Arguments have to be made and assessed on their own merits, and one must be careful of the genetic fallacy (which may be what you have in mind). This fallacy confuses the origins of an idea with reasons for believing in an idea. That is, an argument is rejected or regarded as mistaken or false because it comes from a bad or questionable source.

However, concerns about the source of an argument are not altogether irrelevant. If a person is a known chronic liar, then that should be taken into consideration when weighing up the person’s claims. And vested interests have to be weighed up as well. For example, the credibility of an argument for the safety of cigarette smoking is lessened if we know that the one making the case is a representative of Big Tobacco.

And books have been written along the lines of what you are suggesting. In 1988 Paul Johnson wrote an important book entitled Intellectuals. In it he argued that a lot of our public intellectuals and activists had personal lives that were far from desirable. He looked at Marx, Rousseau, Russell, Sartre and others, and found that the way they treated others, the way their own family life took shape, and their moral habits, were all pretty lousy.

And critics of the radical feminists have noted how many of these angry women had a really bad home life, often with an absent or abusive father, etc. These factors do not determine the truth or falsehood of their arguments, but they do go a long way toward explaining why they believe what they believe.

And another book also argued along similar lines. In 2000 Paul Vitz wrote The Faith of the Fatherless. In it he examined a number of leading atheists, and discovered that many had a lousy relationship with their earthly dads, which may account for their dislike of the heavenly father. My review of that book is here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2002/03/16/a-review-of-faith-of-the-fatherless-by-paul-vitz/

I concluded that review with these words: “As this book makes clear, there is a real correlation between personal psycho-history and belief systems. Of course such childhood backgrounds are not fully determinative: people can and do change, rising above their circumstances and backgrounds. However, this book helps us to understand the passion and vehemence of some atheists, and shows us that philosophies can be as much a product of our social background as of hard reasoning.”

And I think you are quite right for another reason. I have dealt with many atheists and humanists over the years, and one thing I have discovered is that often it is not the evidence that is driving them, but their past personal history. For example, they may have had a lousy experience at church when young, and they now reject it altogether, and atheism becomes a convenient excuse to justify their ways.

Some atheists have even been honest enough to admit that they chose unbelief because it gave them an excuse to justify and pursue their immorality. Consider just one example. Atheist Aldous Huxley put it this way:

”I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. . . . For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotical revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”

And Jesus said much the same in John 3. He said people do not come to the light because the light exposes their darkness. They prefer to cling to their sin, instead of renouncing it and coming to the light. So many atheist arguments are really smokescreens for people who simply want to hang on to their sin and selfishness.

We need to bear this in mind when we debate with unbelievers. Are they asking honest questions that deserve honest answers, or are they just using their unbelief as an excuse to justify their lifestyle?

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Under what conditions do you think an ad hominem argument is valid?

What I mean is, it’s not a neutral, rational debate, but a spiritual, ethical battle. Our behaviour influences our belief as much as our belief influences our behaviour. For example, a prominent atheist’s rejection of God is not unrelated to his several divorces.

Have you any suggestions on when pointing out a person’s moral calibre or integrity is acceptable, or even effective in an argument?

Sorry it’s a bit off topic. But I wondered what you might think.

Michael Hutton, Ariah Park

Back on topic, it astounds me that so many pro-gay activists are unwilling to listen to reason when it doesn’t support their own ideals. It seems that any criticism of pro-family ideals is “rational, objective fact” while any criticism of homosexuality is just irrational bias.

James Swanson

But given that this post is about gender differences, the well-being of children, and the culture wars, I am not at all sure why you are raising this issue here. You must be really desperate to pick a fight, no matter how out of place it may be.

And this is simply another silly atheist bluff which is so easily disposed of. These charges are as old as the hills. All these alleged contradictions have been more than adequately dealt with time after time. All you are doing here is demonstrating how paltry, petty and lame – and out of date – the atheist arguments are.

You are simply scrapping the bottom of a very old barrow of atheist party tricks here. There is nothing at all impressive about it. You will really have to try to come up with something a bit more substantial next time I am afraid.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

People with a sense of morality, Christians especially, need to stand up to them until they realize their bully tactics will no longer work.

I think Christians have been asleep for too long. It is time to wake up and re-take the ground lost to these anti-God, immorality-promoting bullies.

I for one would like to see Warwick Marsh run for parliament at the next election.

Craig Manners

For a start, there are the triple genealogies of Jesus in Matthew chapter 1, Luke chapter 3 and 1 Chronicles chapter 3.

Then there’s the fig tree incident, which reveals Jesus as a petty bully who punishes a TREE for doing what god supposedly created it for doing naturally.

Then there are the numerous verses of god hardening the pharoah’s heart, against one verse claiming that the pharoah hardened his own heart:

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go…….

Winston Jen

Your morality on the other hand (assuming it to be some form of liberal humanism) leads to a dysfunctional society and a greatly reduced liberty if not all out mass murder such as with abortion.

Ewan McDonald.

You didn’t include a link to the booklet in this article so here it is 21 Reasons why Gender Matters.

Tim Pearce, WA

PS It would be nice if there was a preview function when writing comments.

I’m not sure why you immediately feel compelled to attack belief in God when the document in question clearly cites a majority of non-faith based sources in building its case. You claim it is just “opinion”, but this in fact is just your “opinion”. Where does the weight of evidence point?

Re-read Bill’s list of references above, please, before replying.

Mark Rabich

I am happy to answer your questions. Just where in this booklet (assuming you have actually read it all, or even partially) is there any talk about the Bible, or God, or Christianity? (And by the way, this is not a rhetorical question; please come back to us all with every occasion in which these words are used in the booklet. We eagerly await your findings.) You provide a perfect illustration of what my article is talking about. You set up a straw man and attack it, and think you have made some sort of brilliant argument.

And a person can be fully concerned about the risky and unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle without having a shred of religion. Indeed, millions of non-believers do have such concerns. So what does religion have to do with anything here Samantha? This is just another straw man of yours that can quickly and easily be dispensed with.

Also, what exactly are you suggesting anyhow? That people who are religious should not be allowed to discuss the issue of homosexuality? What other topics would you ban religious people from discussing Samantha? Gee, this sure sounds like censorship, tyranny and intolerance to me.

And here you go again: instead of advancing one single argument, or providing one fact or shred of evidence, you simply resort to name calling: “This is why literature such as the 21 reasons tripe is so vile”. So thank you for perfectly making my case Samantha. It looks like I did not even need to write this article, given what a good job you are doing of making my case for me. (Are you sure you are not really a sneaky Christian in disguise trying to make secular homophiles look bad Samantha?)

And you say, “There are no real facts there.” No real facts there? Not one? It seems any objective reader of the booklet would find hundreds of real facts therein. But there you go again: simply shoot the messenger and refuse to even deal with the message. You are fitting my description to a ‘T’ so far.

And I must call your very silly bluff here. People are of course born with black skin or red hair. It is a genetic condition over which they have absolutely no choice. Yet as this booklet documents with plenty of evidence, statistics and facts, the homosexual lifestyle is as much about choice as anything else. But all that documented discussion is found in the booklet so I will not repeat it here. Any serious person really wishing to follow the evidence where it leads can see for themselves the case which is being made in the booklet.

And of course I am not aware of any genetic determinism regarding Buddhism. As far as I can tell, people are free to choose their religious beliefs.

In sum, I again thank you so very much. My article could have seemed like just so much theoretical baloney. But then you came along and prove to the whole world everything I have said. Much appreciated.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch