Difference between revisions of "Atheism and presumptuousness"

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.^[1]

The second thing that irritates me is factual errors atheists use to justify their convictions. There are many scientists who are deeply religious, including famous ones like Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel and Blaise Pascal... So to make a blanket statement that atheists are somehow more enlightened than believers is not only arrogant, but ignorant.

The third thing is how blatantly offensive it is to belittle someone’s religion. In this politically correct world we live in, how can it be wrong to criticize someone’s race or sexual preference but be OK to criticize their religion? What has this country come to when Miley Cyrus’ “twerking” is OK, but a nativity scene on public property is somehow wrong?

I often wonder what is the motivation of “in-your-face” atheists. Maybe they are insecure and want to pretend they are smarter than everyone. Perhaps they are seeking attention.^[4]

Other advocates of the presumption of atheism use the word in the standard way but insist that it is precisely the absence of evidence for theism that justifies their claim that God does not exist. The problem with such a position is captured neatly by the aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do. With respect to God's existence, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that if God existed, He would provide more evidence of His existence than what we have. This is an enormously heavy burden of proof for the atheist to bear, for two reasons: (1) On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of His Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence. (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence—not to mention all the other arguments of natural theology. In this light, the presumption of atheism seems presumptuous, indeed!^[5]

YOUNG MAN! my object is to warn you of your danger; to point out the true method of religious investigation; to lead you by its adoption to the only solution of that most solemn question, which haunts us in our day-dreams, which breaks in with solemn note upon our revels, which speaks to us in the day's business, which whispers to us in the night's stillness; which banish as we may--avoid as we may--take, though we may, the wings of the morning and flee into the uttermost parts of the sea, Omnipresent still is there, pressing for its answer, and yet with angel wings, hovering in mercy over us!

Who has not heard the question from within--by whom asked, he knows not--WHAT AM I NOW? AND WHAT SHALL I BE HEREAFTER? How few have answered it at all! How many evasively! How few honestly! How many drown the voice of the earnest querist, that they may frame an answer which will serve the present moment, and avoid that response whose joyous echo shall resound forever!

How many young men have I seen fight their way from the camp of Christianity, into the tents of Infidelity, and even atheism! and answer the question thus: "Dust I am--to dust I will return!" How many turn from the peaceful ways of the Christian's life, to the dreary gloom of a cheerless materialism, from the calm unperturbed tranquility of the one, to the feverish delights, or the revulsive melancholy of the other!^[7]

According to Robert A. Harris, 'a common sense look at the world, with all its beauty, apparent design, meaning, and vibrancy, would seem to predispose a neutral observer to presume that God exists unless good evidence for his non-existence could be brought to bear … The fact that materialists often struggle with this issue, working to explain away the design of the creation, for example, would seem to back up this claim.' Nevertheless, British humanist Richard Norman asserts that, 'the onus is on those who believe in a god to provide reasons for that belief. If they cannot come up with good reasons, then we should reject the belief.' It was another British philosopher, Antony Flew (who recently became a theist), who most famously urged that the 'onus of proof must lie upon the theist', and that unless compelling reasons for God's existence could be given there should be a 'presumption of atheism'. However, by 'atheism' Flew meant merely 'non-theism' – a non-standard definition of 'atheism' that includes agnosticism but excludes atheism as commonly understood. The presumption of atheism is, therefore, not particularly interesting unless (as with Richard Norman explicitly and Lewis Wolpert implicitly) it really is the presumption of atheism rather than the presumption of agnosticism. However, the former is far harder to defend than the latter.^[8]

The total amount of knowledge any single person possesses is infinitesimal compared to the vastness of the universe and the immeasurable amount of information it contains. A person would have to be omnipresent (present everywhere at once) and omniscient (have all awareness and understanding) in order to have enough information to know that no deity exists. And these attributes are part of most people’s concept of God! Hence, no finite human being can prove God does not exist because God may very well exist beyond one’s comprehension or experience.

Of course, this fact stops few atheists from arguing against the existence of God. But it does illustrate that dogmatic assertions for the nonexistence of God are presumptuous and irrational. No one can prove God doesn’t exist.^[10]

I gently replied, "But how do you know that you can't know?" I then pressed him: "I can understand that you obviously speak for yourself about not knowing if God exists. But how can you say that no one else can truly know that God exists? That just sounds presumptuous to me." The militant agnostic speaks for all people, claiming to know that no one can know God exists. But how can he support the claim to know this? Like that atheist, the militant agnostic must justify his claim as well.^[11]

Clearly, free thinkers have been busy as they considered all the contenders as sources of knowledge in order to determine absolutely that science, logic, and reason are the ONLY keys to the kingdom of knowledge.

Such echoes the voice of Dr. Carl Sagan, speaking as a scientist, claiming that, “the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” But, after thinking about freethinking, I wonder whether such an emphatic statement was intended not as one describing the way things really were, are, or will be, that is, a truth claim, but was merely his opinion.

Were he alive today, I would bet that he would be warmly welcomed into the Freethought Society. But, I digress.

Finally, the statement at issue is clearly pretentious, presumptuous, deceptive, and irrational. Before I explain why, I want to peel back the Free-thought onion a bit.

But, here is where the problems begin for atheism and atheists, problems that make irrefutable my claim that to hold such opinions is pretentious, presumptuous, deceptive, and irrational.

For atheism MUST presuppose that nature is all there is, that any form of being is composed only of material or matter, and that any and all such beings exist without design, purpose, or meaning.

Conversely, atheism presupposes that every form of being exists by virtue of random, natural events which themselves are determined by mindless, natural, and unguided causal chains that preceded their existence and over which they had absolutely no control.

Determined only by the foregoing, all beings, including atheists themselves, are simply mindless, purposeless, and meaningless random molecules in motion.

Readers must understand that by subscribing to naturalism, or materialism, or scientific naturalism, an atheist, must reject the thinking mind since the mind, as understood for the past two thousand years, is itself non-material.

Since materialists’ orthodoxy holds that a material universe is all that exists, they must, by their own logic, reject any non-material construct such as mind. They must also reject any abstract thoughts that derive from a mind such as ideas, notions, or beliefs; and yes, even opinions themselves.

Moreover, based on their own claims, atheists cannot use logic, science, and philosophical reflection to form opinions or rational arguments.^[13]

Atheism is becoming a religion of its own. It already has its gurus and its revered sacred texts... It has its magnificent temples within which lie mysteries and unknowable truths.^[15]

Is there thus a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time? I think so. There is a way in which it is natural for human beings to believe in God. I think of St. Thomas who on several occasions observed that a person need only look around at the world and gain the idea of God. The order and arrangement and lawlike character of natural events impose the idea. Indeed, so easily does the idea come that it seems almost innate.^[17]