Dr. Randal Rauser's Ideologue Barometer Test

I like new tests for faith, and I have written about three of them before. Randal introduces a new one as far as I can tell, the Ideologue Barometer Test, and guess what? After taking the test I am one. No, not a barometer silly, an ideologue. So?

Randal has graciously invited me up to his Seminary in May of 2013 to Edmonton, Canada, in order to help promote the release of our co-written book God or Godless. I'm pretty excited about this too. So, being the creative person that he is (after all, he creatively defends the indefensible), he suggested we do something new and different rather than the normal "he said she said" type of debate. What he suggested is this:

each of us talk on the top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview. I’d explain the top three conceptual or evidential problems with being a Christian and John would talk about the top three problems with being an atheist.

He's mentioned this to several people and the response has been "overwhelmingly positive" he reports. But he's not happy that I objected to it. So now he's taking his case to the streets, er, the blog world. He said we'd try to work things out. I didn't know this is how he wants to do it. Okay, I guess.

I objected by saying,

I would much rather present the three things that most trouble me about Christianity. My criticisms of atheism would be lame ones that wouldn’t undermine atheism in the least. In fact, as I think of this exercise they would most likely be turned into arguments against Christians and/or Christianity (yes, I’m that much of an ideologue).

Now that I used the word "ideologue" it's an interesting one. I'll have to look into the etymology of it sometime. I've also found there are several different definitions of it as well. So let me make clear what I meant when using it. What I meant is that I am utterly convinced that Christianity, especially evangelical Christianity, is false. I am an ideologue in that sense. In a lesser sense I'm an ideologue when it comes to the possibility there is a supernatural force (or being) out there, although I'm less sure of that. Who knows for sure, right? However, I still think this is improbable. So, to say it otherwise, I'm virtually certain Christianity is false and I think it's very improbable there is a supernatural force (or being) out there. I am an ideologue in that sense.

Anyway, Randal's Ideologue Barometer Test is this:

Ask yourself this: if I were invited to discuss the three things that most bother me about my belief system, how quickly could I come up with a list and how long could I talk about them? The longer it would take you to compile the list and the shorter the ensuing speech, the more ideologically committed you are to your beliefs. Link.

That's the trouble I have with his suggestion when we get together, precisely because I am an ideologue (in the sense described above).

Let me explain why and seek some "street" feedback on this. I had told him:

My criticisms of atheism would be lame ones that wouldn't undermine atheism in the least. In fact, as I think of this exercise they would most likely be turned into arguments against Christians and/or Christianity (yes, I'm that much of an ideologue).

Off the top of my head, if I did this sort of exercise, there are a number of them:

1. My own cognitive biases, but then I would have to defend science as the only way out.
2. That atheism is the most misunderstood viewpoint, but then I would inform the audience what it is.
3. That atheists are a hated minority, but then I would share why this is unjustified.
4. That cultural relativism might obtain without a transcendent standard for morality, but then I would share why it works well enough for us.
5. That we have no hope of a heaven, but then I would say that if this is the case then we must bite the bullet regardless of our hopes and dreams.
6. That science may never completely figure out an explanation for everything, but then I would share how religion has not explained anything.
7. That atheists cannot get their shit together since they act just like churches by splitting into factions, but then I would argue that's just what human beings do.

;-)

It's like he wants to take to easy part and give me the hard part. The easy part is to offer the top three biggest problems he faces with his Christian worldview. The hard part for me would be to suggest three reasons why the Christian worldview might be true when I am virtually certain it isn't.

There's something else. It concerns the whole notion of beliefs. I have none.

There is a huge difference between offering up a sure solution to the mystery of existence as he does, and doubting all sure solutions which I do. A Christian named Bilbo did this exercise of Randal's, and wrote:

1. If God exists, why isn't His existence as obvious as the physical world? 2. Why is there so much pain and suffering? 3. Why isn't there better historical evidence for Jesus and his resurrection? 4. How can God know the future and there still be free will? 5. Why are there so many morally questionable things in the Bible about God (Canaanite genocide, etc.)? 6. Why are there so many contradictory religions to my own?

You see, these are my types of questions because I am a nonbeliever. I don't believe anything to be doubtful about. I might be wrong but I try to go exclusively with the probabilities every time. So for me to participate in this exercise I would be saying that I'm probably wrong, not just possibly wrong. But I can't say that. All I could say is that it's possible I'm wrong, but then that almost goes without saying. There is nothing that troubles me when I say there isn't sufficient evidence to believe because there isn't. There is nothing that troubles me when I say we should trust the results of science, even though it hasn't completely solved the mysteries of the universe. It has a solid track record of solving problems, so I have a "wait and see" attitude about the mysteries it hasn't yet solved. After all, modern science can be understood to be in its infancy stages. When we compare the lack of results that faith has given us there can be no comparison at all.

So, if I participate in this exercise of his I would have to turn every one of my suggestions into an argument against his faith. If he's open to that then let's give it a go. He can do the same thing. He can suggest the top three biggest problems that he faces with his Christian worldview, but go on to turn then into an argument against non-belief if he wants to. I'm okay with that. Or, he can suggest them and then answer them. That too would work. Have at it.

Am I being obtuse or obstinate? Or, am I merely being principled and true to myself and what I think is the case?