You Didn't Try Hard Enough

Most atheists and skeptics with internet access are probably aware of the Atheist Experience and one of its hosts Matt Dillahunty. It's a show I usually enjoy and that has exposed fallacious arguments. When I watch and rewatch clips, I sometimes wish the host had taken a different tack or caught some piece of the claim and gone in that direction, but overall, I find myself really considering arguments and processing my own beliefs. I also find that it has helped me get more comfortable with the answer "I don't know," one that I was already grappling with as a budding skeptic.

All this intro to say I look out for new episodes, and, now that he has his own video series and Patreon, Matt Dillahunty's debate and individual uploads.

Recently, I came across a short video of a Q&A portionof a debate Matt had with Chris DiCarlo and Mike Horner on the existence of god. After a painful streak of a misunderstanding of atheism, agnosticism, and the burden of proof combined with what seemed like a smug assertion that atheists need to do more than claim "I don't know" when faced with claims, Matt got to ask a question about the Christian god showing himself to sincere seekers (this part begins at about the 6:32 mark). For those who don't know, Matt was a fundamentalist Christian well into adulthood and was studying to be a preacher, so I can't imagine a more sincere seeker.  He has regularly said through the years that his whole family are still believers and think the devil is working through him, a claim I have no trouble believing. Matt winds up his question by asking if he he had just not tried hard enough.

The short answer is no. Apparently not. His debate opponent may be very practiced in the softer answer he peddles as he uses Matt's notion of bias from the start of the debate against him. For his opponent, if god doesn't show himself, it is because of bias. The seeker's heart is just not open to total submission to god. We can say we're seeking, but part of us isn't. God won't "force" himself on us.

This segment really caught my eye and ear because it is yet another get-out-of-the-argument-free card. The claim is god will reveal himself if you are sincere. If he doesn't, you are the problem: you weren't sincere enough (how sincere is sincere enough?) or you are too stubborn (not interpreting whatever random sign, like a butterfly fluttering by). It is extremely victim blamey and allows the accuser to remove him or herself from any further questioning.

I have so many problems with this as a former Catholic who did believe and who spent years looking at religions and spirituality and whatnot, finally to reject the supernatural claims.

One problem I have is, as a former Catholic, I was taught specifically that god wouldn't reveal himself. All the adults who taught me about religion, from my family to the nuns and priests at church and in my Catholic school, told me he was too busy with important matters. However, he did allow his special people (the Virgin Mary and all the saints) to help out. They are intercessors listening to my prayers.

Now, if they are wrong but believe they are worshipping god, why doesn't this god correct them by appearing?

Another problem is the question of sincerity. How sincere is sincere enough? How convinced to I have to be to convince the god of the universe to show himself? Why do I have to be completely ready to submit before he'll show himself? Why were Saul of Tarsus, Moses and Abraham or even these jokers in the debate worthy?

The problem I have is that this is supposed to be an all-knowing, all-powerful god. He is supposed to know what it would take to convince me and be able to do it. Why play hide-and-seek?

I'm also curious about this notion of "forcing" himself on us. There is no other being where just existing is forcing themselves. I generally like my job, but I have colleagues I dislike intensely. I try not to interact much with them, but I don't feel like their mere existence and my knowledge thereof is them forcing themselves on me. That would be absurd.

I'll admit, I don't know what convinced these debaters in the video that god exists, but most of the "proof" I hear is very banal: they found a Bible; they opened a Bible to an inspirational verse; they prayed and a moth came into the room (that's real, btw); they prayed and weeks or months later something happened. Basically, they pray and some event is held up for its symbolic value, a value it wouldn't have if it hadn't been preceded by prayer.

In part, this appeal to god will appear if you pray sincerely makes the claimant feel special. They get to be these "humble" vessels for the living lord, in essence having it both ways: unworthy and somehow superior to those of us who don't believe in their god.