Audio only:
Is religious belief really just a “cop-out” for people who don’t want to think? In this episode, I respond to the popular atheist slogan “Religion… because thinking is hard” by exploring what belief actually is and that Christian belief does involve careful, hard intellectual work.
Transcript:
Dr. Karlo Broussard (00:00):
All right. Imagine this with me for a second. You’re at a public gathering of religious believers, maybe a pro- life rally or something similar. You’re standing there minding your own business when you notice a group of atheist protestors across the street and they’re holding signs and one of them really stands out and it says religion because thinking is hard. You’ve probably seen it before. It’s made the rounds online, it’s on signs, t-shirts, bumper stickers, you name it. And the message is pretty clear. Religious believers don’t think about what they believe, they just believe it. So are religious believers really just gullible fanatics who can’t think for themselves? Well, stick around for the answer because that’s what we’re going to talk about in today’s episode.
(00:55):
Hey friends, welcome back to the channel. So glad you’re here with me. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that Dell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. Also, I’d like to invite you to consider helping us keep this podcast going for Catholic answers by supporting us on Patreon at drcarlo.com with doctor spelled out. And if you’re already a patron, as always we thank you. We are deeply grateful for your continued support. Now, this catchphrase religion, because thinking is hard, seems to be a pretty popular mantra among atheists. Apparently it captures something they think is profound enough to plaster on signs and merch and parade around in public. But this isn’t just a slogan floating around at protests. You’ll hear it sometimes in more sophisticated language from atheist intellectuals as well. Take Richard Dawkins, for example, in a 2013 speech at the Cambridge Union Society, he said this.
Richard Dawkins (01:59):
To a scientist, however, what’s really objectionable about religion is that it fosters the idea that we should be satisfied with a non-explanation to a difficult question instead of working hard. It’s hard work, working hard to provide a real explanation. Religious explanations are supernatural, but in no possible sense, it’s a supernatural explanation for anything an explanation. It’s a cop out.
Dr. Karlo Broussard (02:27):
Notice the implication here. Religious explanations don’t involve hard thinking. They’re shortcuts, cop outs. This same mindset also shows up in the familiar slogan, Think For Yourself. That line was used in a major 2009 atheist billboard campaign in the Netherlands and again in Chicago and 2014 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Now, before I start responding, I want to pause and say something I think is pretty important. Like many atheist slogans, these lines have persuasive force because they connect with real life experiences, especially experiences among young adults. I can’t tell you how many times a parent or a grandparent has come up to me after an apologetics talk and said something like, “Man, that would’ve been great for my son or grandson who’s college age, but I don’t really need apologetics. I just have faith.” And chances are with the best of intentions, they’ve said the same thing to their college age son or grandson or daughter or granddaughter.
(03:38):
But regardless of intent, that response can unintentionally confirm exactly what these slogans are claiming. I believe because thinking is hard. I don’t really think about this stuff. And if you’re a young adult who’s trying to take ideas seriously, who wants to be intellectually responsible, your reaction is probably going to be, “Well, if that’s what religion’s all about, I don’t want anything to do with it. No young adult wants to be part of an anti-intellectual crowd. So let’s think through a few responses. First, many atheists who repeat this mantra might need to do a little self-reflection. For example, the American Atheist website defines atheism not as an affirmative belief that there is no God, but as “a lack of belief in God’s.” Well, if that’s the case, then strictly speaking, no thinking at all is required to qualify as an atheist. As one online apologist has pointed out, if atheism is merely a lack of belief, well, then someone with a severe mental handicap or even someone who’s brain dead would technically count as an atheist.
(04:52):
Shoot, by that definition, we’d have to say the brainless scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz was an atheist, but surely we don’t want to say that. So when atheism is defined in this particular way in a way that avoids any burden of proof, it starts to sound a lot like, “I don’t want to think about it, ” which means the slogan could easily be flipped to read atheism … Because thinking is hard, at least for this particular version of atheism. Now, I’m not suggesting Christians start chanting that at protests. That’s not the point. The point is simply this, for at least some atheists, the complaint they raise against religious believers ends up backfiring. So to my young adult friends out there, just be aware, you might leave a religious group thinking you’re escaping anti-intellectualism only to join a crowd that’s even more anti-intellectual than the one you left behind.
(05:50):
A second response. This slogan shows a serious ignorance of the philosophical and theological tradition surrounding belief in God. It’s just flat out false that religious believers don’t think for themselves. Anyone who’s even casually familiar with thinkers like Saint Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas or more recent Catholic philosophers and theologians like Gary Gulagrant, Jacques Maritin, Father Thomas Joseph White, Edward Fazer, Steve Long and many others knows that Christianity has been intellectually rigorous from the very beginning. Folks, this tradition did not survive for 2000 years by discouraging rigorous intellectual thoughts. Third, and I think this is really the heart of the issue. The slogan assumes that belief itself is irrational. Many atheists are unwilling to even consider claims of revelation because they think belief or faith is contrary to our dignity as rational beings. Richard Dawkins himself in that same 2013 Cambridge Union Society speech called religion, “A betrayal of the intellect.”
Richard Dawkins (07:11):
It’s a cop out, a betrayal of the intellect, a betrayal of all that’s best about what makes us human.
Dr. Karlo Broussard (07:17):
But here’s the problem. To have faith is simply to believe something based on a testimony you consider credible. It’s not the same thing as direct knowledge from personal observation and atheists do this all the time. Think about it. Surely they’ve driven over a bridge without personally verifying that the bridge is structurally sound and even if hypothetically they’ve actually consulted the engineers, the builders and the inspectors, they still would have to believe their testimony. Now somebody might retard and say, “But those people driving over the bridge, they have the evidence of other cars driving over the bridge without the bridge collapsing.” Fine. I think it’s safe to say that at some point in their lives, they’ve driven over a bridge where there were no other cars around, but let’s take something simpler. Surely they’ve gone to the grocery store, picked up a can of mixed nuts, say, and put it in their grocery basket.
(08:22):
And I seriously doubt they stopped and said, “Well, wait a minute, can I trust this label or these nuts really mixed or there are even nuts in the can? Have I betrayed my intellect by believing the company that put the label on the can? ” Surely they haven’t done that. And let’s not forget science. Most atheists love science and rightly so, but none of us including scientists personally verify every scientific claim we accept. If scientists had to independently confirm every theory before using it, science would just grind to a halt. So here’s the bottom line. Belief is not unique to religion. It’s a basic feature of human life itself, providing us grounds to engage in all sorts of human activities. Religious belief, especially belief in a prevealed religion, is simply a special case of belief. It’s belief based upon what is claimed to be the testimony of God, of course, mediated through human witnesses.
(09:30):
Now, someone might respond and say, “Well, fine. I’ll grant that belief itself isn’t irrational, but Christian belief is irrational. It demands belief without evidence. It asks us to believe things that science can verify. It asks us to accept things that violate the laws of nature. That’s to say miracles. And I think that’s a fair pushback within this sort of conversation, but answering these challenges fully would take more time than we have in this episode. Still, a few things can be said by way of summary. First, Christian faith doesn’t ask us to believe blindly. As St. John writes in his gospel, chapter 20, verse 31, Jesus’ signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. There, John provides his eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ miracles as evidence for belief and there’s nothing blind about that.
(10:33):
I go into more detail on this in my video religion, a betrayal of the intellect. Be sure to check it out if you haven’t done so already. Now, it’s true we have to evaluate this kind of testimony and that evaluation means using reason to determine the testimony’s credibility and that’s where the hard work begins. We have to ask, is it reasonable to believe John’s testimony say and the testimony of the other New Testament authors? If John’s testimony is credible and the testimony of the other New Testament authors, well, then such a testimony could serve as a rational ground for belief in their claims about Jesus. That doesn’t sound like a cop out to me. In fact, figuring out whether the testimony of the early Christians is credible requires a great deal of careful thinking. Now, you’ll also want to check out that same video I just mentioned because there I deal with the idea that Christian faith is irrational because it asks us to believe things that science can’t verify.
(11:39):
This assumes that science is the only way to know reality, a view called scientism. And as I argue in that video, the irony is that scientism refutes itself because it’s not something modern science can prove. As for the objection that Christian faith is irrational because it asks us to believe miracles, miracles don’t violate the laws of nature. They either go beyond them or involve a suspension of them. For example, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, he doesn’t disprove the law that a corpse can’t revive itself. That law still stands. Jesus simply does what nature can’t do. He gives life. When God preserves Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from being burned in the fire, that didn’t prove that fire no longer burns. God simply either protected the three from experiencing the burning effect of fire or in that particular instance suspended the particular flame from manifesting geek.
(12:43):
Again, the natural law that dictates fire gives off heat still holds true. Now, a final response to this particular objection that Christian faith is irrational is that we can show at least an outline that Christian belief is rational. Jesus claimed to be God. That claim is either true or false. If it’s false, then Jesus was either lying or delusional, but Jesus is neither a liar nor a lunatic so we’d argue and so therefore Jesus’ claim to be divine isn’t false, which means it’s true. Now obviously that’s just a sketch. Each premise would need to be defended and we’re going to do that in future episodes. But even here, a skeptic or an atheist can see that Christian faith isn’t a blind leap. It’s reasoned belief even if our skeptical friends ultimately disagree with the conclusion. Consequently, the skeptic can’t charge Christian faith as a cop out of thinking carefully about these things.
(13:52):
So let’s wrap this up. Some people think religion is a way to avoid thinking hard about reality, but we’ve seen that this criticism can easily boomerang back onto at least some versions of atheism. It ignores the massive intellectual tradition within Christianity. It assumes belief itself is irrational, which would undermine most of human knowledge. And even when it targets Christianity specifically, it often rests on misunderstandings of what Christians actually believe and why they believe it. So yes, thinking is hard at times, but there’s no reason to think that careful, honest thinking cannot lead someone to religion, especially the Christian religion. Well, my friends, that’s it for today. If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear it. For more resources, visit our website at catholic.com, my personal website, carlobrusar.com. And if you’d like for me to come and speak at your event, head on over to catholicanswerspeakers.com.
(15:04):
And finally, I would love for you to consider supporting us on Patreon at drcarlo.com with doctor spelled out all sorts of levels of membership with different perks. And as always, thanks for hanging out with me today and I’ll see you next time, God bless.