Oh, that steely cold logic of Teddy B. A couple of days ago he posted some advice to a rational person who was having a crisis of faith given the lack of evidence for God. Of course Vox did what he does best, and that was give terrible advice. What's more interesting is his ridiculous intellectual reasoning. It just goes to show how hard he works to make his logic fit his beliefs instead of the other way around.
He also lists all the faults of atheists in the article but they're laughable so I don't feel the need to address them. He throws out the 'social autism' phrase again, which is hard to argue against since it's something that doesn't exist. Literally, he just made it up. So how can you refute something that has no definition other than what Vox says it does?
So anyway, here's Vox's supposed "...effects of God in this fallen world."
Stand outside in the cold autumn breeze, close your eyes, spread your arms, and feel the unseen wind on your face. Read the Book of Proverbs, read the latest professional manual on child-rearing, written with the benefit of more than two thousand years of collective human experience, then go to a park and observe the children interacting with their parents. Go drop one rock on top of another 500 times and do your best to convince yourself that all the life you see around you began as a result of a singular accidental collision. Go to a funeral of a stranger, observe the grief of the friends and family, and tell yourself that the rearrangement of atoms involved in the transition of the deceased from life to death was of no more material import or significance than the shattering of a rock into dust.
All of this stuff is interesting, and totally irrelevant. "The universe is fantastic" does not equate to "God exists". And dying is of no more material import than a rock breaking, but far more important to humans.
An atheist may deny that there's no objective good an evil, because if there was there'd be no gray areas in life. But there are, that's reality. But no atheist (who isn't an asshole) would deny that serial killer is awful and has done horrific things and deserves to be punished. Equating atheism to psychopathy is just propaganda.
Speak to a murderer and ask him to tell you why he committed his horrific crimes. Look at the pictures of the aftermath. Then look deep into his eyes and try to tell yourself that neither good nor evil exist.
This is a nice thought, but Vox has proven atheism to be irrational because it's not. What's irrational is believing that one religion is right and another wrong. Or that a religion holds secrets to creation. Or that God is somehow manipulation anything on earth, or anything humans have ever encountered.
Immerse yourself in the atheist arguments with your eyes and your mind open. Not until you fully understand them, not until you reconstruct them from their foundational assumptions, can you grasp how superficial and foolish they are from a purely rational perspective.
Empirical mysticism isn't a path I would recommend for everyone, but the excessively logical often struggle with the reality of the mystery. They simply cannot accept that Man is not capable of formulating the questions, let alone finding the answers. That is why allowing themselves to experience and accept the manifold mysteries of life, the universe, and everything can be necessary for them to permit themselves to be convicted of things not seen.
To rehash, because people are limited their must be a God. And because their must be a God you must be a Christian. That's some incredibly fuzzy logic. Just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it can't be explained. And it sure as hell doesn't mean we should give up trying to explain something and just insert God into the equation. That's taking the easy way out. Intellectual suicide.