1
Atheistic Arguments on Mon May 09, 2011 4:08 am
http://www.trytruth.com/atheismarguments.html
Atheistic Arguments
Contrary to popular beleif by some atheists, rejecting theistic arguments is not “support” for atheism. Atheists need to give valid reasons justifying the belief that God does not exist. While atheists are hard-pressed to show that God does not exist, three main arguments are often given in support of atheism: coherence of theism, hiddenness of God, and the problem of evil.
Coherence of theism
This argument states that most or all terms used in reference to God are incoherent. When theists claim God has such attributes as omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (all-present) these terms, and many others, are viewed as being either incoherent or so vague as to be useless. Even the term “God” is said to be incoherent due to its different uses in the various religions. Thus, no one can draw any basic or even general conclusion as to what this term (or others like it) means. Since no one is able to state exactly what such terms mean it is essentially impossible to discuss anything pertaining to God in a coherent fashion. Therefore, theism suffers from incoherence.
Several responses are in order. First, even if it is granted that all God-talk is incoherent, it does not follow that God does not exist. What follows is that our knowledge about God, and understanding of Him/Her/It, is incoherent. Note that coherence, in this setting, is a knowledge (epistemological) issue. In stark contrast, the existence of God is an ontological (metaphysical) issue. These are entirely different from one another. Thus, the coherence of theism argument, at best, renders all God-talk meaningless but provides 1) nothing to show that God does not exist and 2) nothing to support atheism. In other words, the existence of God is not even addressed.
Second, while there is great difficulty in being able to fully understand such issues as God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, significant advancement has been made over the years in clarifying such terms. This brings up another innocuous aspect of the coherence argument. It seems that the atheist assumes that concepts like God, omniscience, etc. must be almost fully understood in order to be valid. But this is hardly a proper stance. Note that atheists do not fully understand love, mercy or gravity. There are many abstracts (like beauty, goodness, evil, etc.) that fail to be fully understood or appreciated/appalled by everyone, including atheists. But this does not mean that these things do not exist. What follows is simply that there is a limited understanding of these issues, which is a far cry from their lacking existence or adequate coherence for a general, workable understanding.
Third, it seems a bit presumptuous of the atheist to claim that no one has ever had any relevant understanding of terms relating to God. It is quite possible that some theists are correct (and understand this) in what they are saying even if many others are wrong. The only way to know for sure that every use of, let’s say, the term “God” is incoherent is if the atheist analyzed every distinct use of the term and showed that each use is incoherent. Such a monumental task has yet to be accomplished.
Conclusion to Coherence of theism:
The coherence of theism is a challenge to our understanding (epistemology) of God but does not address His existence (ontology). While the challenge of understanding such terms as omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (all-present) is legitimate, it is important not to over-state this challenge. This argument does not leave atheism with strong support. Atheism is not justified by the coherence of theism argument.
The Hiddenness of God
In short, the argument known as the hiddenness of God is the claim that if God exists, we should expect more evidence for God’s existence. That is, if God exists, then His/Her/Its existence seems to be hidden. Therefore, we are justified in being practical atheists (living as if God does not exist) and not practicing theists (living as if God exists).
First, this argument, once again, does not directly address God’s existence (ontology). Rather, it addresses our knowledge (epistemology) of God’s existence. At best, one can only claim that there is no support for the existence of God but still cannot use this argument to claim that God does not exist.
Second, claiming that God is hidden with little evidence to support His existence is a bit odd given that most people in the world find there to be more than enough evidence to support belief in God. We would need to ask, “How much evidence would be ‘enough evidence’ to prove that God exists?” The acceptance of such evidence would be based upon one's philosophical underpinnings. In other words, even if ample evidence is provided, it is still possible to reject the conclusion to which the evidence points. This is the problem of interpretation. Also, human motive needs to be accounted for. It could be that some simply want to reject God's existence and are willing to ignore relevant data. That being the case, we would expect there to be atheists even if God provided sufficient evidence (sufficient for their standard) for His existence. That brings us to the next response.
Third, what if God came to earth and spent a life-time with us. Would this be considered “enough evidence?” (Gospel of John) If not, why not? Jesus Christ did just this with many witnessing His life, death and resurrection. Yet people still reject God's existence. The problem does not seem to be the lack of evidence for God’s existence. Rather, the problem seems to be the desire to reject Him.
Fourth, several questions need to be asked. Question like "What would evidence for God’s existence look like?”, “What criteria would be used to determine such evidence as valid?”, "Would the existence of a life-giving universe full of incredibly complex living creatures be a step in the right direction to support the view of a Creator?", "Would the conviction of sin, regardless of religion or non-religion, be considered personally relevant 'evidence?'", "How about objective morality?", and finally "Or would the outworking of an incredible plan to restore any willing person to a quality relationship with Him be considered acceptable?"
Criteria regarding acceptable evidence for God’s existence could (and seems to) be accepted by some and rejected by others. There is no guarantee that all would accept the same criteria. One main reason for this is simply that many people are not interested in following God. If they were, then their lives would reflect this (not just their words). The heart (what one wants, desires, etc.) is a major factor in how our lives turn out. Even with plenty of evidence supporting a fact people tend to do what they want anyway. For example, there is plenty of evidence that smoking is detrimental to one’s health and the health of those around the smoker (children in the womb, infants, the elderly, etc.). Yet smokers continue to fumigate the air with toxins in spite of the strong evidence (many of them doctors and nurses). Or consider drunk driving. Those who drink know the risks involved with drinking and driving yet many still risk this dangerous venture. Evidence is simply not the only element necessary to believe or act upon facts. The heart is also key.
By far, most people hold to the belief that God exists. This includes the well educated and those who are not as well educated.In fact, with the education on the rise in the last century (the literacy rate in the US alone has jumped dramatically since the turn of the 20th century) one would think that if belief in God’s existence was simply based upon fairytales and blind faith, then atheism would be able to rise above and defeat theism. But this has hardly been the case.
So far, atheism still falls short of having quality support.
Conclusion
Like other views, atheism must enjoy its own justification. We have looked at two of three main arguments (click here for the third) used to justify atheism and found that neither support the belief that God does not exist. In other words, atheism does not seem to be a view that enjoys quality justification. Lacking good justification, atheism falls into the category of blind faith. It is important to note that a common claim by atheists is that they reject theism due to a lack of evidence. To be consistent, atheists ought to reject atheism since it lacks justification. Maybe some atheists should consider abandoning such a position for a more rationally supported view…like theism!
Atheistic Arguments
Contrary to popular beleif by some atheists, rejecting theistic arguments is not “support” for atheism. Atheists need to give valid reasons justifying the belief that God does not exist. While atheists are hard-pressed to show that God does not exist, three main arguments are often given in support of atheism: coherence of theism, hiddenness of God, and the problem of evil.
Coherence of theism
This argument states that most or all terms used in reference to God are incoherent. When theists claim God has such attributes as omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (all-present) these terms, and many others, are viewed as being either incoherent or so vague as to be useless. Even the term “God” is said to be incoherent due to its different uses in the various religions. Thus, no one can draw any basic or even general conclusion as to what this term (or others like it) means. Since no one is able to state exactly what such terms mean it is essentially impossible to discuss anything pertaining to God in a coherent fashion. Therefore, theism suffers from incoherence.
Several responses are in order. First, even if it is granted that all God-talk is incoherent, it does not follow that God does not exist. What follows is that our knowledge about God, and understanding of Him/Her/It, is incoherent. Note that coherence, in this setting, is a knowledge (epistemological) issue. In stark contrast, the existence of God is an ontological (metaphysical) issue. These are entirely different from one another. Thus, the coherence of theism argument, at best, renders all God-talk meaningless but provides 1) nothing to show that God does not exist and 2) nothing to support atheism. In other words, the existence of God is not even addressed.
Second, while there is great difficulty in being able to fully understand such issues as God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, significant advancement has been made over the years in clarifying such terms. This brings up another innocuous aspect of the coherence argument. It seems that the atheist assumes that concepts like God, omniscience, etc. must be almost fully understood in order to be valid. But this is hardly a proper stance. Note that atheists do not fully understand love, mercy or gravity. There are many abstracts (like beauty, goodness, evil, etc.) that fail to be fully understood or appreciated/appalled by everyone, including atheists. But this does not mean that these things do not exist. What follows is simply that there is a limited understanding of these issues, which is a far cry from their lacking existence or adequate coherence for a general, workable understanding.
Third, it seems a bit presumptuous of the atheist to claim that no one has ever had any relevant understanding of terms relating to God. It is quite possible that some theists are correct (and understand this) in what they are saying even if many others are wrong. The only way to know for sure that every use of, let’s say, the term “God” is incoherent is if the atheist analyzed every distinct use of the term and showed that each use is incoherent. Such a monumental task has yet to be accomplished.
Conclusion to Coherence of theism:
The coherence of theism is a challenge to our understanding (epistemology) of God but does not address His existence (ontology). While the challenge of understanding such terms as omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (all-present) is legitimate, it is important not to over-state this challenge. This argument does not leave atheism with strong support. Atheism is not justified by the coherence of theism argument.
The Hiddenness of God
In short, the argument known as the hiddenness of God is the claim that if God exists, we should expect more evidence for God’s existence. That is, if God exists, then His/Her/Its existence seems to be hidden. Therefore, we are justified in being practical atheists (living as if God does not exist) and not practicing theists (living as if God exists).
First, this argument, once again, does not directly address God’s existence (ontology). Rather, it addresses our knowledge (epistemology) of God’s existence. At best, one can only claim that there is no support for the existence of God but still cannot use this argument to claim that God does not exist.
Second, claiming that God is hidden with little evidence to support His existence is a bit odd given that most people in the world find there to be more than enough evidence to support belief in God. We would need to ask, “How much evidence would be ‘enough evidence’ to prove that God exists?” The acceptance of such evidence would be based upon one's philosophical underpinnings. In other words, even if ample evidence is provided, it is still possible to reject the conclusion to which the evidence points. This is the problem of interpretation. Also, human motive needs to be accounted for. It could be that some simply want to reject God's existence and are willing to ignore relevant data. That being the case, we would expect there to be atheists even if God provided sufficient evidence (sufficient for their standard) for His existence. That brings us to the next response.
Third, what if God came to earth and spent a life-time with us. Would this be considered “enough evidence?” (Gospel of John) If not, why not? Jesus Christ did just this with many witnessing His life, death and resurrection. Yet people still reject God's existence. The problem does not seem to be the lack of evidence for God’s existence. Rather, the problem seems to be the desire to reject Him.
Fourth, several questions need to be asked. Question like "What would evidence for God’s existence look like?”, “What criteria would be used to determine such evidence as valid?”, "Would the existence of a life-giving universe full of incredibly complex living creatures be a step in the right direction to support the view of a Creator?", "Would the conviction of sin, regardless of religion or non-religion, be considered personally relevant 'evidence?'", "How about objective morality?", and finally "Or would the outworking of an incredible plan to restore any willing person to a quality relationship with Him be considered acceptable?"
Criteria regarding acceptable evidence for God’s existence could (and seems to) be accepted by some and rejected by others. There is no guarantee that all would accept the same criteria. One main reason for this is simply that many people are not interested in following God. If they were, then their lives would reflect this (not just their words). The heart (what one wants, desires, etc.) is a major factor in how our lives turn out. Even with plenty of evidence supporting a fact people tend to do what they want anyway. For example, there is plenty of evidence that smoking is detrimental to one’s health and the health of those around the smoker (children in the womb, infants, the elderly, etc.). Yet smokers continue to fumigate the air with toxins in spite of the strong evidence (many of them doctors and nurses). Or consider drunk driving. Those who drink know the risks involved with drinking and driving yet many still risk this dangerous venture. Evidence is simply not the only element necessary to believe or act upon facts. The heart is also key.
By far, most people hold to the belief that God exists. This includes the well educated and those who are not as well educated.In fact, with the education on the rise in the last century (the literacy rate in the US alone has jumped dramatically since the turn of the 20th century) one would think that if belief in God’s existence was simply based upon fairytales and blind faith, then atheism would be able to rise above and defeat theism. But this has hardly been the case.
So far, atheism still falls short of having quality support.
Conclusion
Like other views, atheism must enjoy its own justification. We have looked at two of three main arguments (click here for the third) used to justify atheism and found that neither support the belief that God does not exist. In other words, atheism does not seem to be a view that enjoys quality justification. Lacking good justification, atheism falls into the category of blind faith. It is important to note that a common claim by atheists is that they reject theism due to a lack of evidence. To be consistent, atheists ought to reject atheism since it lacks justification. Maybe some atheists should consider abandoning such a position for a more rationally supported view…like theism!
