Interview With Michael Minot: An Atheist Turned Christian

I am pleased today to present an interview with author and speaker Michael Minot.  I hope that this will be the first of many contributions by Mike to our humble blog.  Mike is a Twitter friend who has become a true friend in recent weeks.  I began following Mike because of his powerful story of turning from atheism to follow Christ.


Mike was a real estate attorney for more than a quarter century, before making the decision to turn in his briefcase and the courtroom to write and speak full time concerning the truth he has found in Christ.  Mike lives in Colorado Springs with his wife and three children.

Interview with Michael Minot: 

An Atheist Who Turned to Christ

Tim: Why were you an atheist?

Mike: A couple things started to occur with me when I was in junior high and high school. First, I began to think that the Christian claims of a resurrection were far-fetched. For anything to occur that would clearly violate the laws of nature didn't seem plausible to me. Secondly, with the help of my teachers, I began viewing life as a competition – one where the strongest thrive. This notion of how the world worked played right into my competitive nature. I began making plans to compete and be the best at whatever I was going to do. I wanted to be one of the strongest. And thirdly, I grew up in a household where neither of my parents believed in God. I never attended vacation Bible school, Sunday school, retreats, camps, or anything that many young people in churches attend. So the environment leading me into adulthood did not foster a belief that the God of the Bible was real.

Tim: What was the biggest hurdle in becoming a Christian?

Mike: I had many objections to Christianity. But when you ask me what was the biggest, I have to say that the hypocrisy I witnessed in some religious leaders became my largest prejudice. In 1979 the unimaginable horrors of what happened in Jonestown shocked me. The person who was responsible for this travesty had the designation "Rev.” in front of his name. I associated Rev. Jones with the church and its message. In the 1980s, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker were well known TV personalities. The scandals they were involved in further hardened me.

Tim: What was the "final straw" that made you believe Christianity was true?

Mike: With me, there was not a final straw. Several years after graduating from law school I was challenged by someone I met while studying for the Florida bar exam. By this time, I was living the life. I had money in my pocket, the keys to a new convertible, and a more than healthy social life. Life was great and getting better all the time.

But my friend had a different view of the trajectory of my life. He challenged me to review the Scriptures and come to a fresh decision regarding the meaning of my life. He indicated that the Scriptures played a large part in his life. I was forced to recognize that my friend's invitation came at a unique period. The time pressures of law school were behind me, I was living alone, and not dating anyone specific. In other words, realistically I didn't have the excuse that I didn't have the time. I also decided that a thorough critique the Scriptures might assist me in gaining ammunition to support my views. I had a number of other questions I thought I could investigate such as what the Scriptures said about why there was so much pain in the world.

So with these things in mind, I called my friend back and agreed to his challenge. Each evening, and for longer periods during the weekend, I read the Scriptures as well as various books on science and philosophy. After a period of weeks, I sensed that I had misjudged the impact this investigation would have on my life. Somewhere between six and eight weeks after I started, against everything I thought true before, I came to the conclusion it was more likely than not I was a created being.

My investigation ran the gamut on so many different issues. So I can't say for me there was a "final straw" which caused me to reverse all my previous thinking. It was the sum and weight of an enormous amount of information, particularly that coming out of modern science, that I came to know as a result of my investigation.

Tim: Often I feel like atheists and Christians are speaking two different languages? Why is that? What would you say to both groups?

Mike: First, I would say it's not my experience that people from those groups speak a different language. Maybe it has to do with my once being so firm and indoctrinated as an atheist. I feel comfortable talking to people on in either group.

A second problem with the assertion that the two groups speak different languages is that I find it difficult to generalize about either group. Each group has people representing a large variety of views, motivations, and willingness to seek the truth at all costs.

The one factor I believe that causes discussions between the two groups to be the most vigorous, interesting, and fruitful is when those that are having the discussion are genuine truth seekers. Many atheists maintain the position that they will never become Christian because they don't want Christianity to be true. In other words, they will deny Christianity no matter the weight of the evidence. On the other hand, some Christians hold their beliefs solely as a matter of faith without a firm grasp of the facts that support its claims. They believe in Christianity, and will continue to do so in large part because they believe it's “the right thing to do.” But when true truth seekers in both groups engage in meaningful discussions, I believe the notion that they speak two different languages fades away.

__________________________________________________________________________________

I would encourage you to check out Mike's blog at: http://michaelminot.com/index.html

I would also encourage you to follow Mike on Twitter: @MichaelMinot 

Andrew the Atheist thinks Tim should re-consider his answer.

Oh, I'm sorry, Tim.  The correct answer was yes, not no.  Thanks for playing.

I feel weird telling the christian how to better argue with atheists, but here goes anyway.  I think it's good that you recognize the core problem: the question is actually if god can make logical contradictions.  But I think you should have answered yes.  You really back yourself into a corner when you say no.  I'll explain.

You see, your position eliminates the Transcendental Argument for god, or TAG, as it is popularly known.  It's a common aplogetic that states that logic is impossible without god.  God is the author of logic and reason, and therefore he is able to bend, mend and break those rules are part of his omnipotence.  While I am glad to dismiss the TAG, I don't think you either meant to do this, or never even heard of this apologetic you just refuted yourself.  Again, we come back to why I asked FIRST how much you know of apologetics.  If god is the author of logic, he can make logical contradictions, no problem.  So I suggest that when you are asked this question next time, you answer, "YES."

Your position also makes the christian god impossible.  I know I'm arguing the character of god and not the existance of god.  Trust me.  If you convince me the christian god is real, you don't have to worry about me accepting any god is real.  Besides, if you want to talk deism, we'll get into a comparative religion topic, and I think we both agree that's not what we want to do.  I mean, I'm down for it if you want, but you said you didn't. 

The christian god has more than one logical contradiction for which you'll need to account.  Not only is this being supposed to be omnipotent, it is also supposed to be perfect.  A perfect being cannot create anything less than perfect.  Your god should not have been able to make angels that turned to demons, or people that would fall from grace.  If he is perfect, only perfection can come from him.  It did not.  That's contradicition #1.

But my personal favorite is that your god is also supposed to be all-just AND all-mercifull.  Justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.  I define justice as, "you get what you deserve," and mercy as, "you do not getwhat you deserve."  If you have different definitions, you'll need to let me know what those are.

If god is just, then he gives people what they deserve.  If god is merciful, he does NOT give people what they deserve.  Therefore, he cannot be both all-just and all-merciful.  In fact, with regard to a single person, he cannot be both just in any way AND merciful in any way.  He must be one or the other.  There's contradiction #2.

But again, neither of these problems is any concern, so long as you admit your god is a god of logical contradictions.  I didn't even mention the bible.....  There you'll find contradictions #3-???

Tim, I'm worried about you.  Eventually, these kid gloves I'm wearing here are going to have to come off.  But that doesn't have to happen now.  So tell me, honestly, is this the first real exchange you've ever had with an atheist?  It's okay if it is.  Everyone has to start somewhere.  But you should know by now you are not the first believer I've debated.  The first one was the toughest to convince.  It was me.

Tim, The Christian's Rebuttal: Can God Create A Rock That Is Too Heavy For Him To Lift?

Andrew, even though I think that your last challenge was made in jest, I will answer it seriously.  You chastise me for using ancient arguments, yet this is one of the oldest alleged paradoxes used to challenge the character of God.

When we say that God is omnipotent, we say that He can do all possible things.  In other words, God is bound by the laws of logic.   For example, God could not make a square circle because circles are mutually exclusive of squares and vice versa.  In the same way, when arguing that God could not create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, is in fact nonsensical.  Asking if, "God can create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? is just as much nonsense as asking if, "Can God create a square circle?"  It is a logical contradiction.  Namely, it is a logical contradiction to say to talk of God's simultaneous ability and disability to lift the rock.   Put another way,  the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value that is either true or false; they cannot both be true at the same time.  Thus, the question and the perceived paradoxes which you pose are, actually meaningless; they are illogical. 

As a side note, the questions that you pose have to do with God's character, not His existence. I am happy to defend God's character, but I did not think we were there yet.

Also as a side note, God cannot and will not make you love Him.  Thus, one example of a rock that cannot be lifted is your heart.

Andrew the Atheist asks about really big stones.

Here's one for the believers.  Don't get frightened.  This is going to be easy.  I'm keeping with the had-this-conversation-a-thousand-times-gonna-have-it-one-more-time theme we have going here.  So you've all heard this before, and I just want to make you all repeat the same old answer again.  Here goes:

The argument against omnipotence:

Can god make a rock so bid even he can't lift it?  Can he make a cup of coffee so hot even he can't sip it?  Can he make a woman so hot even he can't resist her?

I've heard all kinds of explanations for this.  What's yours?

Andrew the Atheist answers, “The same place you base yours.”

Tim, you’re being silly.  OF COURSE atheism doesn’t make me a better person.  Just like Christianity doesn’t really make you a better person.  And no, we are not going to do a head count and compare horrible people.  That’s silly.

AND, I said before that even if Christianity DID make EVERYONE a better person, that has NO BEARING on the truth of its claims.  So neither this, nor the previous question, has ANY bearing on the truth of Christianity.  We could agree or disagree all day; nothing about this topic has ANYTHING to do with whether or not Christianity is true.  

Now it is clear that we do NOT base ANT of our morality on scripture.  Let’s get that out of the way RIGHT now.  The bible is a mess of conflicting ideas, bad ideas and stupid morality.  If you want to get into a “bible said; bible says” debate, fine.  Just know that for every example of a GOOD idea coming from the damned bible, I’ll find one that shows the opposite.  Maybe two. 

Besides, it’s clear that the scriptures aren’t clear.  If they were, we would not see so many diverse denominations of Christianity.  If two groups of Christians differ on a particular issue, there is no real way to solve the dispute.  The two groups split into two new factions that grow independently.  We see it all the time.  New groups and splinters of sects within christianty are formed every day as people cannot agree on what god says.  So we do not get morality from any holy book.

Before I go on to where everyone actually gets morality, I want to drive one more nail into the bible’s moral coffin.  Whenever I have this debate, (yes, I’ve had this one dozens of times before) people turn to the ten commandments.  I see you included a picture of them.  The ten commandments are an excellent example of where we do NOT get our morals.  Of ALL ten, only two have any moral value, and even then, they fail as absolutes.  As a moral code, 20% is a dismal number.  Any other list that only had 20% relevance would be cast aside as a load of crap.  This one ought to be no different.  Plus, there are different versions of the commandments.  Even within the bible, there is more than one set.  Clearly, any resemblance with actual morality is pure coincidence.

So where do morals come from?  How are we moral?  First, we need to acknowledge that morality is a human system.  If there were no humans, there would be no morality.  So when we talk about morality, what are we really discussing?  We are talking about the way humans relate to other humans.  Humans are indeed social creatures.  We are a herd animal.  Since before our ancestors were human, we have had to find a way to live together.  We have found great strength in working as a team or group.  We need a way to do this with as little conflict as possible.  How?

Morality is easily explained from your primordial soup.  As creatures evolve and form social networks, creatures of all kinds form rules that govern behavior.  It takes no imagination to see that any animal that must work with others must do so in a cooperative manner.  It takes no imagination to see that this forms the basis of our morality. 

Again, Tim, we’ve gone down a beaten path.  If you are really interested in how human morality is formed, there are SOOO many places to find this.  This debate has happened over and over again.  The argument you state is so old, I can’t imagine you’ve never heard anyone explain this to you before.  

Tim, The Christian, Apologizes To Atheists

To all you atheists everywhere and especially to those who read this blog, I am sorry.  I just read a news story about death threats being leveled against atheists in response to a Fox News post on its Facebook page about the American Atheists' lawsuit to stop a crucifix from being erected at the World Trade Center Memorial. Apparently, over 8,000 such comments were posted.  A link to an article about it is here:http://www.allfacebook.com/fox-news-facebook-page-gets-8000-death-threats-2011-08

As a Christian, I am horrified by this. I apologize on behalf of Christians. This type of response has no place in Christianity.  I worry that this type of response is too common.  It is wrong headed and evil and idiotic.  Please try and remember that for every one of these nut jobs, there are hundreds of Christians who would give you a hug.

Again, I am sorry.  This is wrong on so many levels.  

Tim, The Christian, Asks The Atheists: On What Do You Base Your Morality

Andrew, in your last post, I think you make a fallacious argument, namely, you say that atheism makes you a better person.  Atheism cannot make you a better person, or at least a more moral person. We can both go back and forth and point at people who claim to be in our camp who are evil.  In my last post, I pointed to Stalin (yes, I incorrectly labelled it Lenin) as someone who did horrible things in the name of atheism.  And you pointed out Harold Camping, whom I readily agree did evil in the name of Christianity.  The point is that you cannot dismiss the truth of Christianity based on the evil that is done in its name because even if someone claims to be a Christian it does not mean that they are practicing their alleged faith correctly. In the same way, I cannot dismiss atheism because Stalin committed mass murder.

What I do not understand, and what I ask you atheists is, "on what basis do you adhere to a moral code?"  In my mind, if a person is an atheist, there is no basis for ethics or a moral code.   

Atheists attempt to dismiss Christianity by saying that its moral code is skewed.  I take issue with that, but that is not the point.  The point is that Christianity has the basis for a moral code -- a basis which calls us to love each other, to be unselfish, etc.  Why should the atheist be unselfish?  Because it benefits mankind?  So what if it benefits mankind?  If I am an atheist, why should I do anything ethical?  For example, if I am an atheist and I can get away with cheating on my taxes, there is nothing in atheism which tells me not to do that.  Also, the morals espoused by Christianity, and the Ten Commandments in particular, are the basis for most legal systems in the Western world.

Whether or not you like the moral code of Christianity, the Christian has a moral code. Whether the Christian follows that moral code all the time, is a completely different matter. In fact, we Christians tend to admit that we fail to follow the moral code all the time, thus our need for a Savior.  Nevertheless, Christianity prescribes what the Christian should do; atheism does not prescribe what the atheist should do. In fact, it makes no sense for an atheist to have a sense of duty about ethics. On what basis does the atheist ever have a sense of duty?

Furthermore, this is also a proof for God's existence, and the main argument that is used by C.S. Lewis.  We are all born with a conscience, a basic knowledge of right and wrong.  Unless he is a sociopath, every human being has this innate sense of right and wrong.   Where would this innate sense of morality come from if there was no God?  This sense of morality is in every person, in every culture.   In every country in the world, it is wrong to steal from another; in every country in the world, it is wrong to lie for no reason; no matter your faith, it is wrong for me to walk up to you, bop you on the nose for no reason and take your wallet.  Where did the conscience come from unless it was placed there be God?  The innate sense of right and wrong cannot evolve from the primordial soup.

Whether or not you like Christianity's moral code, can you admit that at least Christianity has the basis for a moral code, and that atheism does not?