that it lacks a definitive conclusion, thus weakening Holdsworth’s critique.
The Inconsistency of Theistic Claims
What, then, is the purpose of this atheist slogan if it doesn’t serve as proof against God’s existence? It points to the inconsistency of theists who apply skepticism to other religions while excusing their own. They may deride foreign scriptures yet hold their own as sacred.
Holdsworth argues that there’s no inconsistency, attempting to demonstrate this with an analogy involving mathematics. He claims that an atheist is akin to a person denying arithmetic, suggesting that if one accepts the truth of any mathematical statement, they should deny all others that conflict with it. This analogy, however, falters because arithmetic operates on principles that can be proven, unlike the realms of theology and philosophy.
He further attempts to illustrate his point with another analogy comparing an atheist's stance to that of a married man who only accepts one partner. This analogy raises troubling implications for theists, as it suggests that personal preferences in relationships are valid and non-hypocritical. The differences between individuals justify favoring one person over another.
In arranged marriages, political alliances often dictate such choices, reinforcing the idea that preferences can be rational and functional. However, this discussion centers on practices rather than truths. The rationale behind monogamous relationships stems from emotional bonds and social considerations, not from a logical inconsistency.
The Mystical Misunderstanding of Theology
The crux of the issue lies in whether there are intrinsic distinctions between various gods or religions. Atheists argue that skepticism applies uniformly, rendering all religions equally irrational. Holdsworth counters, suggesting that the distinction between esoteric theology and folk beliefs justifies theism.
He asserts that atheists misunderstand the nature of God, who is not merely another entity within the universe but rather the essence of existence itself. Holdsworth's view implies that empirical evidence could be sought for gods of other traditions, while the Judeo-Christian God transcends such inquiries.
However, many Christians paradoxically elevate Jesus, making claims about his resurrection that demand empirical scrutiny. While Holdsworth emphasizes a distinction between Judaism, Christianity, and other religions, he overlooks the similarities in their foundational claims.
Moreover, the appeal to mystical explanations can inadvertently align with atheism. The atheist’s argument about the number of gods is directed specifically at theistic claims, which posit a personal deity. The abstract concept of God as "being itself" lacks the personal attributes traditionally ascribed to deities, leading to confusion and incoherence.
Ultimately, the attempt to reconcile mysticism with personal theism results in a muddled worldview. If God is merely an abstract principle rather than a personal entity, then the criticisms of theism become irrelevant. Thus, Holdsworth's insistence on logic over rhetoric is undermined by the very nature of the theological claims he defends.
In conclusion, Holdsworth's defense of Catholic apologetics highlights the inconsistencies present within theistic arguments. His efforts to position himself as a rational thinker are overshadowed by the inherent contradictions in Catholic theology.
I compile my writings on Medium into both paperback and eBook formats available on Amazon. Some recent titles include *Our Oddity in Deep Time, Aristocrats in the Wild, and Questing for Epiphanies in a Haunted House, each containing over 500 pages of my explorations into philosophy, religion, and politics.*