7 Arguments Atheists Can’t Use
Over at the Timothy Ministry site, author Eli Brayley has proposed seven arguments that atheists supposedly cannot use. Not one to take anyone at their word, let’s take a look at these seven arguments and see just how valid Brayley’s arguments are.
But first, let’s look at his preface.
“The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” – Psalm 14:1
“The wise man shouts it from the mountaintop.”
An atheist, as the wordsmith Noah Webster so aptly defined, is one who disbelieves in and denies the existence of a God, and every now and again a person will find himself in the company of one or more of these kinds of people. Of atheism, here is the outrageous thing: there is not one viable argument which can be given by the atheist to support the disbelief in or denial of the existence of a God. Their position is entirely assumed apart from any reasonable basis. Of course, the atheist will deny such a charge, though it was C.H. Spurgeon who reminded us, “Skepticism is no very great achievement. Nothing is easier than to doubt. A man of moderate ability or learning can doubt more than the wisest men believe. Faith demands knowledge, for it is an intelligent grace, able and anxious to justify itself; but infidelity is not required to give a reason for the doubt that is in it.” (The Clue of the Maze, p. 19) As a Christian, I am writing from the faith in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and I have compiled several of the most common arguments that atheists use to support their atheism in order to show how none of them are viable arguments against the existence of God.
It really doesn’t matter what Webster wrote in the early 1800s. There were still people writing that the planet is 6000 years old, I’m sure no one would argue that makes it so. This is hardly a promising start for what is claimed “7 Arguments that Atheists Cannot Use”, but I suppose this isn’t that surprising. See, Christian apologists, especially like this, aren’t really interested in a fair, honest or even evaluation of their claims, they’re out to lead their sheep around by the nose. Therefore, they present claims as if they were facts, offer beliefs as if they had any objective validity and conveniently forget to mention all of the evidence against what they are spouting on any particular day. As Brayley is a Christian, I expect nothing less from him, but as we shall see, his Christian beliefs are what has ultimately driven him astray. He assumes that his beliefs, entirely unsupported by any objective evidence, must be true and therefore, anyone that disagrees must, again with no evidence, be false. It’s no surprise that anyone operating from such a skewed view of reality is going to come up with such absurd ideas.
But let’s take a look and see what Mr. Brayley is so proud of, shall we?
1. Evolution
Probably the most common argument used by atheists in recent years to disprove the existence of God is an appeal to the theory of evolution – somehow they think that if evolution is true it follows that God does not exist, but such an argument is completely worthless. Though I myself ardently reject the theory of evolution, there are numerous Christians and non-Christians who see theistic evolution as an entirely tenable explanation of creation. That is the belief that God designed and had a part to play in the evolutionary process. In fact, I would argue that one would have to believe in theistic evolution if one was to believe in evolution at all. Were the theory of evolution true, the thought that the present state of things should have come about by chance is so utterly impossible and beyond all sensible hope that it is nothing short of miraculous. If evolution were true, either God had an active part to play in it or we must throw rationality to the wind. The fact that there are many theistic evolutionists in this world today (who are the only reasonable evolutionists) reveals that the atheistic argument that evolution disproves God is ridiculous, null and void.
I’ve yet to find any atheist who argues that because evolution is a demonstrable scientific fact, that proves that God doesn’t exist and I’ll be the first to agree that anyone, atheist or otherwise, who did make such a claim would be logically in error. However, it certainly does disprove the belief systems of a particular brand of theists, the ones who demand that the world was created exactly as described in Genesis. We know that’s not the case, therefore anyone who bases their ideas of God on such fairy tales is, by definition, wrong.
Now, whether he rejects evolution or not is entirely irrelevant. Gravity continues to operate regardless of one’s belief in it, Mr. Brayley can believe anything he wants to for whatever reasons he wants to, it doesn’t matter one whit to the reality of the situation. However, if we look at how he’s phrased his statements here, we will realize that Brayley isn’t playing fair, he’s certainly preaching to the choir and not attempting to make logical, rational or reasonable arguments. The sentence “If evolution were true, either God had an active part to play in it or we must throw rationality to the wind” is irrational on the face of it. It assumes, entirely without a shred of evidence, that God exists at all. While I’ve already agreed that evolution, in and of itself, cannot prove God doesn’t exist, Mr. Brayley cannot simply assert that God does exist and get away with it in a rational argument.
The first argument fails on that basis. We have a very good example of a very bad theist argument, one that theists cannot use either.
2. The “Problem” of Evil
It is argued that because evil exists, God doesn’t exist. However, the exact opposite is true: Because evil exists, it proves that God exists. Were it true that there was no God, and that everything in the universe had an impersonal, naturalistic beginning, then evil wouldn’t exist at all. Evil is a moral word, and morality has no place in an impersonal, naturalistic universe. Whatever is, is, and whatever is, is not deviant but totally natural. In such a universe murder isn’t wrong, it just hurts. Kidnapping children to use them as sex slaves isn’t wicked; it’s not even twisted. However, to talk like this is nonsense because every human being inherently knows evil exists, and every human experience proves the opposite. Even the atheist knows evil exists because he argues that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God! The existence of evil proves conclusively that we live in a personal universe that was created by a moral God. The “problem” of evil is really the atheist’s problem, not the theist’s.
That both evil and God exist is also not a problem for the Christian, for the Bible explains why God allows evil to exist, and how God has not turned a blind eye to evil but has condemned it conclusively and will judge it eternally. Therefore this poses no problem. But even if someone chose to reject the Biblical testimony concerning the existence of both evil and God, they still have no grounds to deny the existence of a God simply because evil exists. There is another valid option (though not a convincing one), and that is that an evil God exists. Whatever someone might choose, there is no grounds for atheism by an appeal to evil.
Yet again, we find that Brayley is trying to take an argument that works very well against a particular strain of Christianity and declaring that because it doesn’t work against his particular strain, it’s entirely invalid. That’s a patently dishonest claim to make. The “Problem of Evil” originally was proposed by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived between 341-270 BCE and it stated:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
For those who believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, this argument is entirely effective because logically, the idea of having a God who can prevent evil, wants to prevent evil and knows how to prevent evil not prevending evil is logically inconsistent. There have been counter-arguments, such as Plantinga’s free will defense, but it doesn’t hold water in the face of the omni-properties. An omnibenevolent deity, for instance, cannot choose not to be non-benevolent, it goes against the claim of being all good. An all-good entity that can choose to be bad cannot, by definition be all-good. That means one would have to change one’s definition for said deity to remain logically consistent. You can either pick the nice omni-property God that people have claimed for years or you can acknowledge that God isn’t all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing. You can’t have it both ways.
The real issue here is Brayley’s claim that evil proves the existence of God and that’s just not logically consistent. He has to remember that we’re not just talking about evil done by man, but “evil” done by nature as well. When a tornado or other so-called “act of God” sets down and kills an infant, we certainly can’t blame that on human free will. God supposedly set up the system, God is supposedly all-knowing, he not only knew that the tornado was going to kill that infant but he specifically set up the situation so that it happened. Can we consider such a God to be moral? I know I can’t.
So two down.
3. Hume’s Argument Against Miracles
Another common argument atheists use against the existence of God, and against all things supernatural, is taken from David Hume’s argumentation against miracles, or against anything out of the “ordinary”. Hume argued, basically, that miracles were “a violation of natural law” and anything that might be purported as a violation of natural law (or anything out of the ordinary) needed such an incredible amount of evidence in order to be believed that he essentially ruled out all possibility of believing anything “supernatural”.
But here a few preliminary questions are in order: What is “ordinary”? If indeed God exists, would not God be a part of the ordinary? As even an atheist once told me, “If God exists then anything He does in our world is technically not supernatural but perfectly natural, though we may personally not be accustomed to it.” Also, who said a miracle was a “violation” of natural law? Today it has been generally agreed in the philosophical debate that Hume was wrong in his definition of miracle, which seriously undermines his entire argument (see Hume’s Abject Failure by John Earman, PhD, Princeton). A miracle is not a violation of natural law but is wholly consistent with natural law, once one takes into consideration God. Therefore, in a theistic worldview, there is nothing so unusual about a miracle that would set it apart in a category making it hopeless to prove. The simple testimony of a miracle is just as valid as the simple testimony of anything else.
Suppose a miracle from God really did happen, and suppose it was in fact witnessed by several people (the number is irrelevant). In Hume’s thinking, no one would ever be able to believe the witnesses even though the event actually happened, and thus the world is robbed of exceedingly priceless knowledge. Any epistemology that does not allow for the simple testimony of true events should be re-evaluated as obstructive and insufficient.
Finally, regardless of how untenable Hume’s argument is, it contributes nothing to the disbelief in a God, for it concerns miracles, and Deism is still an option. Therefore it should not be used by atheists to support atheism. Meanwhile, the perpetual tide of miraculous testimony still genuinely attests to the existence of the personal God.
Again, haven’t seen anyone arguing this, I’m not sure who Brayley is talking to but our experiences are certainly not remotely similar. I’ll agree with Hume that miracles, at least as demonstrated in the Bible, are a violation of natural law. There aren’t any miracles touted in the Bible that are just an adjustment of chance. They didn’t win the lottery or bet on the ponies the right way, that’s not what miracles are purported to be. That said, yes you would need a significant amount of data to demonstrate that the supernatural existed, but the same is true of any non-natural, not-currently-demonstrated claim. If someone said that Harry Potter’s magic was real, they’d have the same burden of proof. It’s not like we’re picking on theists, we’re asking that they be able to differentiate between something for which no evidence has ever been presented and something that doesn’t exist at all and to date, they’ve failed miserably in backing it up.
That’s why we don’t ask for eyewitness testimony, we ask for testable, demonstrable evidence. I don’t care what Jane Doe says happened, I want to be able to prove it. Humans are notoriously unreliable eyewitnesses. Ten people can see the exact same event from the exact same spot and come up with ten different accounts. Therefore, I’ll not accept any eyewitness testimony as the sole evidence that something actually happened. It might add to other evidence we can collect, if that’s all you’ve got, you’re out of luck.
But Brayley is absolutely correct that this doesn’t prove the non-existence of God, but no one said it did. Certainly Deism is a possibility, the idea that there was a God or gods who did exist and who did… something but today don’t care about man and don’t interact with the universe. That, however isn’t the Christian God and therefore, isn’t what Brayley is arguing against.
Another failure.
4. God is a Crutch
It is frequently stated by atheists that people only believe in God because God serves them as a crutch; something to help or comfort them because of their weakness or need. Of course, there are several obvious reasons why this argument is totally invalid.
First of all, regardless whether or not God helps and comforts people, the existence of God does not depend upon someone liking or not liking God to be there. We could point out the absurdity of the reverse, that since atheists believe that God does not exist, and draw a certain amount of comfort from that, it follows that God must exist. This reasoning is just as ridiculous when applied to the theist. That the existence of God is indeed a comforting reality for believers serves nothing to disprove God, and what shall we say about people who believe in God and yet draw no comfort from it?
The thing is, in order for people to draw comfort from God, they must first believe that there is a God to draw comfort from – there must be some reason why they feel they can call out to a God who will help them. They have faith, and their faith must have a basis, or else there would be no faith. Speaking for Christians, we do not believe in God, as the atheist suggests, because God is a crutch for us. That is no basis. We believe in God because of the uniform testimony of creation, Scripture and human experience. It is because we believe in God (and the Judeo-Christian God at that) that we are able to draw comfort from Him, and not the other way around. Therefore the atheist who argues in this fashion misses the whole point and puts the cart before the horse.
The truth is, believing in God brings with it a certain amount of discomfort. If we believe Biblical revelation, for example, we must believe that God is a consuming fire – a holy and just judge who will punish the ungodly with everlasting destruction. That includes our lost friends, family members and even ourselves before salvation. We must acknowledge that our sinful passions are unacceptable, though we enjoy them so much. We must also face the ridicule and, oftentimes, persecution that comes with believing the message of Christ crucified. In all reality, to become a Christian is not to take up a crutch but to take up a cross. “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matt. 16:24-25) I should think, rather, that it is the atheist who finds a crutch in disbelieving the existence of God when all the evidence is finally weighed.
Once again, this isn’t an argument anyone I’ve ever seen has used against the existence of God. It’s just an observation of truth in the belief of adherents for God. Where Brayley goes immediately wrong is his assumption that believing that something exists has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not it actually does exist. No one has argued that people knowingly believe in God as a crutch, just that it’s the functional reality of their beliefs. I’m sure every one of them really strongly believes God is real. That doesn’t make it so. I’m sure that every Muslim strongly believes in Allah, every Hindu strongly believes in Krishna and every tin-foil-wearing UFOlogist strongly believes in the existence of alien visitors. None of that belief means a damn thing and I’m sure Brayley would be forced to agree when looking at the beliefs of non-Christians. Certainly believing in their gods doesn’t make them real, at least according to Brayley’s belief system. Therefore, it doesn’t make his beliefs necessarily true either.
Drawing comfort from things doesn’t make them real. Linus, Charlie Brown’s pal, drew comfort from his blanket. He believed that the blanket would protect him from harm. That doesn’t make it so.
So another one goes down in flames.
5. Religious Crimes
Another argument thrust forth, usually in a last ditch effort by the atheist to make his tottering position seem tolerable, is that because so many crimes have been committed in the name of God it must therefore follow that God does not exist, and that religion is false. But when we speak of crime, we are speaking of immorality, and immorality only exists as far as God exists, and immorality is immoral only because it is a transgression of the law of God. There actually can be no “religious crimes” without the existence of God.
Furthermore, it is not religion, true religion, nor God, that commit these crimes, but so-called “religious” people who themselves violate the very idea of religion by their crimes. We must also consider the immeasurable good that faith in God has caused in the world, as well as the immense evil this world has seen on account of denying God. It is always some form of godlessness that is the source of all sin, whether it be categorized as “religious” or atheistic.
I absolutely agree with Brayley here, crimes are the product of human beings, not gods. However, we’re not really looking at the crimes themselves but at the justifications behind the crimes. No one has ever, at least to my knowledge, claimed that “God stole my bicycle”, but if someone strongly believed that God told him to take the bicycle, where is the justification coming from? It’s one thing to commit a crime, another to find out why it was done. When people report that “God told me to” or “the devil made me do it” and they have no justification outside of their religion, we must conclude that religion had a part in the commission of the crime, just as we would if someone killed a political figure and reported that an opposing politician told them to do it. We’d charge the opposing politician with conspiracy in the act, why would Brayley insist that religion is given a pass?
Then Brayley launches into the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Of course no “true Christian” could ever do anything wrong. Anyone who ever did anything wrong must have never been a Christian! We can’t possibly attribute anything negative to religion because by his own definition, religion is incapable of doing anything wrong. Even the logically clueless ought to be able to see the fallacy in that mode of thinking.
So sorry, that’s 5 down and 2 to go.
6. If God Had No Beginning, Why Not the Universe?
Sometimes it is argued that if theists can say God has always existed, then atheists can equally say the universe has always existed. Whatever one believes, something has had to always have existed, because everything that currently is could not have come from nothing. The thought alone is staggering to both theist and atheist alike. Christians affirm the Scriptural revelation that God has always existed as God, and that at one definite point God created the universe from nothing. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) This verse refers to the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of God. It is the beginning of our history, and it is remarkable that such an ancient sentence holds such profound meaning today. But is it true that if Christians can say God has always existed, so atheists can say the universe has always existed?
The answer is no. As much as atheists would like to believe it, the demise of this argument is that the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn that the universe in fact had a beginning. Scientific research has advanced leaps and bounds in the area of physics, astronomy and cosmology in the last 100 years, and as it has, the truth of Genesis 1:1 has proven itself to be accurate again and again: that is, that there was in fact a beginning to the universe. Christians believed that the universe had a beginning for thousands of years despite the fact that the dominate belief in the ancient world was that the universe was a constant. Today, however, modern science has completely turned the tables. “[Today], the dominant idea of cosmology is that the universe had a beginning.” (Dr. Adam Frank, University of Rochester) “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the universe began with a “Big Bang”… the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe.” (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan) “All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning… This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.” (Stephen Hawking, University of Cambridge)
Therefore, because modern science is revealing the fact that the universe did in fact have a beginning, this argument cannot be used. It is up to the atheist to first prove that the universe did not have a beginning – a belief contrary to the scientific evidence. Nothing comes from nothing, so if the universe had a beginning, as the ancient Scripture declares, it is one of the greatest proofs for the existence of God.
Brayley shows his utter ignorance of science, which I suppose is no surprise, but he grossly misunderstands what’s going on. Yes, cosmologists will tell you in no uncertain terms that *OUR* universe started with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Brayley takes that fact and goes running off with it while completely ignoring the *OUR* part. Our particular universe is just one of a likely infinity of other universes in the multiverse. We have no way of knowing how long it may have existed or if it ever had a beginning, currently that knowledge is beyond our ability to research. That we don’t know does not give us license, as Brayley does, to just make crap up. We don’t invent farsical deities that have been around forever because we don’t like not having a ready answer right this second. That’s the pervue of religion, not rational science.
Perhaps Brayley, if he doesn’t want to appear so ignorant, should look into m-theory. It’s still in it’s infancy but as a mathematical model it makes good sense of how a universe such as ours could have started via a Big Bang, along with billions of other universes. Again, this is a case of preaching to the choir, everyone he’s writing for is just as ignorant as he is, he’s hoping that they don’t realize what a load of hooey he’s tossing out.
Another failure. Any surprises?
7. I Don’t Want There to Be a God
Lastly (which is not so much an argument as it is an obstacle), is that I have learned that the source of all atheism springs from the heart, and not the brain. Atheism is not an intellectual position, but a dogmatic faith cloaked in intellectual jargon – else why do atheists argue so feverishly? Why do the emotions rise so? It is because they do not want there to be a God. It is because of what believing in God would mean, and that is something they are not willing to face. “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works…” (Psalm 14:1) History tells the story of thousands of atheists who have bowed their knees in repentant faith before the Lord God of heaven and earth. Was it because they suddenly gave up their intellect? Most certainly not! Was it not rather because they submitted their wills to the sovereign will of the true and living God? As long as the heart rages against God no amount of reasoning will stop the infinite flow of irrational arguments proceeding from a fool, but all arguments will cease once the heart is still.
To my dear atheist friends: not wanting God to be there does not change the fact that He is there, and as long as you continue to fight against God you are only hurting yourself and others.
If Brayley wants to outlaw this supposed argument, and I’ll be honest I have never heard a single atheist ever make such a claim, then he must also outlaw the counter-argument, one that is extremely common among theists, that they *DO* want there to be a God and therefore, they’re going to believe in one. I will agree wholeheartedly that belief or desire doesn’t alter objective reality. What is, is. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not. Of course, Brayley betrays his own ignorance or extremely limited contact with atheism, perhaps both, by claiming that atheism is a dogmatic faith when it’s nothing of the sort. Either he’s being purposely ignorant of the overwhelming majority of atheists or he’s being purposely dishonest in his evaluation of the majority position. The fact is that most atheists, a substantial majority, reject religion not on an emotional but on a purely intellectual one. Religion doesn’t have any objective evidence to support it, it fails every single test it’s put to and the only thing theists can bring to the table is unsubstantiated faith, as if that actually proves anything.
Seven up, seven down.
No, Brayley, as well as many other Christians I have written about, really have no solid footing to stand on when they make claims like this and I suspect they know it. But Brayley, again like many other Christians, aren’t talking to atheists when they make posts like this, they are preaching to the choir. Their audience is uninformed and willfully ignorant of what atheism really is and are only too happy to swallow, hook, line and sinker, whatever comes down from the pulpit because they’ve been trained that their preachers will never lie to them. Unfortunately, we find that’s wholly untrue and, purposely or not, falsehoods flow from the pulpit almost constantly. The preacher isn’t there to tell the truth, he’s there to sell a product. If he has to “bend the truth” a little to keep filling the pews, I doubt many preachers would have the slightest problem with it, they probably don’t even realize they’re doing it.
One Comment to “7 Arguments Atheists Can’t Use”
Hi. I found your blog on the bloggeries. I really enjoyed this post and look forward to reading more from you!
Bitchscriptions
Revolt Basic theme by NenadK. | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).