3 Nephi 2-3

(May 21, 2014)
C. S. Lewis, in God in the Dock, points out that it is appropriate that a believer understand an atheist and a righteous man understand a wicked man, while the reverse is not often true.  He made the analogy to sanity and madness – the sane man can look upon the mad and understand (although perhaps not empathize with) his behavior while the madman cannot understand the behavior of the sane.  So it is with the believer and the unbeliever – the actions of the believer seem ridiculous to the unbeliever, but the actions of the unbeliever make perfect sense to the believer (even if they make no sense to the unbeliever that is performing them).

This struck me particularly after spending the last several days arguing theology with an atheist.  The atheist could not come to understand my arguments, despite them being drawn from the most basic arguments made on the subject of deist apologetics.  I am certain my arguments were clumsy and presented poorly, but that still did not explain why the atheist completely missed them.  But what is particularly interesting was not that I was arguing with him (and he was not my main audience – I argued with him so that others looking at the thread would not assume the atheist correct in his assertion that he was just ‘following the evidence’).  What was interesting was that the atheist was arguing with me.

After all, a reductive materialist would have no belief in ultimate right or wrong (those are, to his mind, social constructs).  He gained no marginal utility for winning or losing his argument.  He was relying on a clumsy, mechanical instrument (human intellect) that could be no more relied upon than a machine that built itself.  Even when confronted with this incongruity, the atheist defended his position with an illogical response (desiring a world without religion – as if his actions were in furtherance of that goal).  The atheist could not understand the beliefs and actions of the believer, nor could the atheist understand his own actions.  His worldview did not provide sufficient context for the observations made in even that simple exchange.  To the believer, however, everything made sense (even my poor reasoning and argumentative style – despite my position being correct, I was and am a poor messenger for the Truth).

I was thinking of that as I read the letter of Giddianhi.  Giddianhi clearly does not understand why he is writing the letter that he is writing – he doesn’t understand the way believers think and he clearly doesn’t understand his own thoughts.  He butters up to Lachoneus, making an appeal to his pride (another thing that happened occasionally in my discussion with the atheist online – he would compliment me when ever I made what he considered concessions and yet claim that when I presented evidence he didn’t like I was being dogmatic and unreasonable).  Giddianhi views his relationship with Lachoneus solely through a social and materialistic lense – socially because of the flattery and materialistic through his reference to the military power at his disposal.  Right and wrong are twisted, but right and wrong are twistable in Giddianhi’s philosophical worldview – after all, they are only social constructs.

Reading this, it is clear that as a believer it is fairly easy to understand the actions and beliefs of Giddianhi.  It is also clear that Giddianhi, like any other madman looking at the behavior of the sane, understands neither his own actions nor the actions of the believer.