Atheism

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GodWarrior (Talk | contribs) at 16:35, August 24, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of any God.[1][2]

Compare agnostic (unsure or neutral as to whether God exists or not).

Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism

The psalmist David wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and Moses simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). [3]

Accordingly, the psalmist David wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

The psalmist David also stated that "The The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalm 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:20 (KJV)

Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Adherents

The atheism of notable atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the leading atheist of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:

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.[4]

Charles Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist which is a type of atheist.[5][6] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] [7]

Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism

See also: Strong atheism, Weak atheism.

File:Scale.jpg
Since 1979 the proponents of atheism have made a concerted effort to redefine atheism in order to shift the burden of proof.

Since 1979 proponents of atheism have often been attempting to dilute the definition of atheism to mean a mere lack of belief there is a God or gods. [8] One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. [9]

In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." [10] In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is a merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. [11] The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods. [12][13][14]

The standard definition of atheism given by encyclopedias of philosophy which is the denial of the existence of God is a definition in accordance with the biblical view of atheism. Specifically, the Bible teaches that the creation clearly testifies of God and the heavens declare the glory of God.(Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1). However, the Bible also states that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). In short, those who do not acknowledge God are in a active state of denying what is clearly shown by nature.

Atheism and Communism

Karl Marx coined the saying "[Religion] is the opium of the people".[15] Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[16]

Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[17]

Criticism

Atheism is Illogical

Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote the following regarding the illogicalness of atheism:

Atheism is what is called a "universal negative." One of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a universal negative....You would have to examine every part of the universe....

By the way, you would have to be very, very fast because, who knows, this God, these angels....may be very, very fast, and just after you get somewhere, they may have left for another part of the universe.

This means that you would have to be omnipresent. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be omniscient. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.[18]

Logician Mortimer Adler concurs with Dr. Kennedy that the standard definition of atheism which attempts to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition and prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have candidly stated that God's existence cannot be disproven.[19]

Atheism is Contrary to Reasonable Argument

Theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument. Arguments for the existence of God include:

  • Teleological argument: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an intelligent designer;
  • Cosmological argument: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause distinct from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. That First Cause is God.
  • Ontological argument: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
  • Historical arguments for the existence of God: Arguments stemming from historical accounts and archaeological evidence;
  • Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition;

Atheism and Mass Murder

Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.

Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[20] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic regimes.[20]

Koukl summarized by stating:

It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[20]

Atheists in America are Generally Less Charitable

File:112006top.jpg
Atheists and agnostics in America generally give significantly less to charity than theists.

Charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:

The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.[21]

Arthur C. Brooks wrote:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.[22]

ABC News reported the following:

...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."[23]

Atheism and Immoral Views

American atheists are more likely than American theist to look upon illegal drug use as morally acceptable.

The Barna Group also found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; getting drunk; having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married; having an abortion; living with someone of the opposite sex without being married; using profanity; gambling; looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[24]

Atheism and Questions of Origins

Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. Creationist scientists state that the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by God.[25][26][27] A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.[28][29] Creationist scientists also assert the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.[30] In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate.

Atheism and the Existence of Evil

Atheists state that the existence of evil is a problem for theism which holds to a good and powerful God.[31] Theodicy is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.[32] In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil.[33] In recent times Christian apologists often cite Alvin Plantinga's free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. [34][35] The work of St. Augustine is also cited in regards to theodicy. [36]

Atheism and the Foundation of Modern Science

In his essay Of Atheism Francis Bacon wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."

"The birth of modern science occured in Christianized Europe.[37] In relation to the birth of modern science, Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions during the time period of 1543 to 1680 A.D. which is a time period associated with the Scientific Revolution. The list Mr. Stark developed in regards to top scientific contributors consisted of 52 individuals.[38] Of the 52 top contributors to science during this period only one of them was a skeptic (Edmund Halley) and another one was a pantheist (Paracelsus). The other 50 top contributors to science during this period were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[39] In addition, Francis Bacon, who is sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", in a essay entitled Of Atheism wrote the following: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."[40]

In a article titled False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it Stark writes the following:

Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......[41]

Dr. Charles Thaxton similarly states:

P. E. Hodgson in reviewing Stanley Jaki's Science and Creation said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."[42]

Ineffectiveness of Atheist Debaters

Doug Jesseph

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that "the most impressive debater to date" was Doug Jesseph.[43] Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).[44] In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher Stanley Miller believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"[45] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."[46]

Gordon Stein

Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.

In 1985, Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen and prominent atheist Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine. John Frame wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the transcendental argument for the existence of God that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."[47] The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".[48][49]

Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin

Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the "man atheists fear most".[50] This is because Harvard-educated Dr. Michael Martin was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the "eleventh hour". A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, was..."[51]

Martin later released his transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.[52]

Creationists tend to win creation-evolution debates

As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.[53][54] 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.[55][56] In August of 1979, 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.”[56] 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.”[56] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.[57]

Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism

Prominent atheists and atheist schools of thought include:

  • Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of Hinduism in the 6th century b.c.
  • Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century b.c.
  • Diagoras: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
  • Epicurus: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that, even if the gods exist, they do not interact with humans and are therefore non-existent for all practical purposes;
  • Lucretius: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy;
  • Karl Marx: founder of Communism;
  • Friedrich Nietzsche: Prominent 20th century atheist philosopher;
  • Lenin and Stalin: Early Communist leaders in Russia;
  • Mao Zedong: Chinese Communist leader;
  • Paul Kurtz: founder of the Council of Secular Humanism
  • Isaac Asimov
  • David Hume
  • Bertrand Russell
  • Ayn Rand
  • Richard Dawkins
  • Douglas Adams
  • Ernest Hemingway

Atheist population as a percentage of various countries' populations

Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 suggests that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. In the United States, however, another 14% of the respondents identified themselves as agnostic indicating that 18% of the U.S. population do not ascribe to theistic views.[58]

American's view of atheists

Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family. [59]

Position: This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society: I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
Atheist 39.6% 47.6%
Muslim 26.3% 33.5%
Homosexual 22.6% NA
Conservative Christian 13.5% 6.9%
Recent Immigrant 12.5% Not Asked
Hispanic 7.6% 18.5%
Jew 7.4% 11.8%
Asian American 7.0% 18.5%
African American 4.6% 27.2%
White American 2.2% 2.3%

External links

Notes

  1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
  2. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998
  3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp
  4. http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm
  5. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877
  6. American Scientist May 1977:323
  7. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html
  8. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
  9. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
  10. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
  11. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
  12. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
  13. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998
  14. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
  15. http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html
  16. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
  17. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
  18. http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419
  19. http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 Koukl, Gregory, The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?, 1994
  21. Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians The Barna Update, 2007.
  22. Brooks, Arthur C., faith and charitable giving Policy Review, Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.
  23. Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina Who Gives and Who Doesn't? ABC News, November 28, 2006
  24. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152
  25. http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php
  26. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329
  27. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html
  28. Dr. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32 December 1997.
  29. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.,F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
  30. http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
  31. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html
  32. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html
  33. http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html
  34. http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm
  35. http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html
  36. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124
  37. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749
  38. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/origins.asp
  39. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/origins.asp
  40. http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html
  41. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html
  42. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html
  43. http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html
  44. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html
  45. http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
  46. http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg
  47. http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm
  48. http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/
  49. http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf
  50. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html
  51. Anon., Press Release
  52. http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html
  53. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32, December 1997.
  54. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
  55. Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science
  56. 56.0 56.1 56.2 Fraser, Bill,Who wins the Debates?
  57. http://www.icr.org/article/811/
  58. In addition, 6% declined to say; and 3% indicated they were unsure of their beliefs.
  59. Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006