Fatal Misconceptions: A Defense of Christian Aplogetics

by Goj

Many who I've encountered deem evidence for religion (or, more specifically, Christianity) to be counterproductive. They believe this due to a misconception that Christianity is based on faith, and faith alone. I wish to--in a few paragraphs--destroy this misconception recently made popular by Douglas Adams, author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic. (Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Adams has two things confused.

First thing we have to wonder is, does the Bible actually even teach this? Well let's see...

But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. (1 Pet. 3:15)

For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds, 5 [Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One), (2 Cor. 10:4-5)

Those two excerpts alone warrant Adams' hypothetical situation to be a misrepresentation of the Bible's teachings, but let's go further...

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1)

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Adams--if he is trying to argue against the God of Jews and Christians--is clearly displaying a misunderstanding. The Bible claims to be the true word of God. It commands Christians to demolish arguments contrary to its teaching. To refute arguments and theories, you need a basis for your own belief. You need evidence to support what you believe. According to the Bible, if there's evidence to confirm that God exists, it wouldn't be hindering at all; on the contrary, it would be necessary to refute arguments and theories.

Second minor thing...

Now using Adams' example, let's suppose evolution does indeed contradict the Bible. If evolution is false, it doesn't prove that God exists; it only proves that evolution is false. In the process, it would likely make the existing evidence for God more plausible and accepted, but it wouldn't prove God's existence. With the evidence for God, we can be sure he exists beyond a reasonable doubt, but not absolutely 100% sure. We can only be certain beyond reasonable doubt, say 90 - 95%.

It still requires an amount of faith to believe.

Some things you simply cannot observe, and it's those things you must have faith in.

The same is true for every world view there is.

They all take faith; the difference is whose view requires the most.

The least faith needed, the more reasonable a view it is.

Conclusion:

1. Douglas Adams' view of faith is not coherent with the Bible's teaching.

2. The Bible is what we know the Christian God by.

3. Therefore, Adams' view is null and void when applied to the Christian God.

Douglas Adams has no known basis to support his view which the Bible does not support, thus his view is successfully nullified when applied to the God of the Bible.

Disclaimer: I realize Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a work of fiction. However, many people quote the "Babel fish" section in his book and use it as an argument against Christian apologetics, or against the existence of the Christian God. This rebuttal of Douglas Adams is simply to show the lack of research put into the "Babel fish" parable. "Babel fish" isn't meant to be used as an argument against God and apologetics, it's meant for entertainment in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This refutation is purely for the knowledge of those who use "Babel fish" as an argument, which was most likely not its intention.