There’s a game that’s often played by skeptics. They create hypothetical scenarios so that they can (in their own minds) justify rejection of the gospel.
So begins another one of Ray’s famous analogies. In this particular case, he is responding to the argument that, according to the religious doctrine of Christianity, even Hitler could get into heaven by simply believing. Ray, having no clue how to respond to such a problem in a direct, honest way, goes off on a tangent regarding atheists(!), and not his own religion, which was what it was all about to begin with.
A drug addict is dying because of a disease that is related to his addiction. But when a faithful doctor takes the time to point out the evident symptoms that are all over the addict’s flesh, he responds by saying that the hideous spots are normal, and that all his friends have them.
The doctor pleads with him to listen, and says that a large drug company has developed a cure for the fatal disease. To which the addict says, “What if an elephant fell from the sky and swallowed it before I could get to it? Huh doc. Huh! What about that? You and your stupid pill! I don’t believe the drug company even exists. You idiot. Rather than talk about this so-called disease and your brainless drug company, I want to talk about the age of this medical building.”
What does any of this have to do with the obvious problems of the “gift of salvation”? How is it the atheist’s fault that Hitler could get a clean slate without doing anything in return? How does this even address the question!?
Regardless, this post is about the analogy itself, so let’s address that:
The germ theory of disease (remember, kids, it’s only a theory) is accepted as fact, by both atheists and (most, just to be safe) creationists. Therefor, it is not really valid to claim that a drug addict would absolutely deny even the possibility that his addiction had gotten him infected with a disease. In fact, I think most addicts are well aware of the risks, and choose rather to ignore it. Further, Ray is nothing like a medical doctor. A medical doctor can show evidence that the disease he claims the addict is infected with, actually exists. There isn’t just one, single book which vaguely mentions it, there are entire encyclopedias, libraries even, filled with information and scientific data relating to it. Oh, and an actually sick person would notice his symptoms himself, not having to rely on the doctor to point them out to him.
Ray isn’t offering a pill. If Ray were a doctor, his remedy would be to just go home and hope the disease goes away by itself. The very act of merely showing up at the doctor is what Ray believes can heal people. It doesn’t work that way in real life, and you and I both know that.
Atheists don’t deny the existence of the “medical companies” representing Christianity. We are painfully aware of your religion. We just don’t agree that you have the only, unique cure to a disease no one but you even knows exists.
The “age of this medical building” is obviously a reference to the numerous attempts to have Ray clarify whether he is a Young-Earth or an Old-Earth creationist. While I agree that it is not technically important to the discussion, it would greatly serve to clarify whether he ignores all scientific methods and conclusions, or just the ones that most directly conflicts with his beliefs. Then again, we’re all more than reasonably sure that if Ray were ever to be infected with a disease, he wouldn’t stay home and pray, but get himself to the nearest doctor, and ask to be given a pill.
Nothing like a hypocrite to present an analogy that makes more fun of himself than anyone else.