In recent months, Ruth Pyren has written several letters that reflect her atheistic sentiments.

Ruth Pyren’s letters have seemed to, at the very least, imply that those of faith do not think for themselves, may not be intelligent, or that following the command of Christ and submitting our thinking to the will of God is in some way, not a rational thing to do.

The Christian of course, claims that God is rational, that He has created us in His image (thus, we are rational), and that He has revealed Himself to us through His word — it is to this revelation that the Christian appeals and responds with. Contrary to this, I would argue that it is the unbeliever who claims autonomous thinking that is being irrational.

Assuming God does not exist, on what basis does Ruth Pyren claim that knowledge is possible at all? She has no basis; in order to make such a claim, she would have to appeal to her own autonomous thinking in order to justify her own autonomy. But this is a blatant case of begging the question, which occurs when what needs to be proved is assumed at the outset. So at the very start, Ruth Pyren has engaged in fallacious reasoning while attacking the believer’s appeal to a higher authority.

I would argue in the same manner concerning the principles of logic, induction, and morality -– none of which would be possible at all if God did not exist and which demonstrate that atheism is not only irrational but false, because these areas of knowledge and human experience are inconsistent with an atheistic ontology.

The atheist rejects the existence of God, not because there is no evidence, but rather because they cling to their internally inconsistent presuppositions despite the evidence.

If it is rational discussion Ruth Pyren is looking for, I would love to reason with her to show her that not all Christians leave their brains at the door when they go to work.

J. Sloan

Oak Harbor