I find it interesting that atheists and agnostics are criticized regularly in spite of the fact that atheism and agnosticism are very intelligent and defensible positions. I would further argue that the inconsistency demonstrated by the many “Christian” letters is very telling of the larger ideological picture.

Matt Graham, for example, claims that Christians should understand the epistimelogical and metaphysical “foundations of their faith.” Tony Lombardo seems to agree, while pointing out that most of the Christians he knows “are seeking a rational basis for their beliefs.”

This seems reasonable enough, but Nathan Treloar is troubled that “people are still expected to explain themselves.” He goes on to say it is “impossible for a person of any religion to give a … reasonable explanation as to why they believe.” Thus Christianity is rooted solely on subjective experience.

Yet this cannot satisfy Albert Farr, Matt Poll, Jessica Bruggemanor J. T. Bridges, all of whom maintain that the Bible is “the one TRUE book we have to live by.” For them, it is insulting to claim that “the Bible is insufficient in anything.” The scriptural references in their letters make this abundantly clear.

How do these individuals represent the “larger ideological picture?” It is quite simple. Matt Graham and Tony Lombardo represent Christian scholars who aggressively pursue a “rational” faith; Nathan Treloar represents the Christian fideist who makes a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith;” and the remaining represent Christian fundamentalists, for whom there is no reason and no doubt.

What I find interesting is that in almost 2000 years, there has yet to be an adequate reason to be a Christian. The epistimelogical and metaphysical arguments have historically been weak; this has lead many thinkers to abandon reason and joyfully accept Christianity and its intellectual absurdities on faith.This blind acceptance ultimately leads people to quote the Bible and then say things like: “I don’t think that it can be put any simpler than that.”

With all due respect, atheism and agnosticism are more consistent, intelligible and defensible than any of these perspectives of Christianity.

Douglas Ficek

Junior

Philosophy

President, ISU Atheist & Agnostic Society