Pondering the arguments of an atheist (Part One)

Recently on the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert interviewed Sam Harris, an atheist author, and listening to the interview made me ponder a few of the motivations behind atheism and some of the points that Harris made. (You can view the interview here). In other words, I'm wondering, is there any truthiness in atheism?

First, let me stipulate I am not about to set out on a rant here so that I may convert my readers, I simply want to ponder some of points of atheism from a Christian perspective (though from a less over-the-top manner than Colbert). The aim therefore is a point-counterpoint type review of what was said, adding in a few extra Christian views - it's my personal bias, I'm stating it up front.

The first point that Harris brought up was the idea that all of us understand what it means to be an atheist because we are all atheists when it comes to Poseidon. Anyone who still believe in this Greek god is considered a "lunatic". He further added that Christians are atheists when it comes to the beliefs of other religions. Interesting. In my experience, there is nothing in my Christian beliefs that teaches me not to believe in the merit of other religions. In fact, in studying world religions, I was often struck by how much of God is in them. I may not, however, believe that Jesus is the way, but it doesn't mean I'm not listening for God in other ways.

Harris stated that one of the main sticking points for him is that each religion makes incompatible claims about their own deity, making the point that the Koran says that anyone who believe in Jesus is destined for hell. He also specifically pointed out that is is these differences in ideals that are responsible to for the violence of this world. Although, I can see his point as I too believe that some religious zeal has lead to some unecessary wars, I find it impossible to blame them solely on relgious beliefs. Religion is only a scapegoat because people don't want to admit that there is such a thing as free will. Just as guns don't kill people, people kill people - God doesn't kill people, people kill people. We are responsible for the actions we choose to take, and if we are using religion as an excuse to do wrong, it's not right either. Eliminating the human factor skews the reality that humans are fallable. Also, religion does have a political side and it is usually said politics that are the motivating factor for violence and war, people just (sadly) feel use religion as their excuse.

What about the arguement that having faith in God is illogical? This is a common in our scientific world. Harris bring it up and states that we have "good reasons" to believe in scientific discoveries and that it's only when we have "bad reasons" that we turn to the illogical arguement of faith. Personally, I find this is a very narrow contention. Logically, we accept science as fact because we believe in its authority, in other words, we believe it comes from a valid source. Most people cannot see an oxygen atom, but they believe it exists because someone, somewhere has said is real. No more can anyone in this century prove the existance of Napolean Bonaparte, but we believe he existed based on historical books. They accept them based on historical authority. Why then are people so quick to dismiss the Bible's authority? It is illogical to create a double standard because the Bible requires us to have a little faith as well as believe in what is written in it. Also, I do not see faith as a "bad reason", rather it is the only logical explanation to the illogical; it is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for.