Changes

'''Implicit atheism''' and '''explicit atheism''' are types of [[atheism]] coined by the atheist George H. Smith. Smith belonged to the [[Objectivism|objectivist]] school of atheist thought.<ref>[http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithatheism.htm Rebuttal of George S. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God]</ref> See also: [[Schools of atheist thought]].

'''Implicit atheism''' and '''explicit atheism''' are types of [[atheism]] coined by the atheist George H. Smith. Smith belonged to the [[Objectivism|objectivist]] school of atheist thought.<ref>[http://www.anthonyflood.com/smithatheism.htm Rebuttal of George S. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God]</ref> See also: [[Schools of atheist thought]].

Implicit atheism as defined by Smith is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".<ref> Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. pp. 13–18. ISBN 0-87975-124-X.</ref>

Implicit atheism as defined by Smith is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".<ref>Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. pp. 13–18. ISBN 0-87975-124-X.</ref>

The concept of implicit atheism is related to the concept of [[weak atheism]]. Weak atheism is an individual merely lacking a belief in God/gods. Using this broad definition of definition of atheism, there are atheists who assert that babies are atheists.<ref>[https://carm.org/are-babies-born-atheists Are babies born atheists?] by Matt Slick</ref>   

The concept of implicit atheism is related to the concept of [[weak atheism]]. Weak atheism is an individual merely lacking a belief in God/gods. Using this broad definition of definition of atheism, there are atheists who assert that babies are atheists.<ref>[https://carm.org/are-babies-born-atheists Are babies born atheists?] by Matt Slick</ref>   

George H. Smith wrote: "Atheism, therefore, is the absence of  

George H. Smith wrote: "Atheism, therefore, is the absence of  

theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist."<ref>George H. Smith, ''The Case Against God'', page 7[https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX8undhcmsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Atheism,+therefore,+is+the+absence+of+theistic+belief.+One+who+does+not+believe+in+the+existence+of+a+god+or+supernatural+being+is+properly+designated+as+an+atheist.%22&source=bl&ots=9YO9Tnju--&sig=iQm3uHv5Pp_aCAkG0f_J_qO20ds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5oMnhs8bMAhVBLSYKHUMkAEwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%2C%20therefore%2C%20is%20the%20absence%20of%20theistic%20belief.%20One%20who%20does%20not%20believe%20in%20the%20existence%20of%20a%20god%20or%20supernatural%20being%20is%20properly%20designated%20as%20an%20atheist.%22&f=false]</ref>  A number of [[Christianity|Christians]]/[[theism|theists]] argue that atheists/[[agnosticism|agnostics]] are attempting to redefine the word atheism and make its definition unnecessarily broader (See [[Definition of atheism]]). [[William Lane Craig]] has called the attempts to broaden the definition of atheism a "deceptive game" (See: [[Definition of atheism#William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word atheism|William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]</ref>  

theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=3HX8undhcmsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Atheism,+therefore,+is+the+absence+of+theistic+belief.+One+who+does+not+believe+in+the+existence+of+a+god+or+supernatural+being+is+properly+designated+as+an+atheist.%22&source=bl&ots=9YO9Tnju--&sig=iQm3uHv5Pp_aCAkG0f_J_qO20ds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5oMnhs8bMAhVBLSYKHUMkAEwQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=%22Atheism%2C%20therefore%2C%20is%20the%20absence%20of%20theistic%20belief.%20One%20who%20does%20not%20believe%20in%20the%20existence%20of%20a%20god%20or%20supernatural%20being%20is%20properly%20designated%20as%20an%20atheist.%22&f=false George H. Smith, ''The Case Against God'', page 7]</ref>  A number of [[Christianity|Christians]]/[[theism|theists]] argue that atheists/[[agnosticism|agnostics]] are attempting to redefine the word atheism and make its definition unnecessarily broader (See [[Definition of atheism]]). [[William Lane Craig]] has called the attempts to broaden the definition of atheism a "deceptive game" (See: [[Definition of atheism#William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word atheism|William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word atheism]]).<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]</ref>  

== Diminished usefulness of the terms implicit/explicit atheism ==

== Diminished usefulness of the terms implicit/explicit atheism ==

As can be seen below, due to various research findings in the [[social science]]s, global [[desecularization]], the increase of religious immigration to the [[Western World]] and other developments, the usefulness of the terms implicit and explicit atheism has diminished.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed].</ref><ref name="exist">Unruh, Bob (July 19, 2014).  [http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/science-writer-atheists-might-not-exist "Scientists: atheists might not exist"].  WorldNetDaily.  Retrieved on February 21, 2015.</ref><ref>

As can be seen below, due to various research findings in the [[social science]]s, global [[desecularization]], the increase of religious immigration to the [[Western World]] and other developments, the usefulness of the terms implicit and explicit atheism has diminished.<ref name="nytimes.com">[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref><ref name="Children see the world as designed">[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed].</ref><ref name="exist">Unruh, Bob (July 19, 2014).  [http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/science-writer-atheists-might-not-exist "Scientists: atheists might not exist"].  WorldNetDaily.  Retrieved on February 21, 2015.</ref><ref name="sneps.net">*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]

*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]

*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Eric Kaufmann: Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth?]

*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Eric Kaufmann: Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth?]

*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/atheist%20demographics Eric Kaufmann's Atheist Demographic series]

*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/atheist%20demographics Eric Kaufmann's Atheist Demographic series]

[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>]]

[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>]]

While some individuals give more thoughtful deliberation on the issue of the [[Arguments for the existence of God|existence of God]] and the purpose of life than others (see: [[Atheism and apathy]] and [[Apatheism]]), it is common for atheists/[[agnosticism|agnostics]] to dwell on the issue of purpose (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref>  

While some individuals give more thoughtful deliberation on the issue of the [[Arguments for the existence of God|existence of God]] and the purpose of life than others (see: [[Atheism and apathy]] and [[Apatheism]]), it is common for atheists/[[agnosticism|agnostics]] to dwell on the issue of purpose (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).<ref name="nytimes.com">[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref>  

Also, notable atheists have had the characteristic of variability and instability when it came to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century.  He was one of several popularizers of the [[philosophy]] of [[existentialism]].  

Also, notable atheists have had the characteristic of variability and instability when it came to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century.  He was one of several popularizers of the [[philosophy]] of [[existentialism]].  

{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of ''being able to think otherwise''.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=BGU7LZ2bQ4cC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=As+for+me,+I+don%E2%80%99t+see+myself+as+so+much+dust+that+has+appeared+in+the+world+but+as+a+being+that+was+expected,+prefigured,+called+forth.+In+short,+as+a+being+that+could,+it+seems,+come+only+from+a+creator;+and+this+idea+of+a+creating+hand+that+created+me+refers+me+back+to+God.&source=bl&ots=die9xMUdsB&sig=3dAJOK34aBalYieFKcJLdGpwFjY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NXhqVMSmHMexyASUyYKIBw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=As%20for%20me%2C%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20see%20myself%20as%20so%20much%20dust%20that%20has%20appeared%20in%20the%20world%20but%20as%20a%20being%20that%20was%20expected%2C%20prefigured%2C%20called%20forth.%20In%20short%2C%20as%20a%20being%20that%20could%2C%20it%20seems%2C%20come%20only%20from%20a%20creator%3B%20and%20this%20idea%20of%20a%20creating%20hand%20that%20created%20me%20refers%20me%20back%20to%20God.&f=false ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109]</ref>}}

{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of ''being able to think otherwise''.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=BGU7LZ2bQ4cC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=As+for+me,+I+don%E2%80%99t+see+myself+as+so+much+dust+that+has+appeared+in+the+world+but+as+a+being+that+was+expected,+prefigured,+called+forth.+In+short,+as+a+being+that+could,+it+seems,+come+only+from+a+creator;+and+this+idea+of+a+creating+hand+that+created+me+refers+me+back+to+God.&source=bl&ots=die9xMUdsB&sig=3dAJOK34aBalYieFKcJLdGpwFjY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NXhqVMSmHMexyASUyYKIBw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=As%20for%20me%2C%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20see%20myself%20as%20so%20much%20dust%20that%20has%20appeared%20in%20the%20world%20but%20as%20a%20being%20that%20was%20expected%2C%20prefigured%2C%20called%20forth.%20In%20short%2C%20as%20a%20being%20that%20could%2C%20it%20seems%2C%20come%20only%20from%20a%20creator%3B%20and%20this%20idea%20of%20a%20creating%20hand%20that%20created%20me%20refers%20me%20back%20to%20God.&f=false ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109]</ref>}}

Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the natural world [[Intelligent design|as designed]] and purposeful and believe some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed].</ref>

Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the natural world [[Intelligent design|as designed]] and purposeful and believe some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.<ref name="Children see the world as designed"/>

One of the most popular arguments for God's existence is the [[teleological argument]]. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. See also: [[Evolution]] and [[Intelligent design]] and [[Creation science]]

One of the most popular arguments for God's existence is the [[teleological argument]]. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. See also: [[Evolution]] and [[Intelligent design]] and [[Creation science]]

These atheists’ responses weren’t just the product of living in America’s highly religious society. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2013.782888#.VGptUsn6dl6 Research done at Queen’s University in Belfast] by the psychologists Bethany Heywood and Jesse Bering found that [[British atheism|British atheists]] were just as likely as American atheists to believe that their life events had underlying purposes, even though Britain is far less religious than America.

These atheists’ responses weren’t just the product of living in America’s highly religious society. [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2013.782888#.VGptUsn6dl6 Research done at Queen’s University in Belfast] by the psychologists Bethany Heywood and Jesse Bering found that [[British atheism|British atheists]] were just as likely as American atheists to believe that their life events had underlying purposes, even though Britain is far less religious than America.

In other studies, scheduled to be published online next week in the journal Child Development, we found that even young children show a bias to believe that life events happen for a reason — to “send a sign” or “to teach a lesson.” This belief exists regardless of how much exposure the children have had to religion at home, and even if they’ve had none at all.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref>}}

In other studies, scheduled to be published online next week in the journal Child Development, we found that even young children show a bias to believe that life events happen for a reason — to “send a sign” or “to teach a lesson.” This belief exists regardless of how much exposure the children have had to religion at home, and even if they’ve had none at all.<ref name="nytimes.com">[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?'']</ref>}}

==== Atheism and the brain ====

==== Atheism and the brain ====

Below are relevant quotes from a science magazine/journal:

Below are relevant quotes from a science magazine/journal:

“Atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think... They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.” - Graham Lawton in the ''New Scientist''<ref name="exist">Unruh, Bob (July 19, 2014).  [http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/science-writer-atheists-might-not-exist "Scientists: atheists might not exist"].  WorldNetDaily.  Retrieved on February 21, 2015.</ref>  science magazine. See also: [[Atheism and life after death]] and [[Atheism and death]]

“Atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think... They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.” - Graham Lawton in the ''New Scientist''<ref name="exist"/>  science magazine. See also: [[Atheism and life after death]] and [[Atheism and death]]

“A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to [[faith]].”  - Pascal Boyer, in the British science journal ''Nature'' <ref name="exist"/>

“A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to [[faith]].”  - Pascal Boyer, in the British science journal ''Nature'' <ref name="exist"/>

===== Diminishment of conscious thinking and atheism =====

===== Diminishment of conscious thinking and atheism =====

[[File:Atheism and brain function - satirical graphic.png|thumbnail|right|200px|Satirical graphic used by the [[Freedom From Atheism Foundation]] (FFAF). The FFAF shared Dr. Joel McDurmon's article entitled ''Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function'' with their supporters.<ref>[http://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/ Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function]</ref>]]  

[[File:Atheism and brain function - satirical graphic.png|thumbnail|right|200px|Satirical graphic used by the [[Freedom From Atheism Foundation]] (FFAF). The FFAF shared Dr. Joel McDurmon's article entitled ''Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function'' with their supporters.<ref name="americanvision.org">[http://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/ Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function]</ref>]]  

Dr. Joel McDurmon at the organization American Vision wrote about a University of York study involving magnetism and brain function:

Dr. Joel McDurmon at the organization American Vision wrote about a University of York study involving magnetism and brain function:

That in itself may not seem so embarrassing, but consider that the specific part of the brain they frazzled was the [[posterior medial frontal cortex]]—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic.

That in itself may not seem so embarrassing, but consider that the specific part of the brain they frazzled was the [[posterior medial frontal cortex]]—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic.

In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.<ref>[http://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/ Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function]</ref>}}

In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.<ref name="americanvision.org">[http://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/ Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function]</ref>}}

(To read about some of the functions of the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC), please read the article: [[Posterior medial frontal cortex]])

(To read about some of the functions of the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC), please read the article: [[Posterior medial frontal cortex]])

''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Growth of global desecularization]] and [[Global atheism]]

''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Growth of global desecularization]] and [[Global atheism]]

[[File:Birkbeck College, Woburn Square.jpg|left|thumbnail|200px|[[Eric Kaufmann]], a professor at [[Birkbeck College, University of London]], using a a wealth of demographic studies, argues that there will be a significant decline of [[global atheism]] in the 21st century which will impact the [[Western World]].<ref>

[[File:Birkbeck College, Woburn Square.jpg|left|thumbnail|200px|[[Eric Kaufmann]], a professor at [[Birkbeck College, University of London]], using a a wealth of demographic studies, argues that there will be a significant decline of [[global atheism]] in the 21st century which will impact the [[Western World]].<ref name="sneps.net"/>]]  

*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]

Furthermore, Smith's terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism were a product 19th century and 20th century mindset among atheists. The latter part 20th century and 21st century have seen a time of global [[desecularization]] and a time of the growth of conservative, religious immigrants to the [[Western World]].<ref name="sneps.net"/> To a greater and greater degree, irreligious people are coming in contact with religious people and therefore having to make repeated conscious choices between [[theism]] and irreligion. Furthermore, the growth of global communications/travel causes irreligious societies and subcultures to be less insular.  

*[http://fora.tv/2010/09/05/Eric_Kaufmann_Shall_the_Religious_Inherit_the_Earth Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]</ref>]]  

Furthermore, Smith's terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism were a product 19th century and 20th century mindset among atheists. The latter part 20th century and 21st century have seen a time of global [[desecularization]] and a time of the growth of conservative, religious immigrants to the [[Western World]].<ref>

*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]

*[http://fora.tv/2010/09/05/Eric_Kaufmann_Shall_the_Religious_Inherit_the_Earth Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]</ref> To a greater and greater degree, irreligious people are coming in contact with religious people and therefore having to make repeated conscious choices between [[theism]] and irreligion. Furthermore, the growth of global communications/travel causes irreligious societies and subcultures to be less insular.  

The religious scholar Corey D.B. Walker wrote:  

The religious scholar Corey D.B. Walker wrote:  

=== Growth of Christian apologetics ===

=== Growth of Christian apologetics ===

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|170px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref><ref>[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref>]]

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|170px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref name="Bahsen at the Stein debate">[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref><ref name="simpleapologetics.com">[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref>]]

''See also:'' [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] and [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]

''See also:'' [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] and [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]

In addition to more and more irreligious people coming in contact with religious people, another reason why irreligious people are often increasing confronted with having to make a conscious choice between irreligion and Christianity/religion, is the proliferation of [[Christian apologetics]].  Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logic/evidence based arguments.  

In addition to more and more irreligious people coming in contact with religious people, another reason why irreligious people are often increasing confronted with having to make a conscious choice between irreligion and Christianity/religion, is the proliferation of [[Christian apologetics]].  Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logic/evidence based arguments.  

In 1990, the [[atheism|atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Martin]] indicated there was a general [[Atheism and apathy|absence of an atheistic response]] to contemporary work in the [[philosophy]] of religion and in jest he indicated that it was his "cross to bear" to respond to [[theism|theistic]] arguments.<ref>''Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith'' by Luís F. Rodrigues, page 201</ref>  Yet, in 1994, Michael Martin was criticized for his eleventh hour cancellation of his debate with [[Greg Bahnsen]] (see: [[Greg Bahnsen and debate]] and [[Press release after Michael Martin pulled out of Martin-Bahnsen debate|Bahnson-Martin debate press release]]).<ref>[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref><ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref>  

In 1990, the [[atheism|atheist]] philosopher [[Michael Martin]] indicated there was a general [[Atheism and apathy|absence of an atheistic response]] to contemporary work in the [[philosophy]] of religion and in jest he indicated that it was his "cross to bear" to respond to [[theism|theistic]] arguments.<ref>''Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith'' by Luís F. Rodrigues, page 201</ref>  Yet, in 1994, Michael Martin was criticized for his eleventh hour cancellation of his debate with [[Greg Bahnsen]] (see: [[Greg Bahnsen and debate]] and [[Press release after Michael Martin pulled out of Martin-Bahnsen debate|Bahnson-Martin debate press release]]).<ref name="Bahsen at the Stein debate"/><ref name="simpleapologetics.com"/>  

The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the [[Arguments for the existence of God|existence of God]], are [[theism|theists]] (72 percent).<ref>[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheist-scientists/ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?]</ref>

The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the [[Arguments for the existence of God|existence of God]], are [[theism|theists]] (72 percent).<ref>[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheist-scientists/ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?]</ref>

''See also:'' [[Evolution]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Atheism and science]]

''See also:'' [[Evolution]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Atheism and science]]

[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."

[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."

 

 

 

<small>Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University</small>]]

<small>Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University</small>]]

Creation apologetics is a subdiscipline of Christian apologetics and this field has seen a large amount of growth in the last fifty years.<ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>

Creation apologetics is a subdiscipline of Christian apologetics and this field has seen a large amount of growth in the last fifty years.<ref name="brethrenassembly.com">[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].<ref>

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].<ref>

*Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John (1998).  [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm "Truth in advertising: damaging the cause of science"].  ''Darwin's Leap of Faith'' (Harvest House).  Retrieved from The John Ankenberg Show website on May 15, 2015.

*Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John (1998).  [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm "Truth in advertising: damaging the cause of science"].  ''Darwin's Leap of Faith'' (Harvest House).  Retrieved from The John Ankenberg Show website on May 15, 2015.

*Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  

*Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  

Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.<ref name="AnkerFraser"/>  In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref>Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John (1998).  [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm "Voices for evolution"].  ''Darwin's Leap of Faith'' (Harvest House).  Retrieved from the John Ankerberg show website on May 15, 2015.</ref>

Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.<ref name="AnkerFraser"/>  In August 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”<ref>Fraser, William A. (2003). [http://web.archive.org/web/20091024005313/http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html "Who wins the debates?"]  Mark64's webpage.  Retrieved from October 24, 2009 archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref>  Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John (1998).  [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm "Voices for evolution"].  ''Darwin's Leap of Faith'' (Harvest House).  Retrieved from the John Ankerberg show website on May 15, 2015.</ref>

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>Morris, Henry, Ph. D. (1996). [http://www.icr.org/article/811/ "Reason or rhetoric"].  ''Acts and Facts'', vol. 25, no. 11. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research website on May 15, 2015.</ref> In addition, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist, [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  In an article entitled "Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate?" the [[Discovery Institute]] states the following:

Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>Morris, Henry, Ph. D. (1996). [http://www.icr.org/article/811/ "Reason or rhetoric"].  ''Acts and Facts'', vol. 25, no. 11. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research website on May 15, 2015.</ref> In addition, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist, [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  In an article entitled "Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate?" the [[Discovery Institute]] states the following:

{{cquote|Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.<ref>West, John G. (February 23, 2005).  [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai.html "Are Kansas evolutionists afraid of a fair debate?"]  Evolution News and Views.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

{{cquote|Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.<ref>West, John G. (February 23, 2005).  [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/are_kansas_evolutionists_afraid_of_a_fai.html "Are Kansas evolutionists afraid of a fair debate?"]  Evolution News and Views.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

Why do I say this?  Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between.  Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution—and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.<ref>Scott, Eugenie C. (1994). [http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/credebec.htm "Debates and the Globetrotters"].  Skeptic Tank Text Archive File website/Evolution.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

Why do I say this?  Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between.  Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution—and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.<ref>Scott, Eugenie C. (1994). [http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/credebec.htm "Debates and the Globetrotters"].  Skeptic Tank Text Archive File website/Evolution.  Retrieved on May 15, 2015.</ref>}}

In August of 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material regarding their correspondence with [[Richard Dawkins]] regarding a creation-evolution debate in which Richard Dawkins participated in as a debater.<ref name="creatmat">Humber, Paul G., M. S. (July/August 2003).  [http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF "Debating Dawkins"].  ''Creation Matters'', vol. 8, no. 4.  Retrieved from April 15, 2014 Creation Research Society website archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref> The Creation Research Society stated regarding the debate the following:

In August 2003 the [[Creation Research Society]] published some interesting material regarding their correspondence with [[Richard Dawkins]] regarding a creation-evolution debate in which Richard Dawkins participated in as a debater.<ref name="creatmat">Humber, Paul G., M. S. (July/August 2003).  [http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF "Debating Dawkins"].  ''Creation Matters'', vol. 8, no. 4.  Retrieved from April 15, 2014 Creation Research Society website archive at Internet Archive on May 15, 2015.</ref> The Creation Research Society stated regarding the debate the following:

{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="creatmat"/>}}

{{cquote|Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).<ref name="creatmat"/>}}

From the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth century the rationalists had their heyday, snatching away millions of young people from their Christian faith and commitment. The wounds of this loss can been seen in Christendom even today, but at the same time this loss has been greatly minimized now because of the work of Christian apologists.  

From the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth century the rationalists had their heyday, snatching away millions of young people from their Christian faith and commitment. The wounds of this loss can been seen in Christendom even today, but at the same time this loss has been greatly minimized now because of the work of Christian apologists.  

Today anyone desiring to know about the Bible, and its connection with science, evolution, history, archaeology, has read any number of books on this topic. Literally thousands of titles are available, and he can choose anywhere from the most simple books to the most technically advanced ones.  Thus the modern apologetics movement has been able to arrest the way in which rationalists have been bleeding the Christian church.<ref>[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>}}

Today anyone desiring to know about the Bible, and its connection with science, evolution, history, archaeology, has read any number of books on this topic. Literally thousands of titles are available, and he can choose anywhere from the most simple books to the most technically advanced ones.  Thus the modern apologetics movement has been able to arrest the way in which rationalists have been bleeding the Christian church.<ref name="brethrenassembly.com">[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>}}

==== Summary of why implicit/explict atheism have diminished in importance ====

==== Summary of why implicit/explict atheism have diminished in importance ====