I have believed the best way to debate atheism is not on the level of evidence, but presuppositions. This article addresses one of the best arguments against atheism.
——-
Atheists are “coming out of the closet” and becoming more vocal about their message that “there is no God.” Professor Richard Dawkins (Britain’s leading atheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to “free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community.”1 Will Christians be prepared to “give an answer” to the atheists’ claims?2
Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!
Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!
Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.
Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.
The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.
How can the atheist respond?
The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.
The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.
The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.
Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?
As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.
Conclusions
Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?
Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
Footnotes
“Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America’s unbelievers” The Guardian, October 1st, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2180901,00.html Back
See 1 Peter 3:15. Back
Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen often used this analogy. Dr. Bahnsen was known as the “man atheists most feared.” Back
24 Comments
January 6, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I just did a post with proofs from the Quran, that no atheist cold deny the existence of God.
January 6, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Nice article, thanks for posting this! The one quesiton I have though is how did you arrive at this conclusion: “The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks”?
January 6, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Hi jerryk,
To clarify, I didn’t write the article! I put a link to the original at the beginning.
Dr. Lisle explains how he arrived at that conclusion here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/07/feedback-god-and-logic
He answers a readers questions and explains a little more in depth what he means. I hope this helps!
January 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Ah, so you did. Sorry and thanks for putting me on the right path.
January 6, 2009 at 8:43 pm
It seems to me that Atheism depends as much on faith as does any Theistic belief. Ultimately, the only rational point of view is Agnosticism. I do not mean to demean faith of any kind by this statement, only to distinguish it from rigorous rationality. If Agnosticism requires faith at all, it requires faith that the ultimate Truth about whether or not there is a God is not scientifically knowable. I leave the discussion of knowledge vs. faith for another time and place.
August 25, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Agnosticism is self defeating in nature. “We can know nothing about God” is in fact a statement of knowing that God is unknowable. It’s not faithless, its silly.
January 7, 2009 at 1:15 am
[...] January 7, 2009 by John from Always Ready: [...]
January 7, 2009 at 4:32 am
“In God we make our boast all day long” – Psalm 44:8
Thanks for your thoughts!
-Sol
http://www.calebandsol.com
January 7, 2009 at 9:00 am
Since logic is a formal system, invented and elaborated by humans, and fully tautological, its existence is not an argument for any deity. Familiarizing yourself with different kinds of logic, category and topos theories would go a long way towards dispelling your strange delusion.
January 7, 2009 at 9:28 am
By positing God as a creator of logic, are you not simply answering a mystery with an even bigger mystery? For one would have to ask: where did God come from? Where did he obtain the intelligence to come up with the idea of logic in the first place?
Just a thought. Thanks for the great post.
January 7, 2009 at 9:33 am
jabrice wrote: It seems to me that Atheism depends as much on faith as does any Theistic belief.
I disagree. Atheism posits the existence of the natural world. Theism also holds this view, but adds on a whole lot of other beliefs, such as the existence of the supernatural, gods, demons, angels, miracles, etc, etc. All these additional beliefs require faith, so the theist is the one who carries the most amount ‘faith based’ beliefs.
Atheists only believe in the natural world – they carry no additional beliefs.
January 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I can find no basis for the assertion that the “Biblical” God is necessary. Why not God the speaker of Bhagavad-gita?
http://vedabase.net/bg/en
January 9, 2009 at 5:39 am
You claim the standard of human reason is the mind of god but, of course, your entire argument rests on the assumption of an unsubstantiated “god”. No, the standard for human reason is nature. Nature is the final arbiter whether or not one’s thinking is correct or incorrect. One’s assumptions regarding nature are generally immediately testable.
In what way is the assumption of the existence of a “god” and its characteristics immediately testable?
January 12, 2009 at 12:51 am
Naumadd,
If you or someone else cannot see God, it does not mean that God cannot be seen. One has to be qualified. As Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 11.54, “My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.” http://vedabase.net/bg/11/en
Many, many people have reached that goal of pure devotional service and directly seen the Lord. It doesn’t matter what so-called scientists think. They don’t know anything.
January 12, 2009 at 4:28 am
If rational thinking makes sense in a Christian view, why did Luther say “Reason is a whore…”?
In fact, is not “fundamentalism by not listening” the real danger? That is, atheism is only dangerous as often as an atheist person refuses to change his thought processes when new evidence is discovered.
Those who refuse to listen to truth as it is encountered and subsequently change their behavior and thoughts accordingly – atheist, theist or polytheist – are in the most danger it would seem.
For none of these stubborn people are using reason.
January 12, 2009 at 8:56 pm
To the agnostics:
jaybrice claimed that Agnosticism was the only rational view, this view is held by many Agnostics. Do you realise, however, that in order to claim agnosticism you must affirm that there is not a way for you to be sure. If you do not affirm this then you should look for one. If you do affirm it (as a true agnostic would) then my question is, on what basis? In the same way that my fundamental belief is that the Bible is the inspired word of the Christian God, you must believe that you are able to know something that is universally true and that you are able to reach rational conclusions but you are unable to substantiate this. I, however, can concede that God has given me knowledge and thus I am able to know truth even if only in part.
To the atheists:
As stated, your worldview requires an immense faith. My presupposition is, as I have said, that the Bible is the inspired word of the Christian God. You have a problem though; although you state with certainty that there is no god you must also be uncertain considering the fact that in order to claim that there is no god you must have infinite knowledge of all of the universe for all of time. You rely on your presupposition of independence from God; you cannot justify your claims that logic is rational because you must assume that you are able to reach true conclusions.
The only rational position is that of Christianity whereby the God who made all that is in existence will give you true knowledge that you can rely on because the source is infinitely trustworthy.
While I have not answered the claims of other world religions as they are innumerable I will simply say this: No man is capable of atoning for his sin. We have the Law of God written on our hearts and our conscience bears witness to our depravity. If you have ever done anything wrong then this is enough to damn you since any crime against an infinitely holy God is an infinite crime demanding an infinite payment. Your only hope is if someone can pay the penalty for you and as Paul explains in Romans 3:23-25 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.” thus we can be made righteous because of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice so now God is (Romans 3:26) “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
Repent and Believe.
j3frea
February 1, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Excellent post. Completely shatters the so-called “rational” arguments from most village internet atheists. I see someone here does a lot of reading. C.S. Lewis, maybe?
February 6, 2009 at 6:33 am
[...] The irrationality of atheism [...]
March 7, 2009 at 4:00 am
Debating with an atheist is a little like wrestling with a pig in the mud…you soon come to the realization that the pig enjoys it just the pure act.
There will be those who will never believe in this lifetime. I would rather move on. Even Jesus didn’t waste time showing the pharisees tricks for their amusement.
March 8, 2009 at 5:12 am
At John, maybe so, but there Jesus knew who would and who would not be moved. We don’t know that and so we must try to move as many Hearts back to God as we can.
@the Marthin Luther claim:
Christianity has been divided into multiple denominations. We don’t necessarily agree with each other, unfortunately. The Word Of God has stresses on obtaining knowledge and wisdom such as this verse “For my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”.
@Athiests
Okay, so reject the existance of God but, safe to say, no one can know everything about this universe at this very moment(for that would be God, which you don’t believe in), how then can you conclude that God doesn’t exist? Right… you can’t. I believe the safer position for you would be agnosticism for Athiesm itself is counter-rational/irrational for the person to be able to prove that God doesn’t exist… is simply God(Who else can be everywhere, know everything about the world in every time slot it has ever had).
Illogical.
October 20, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Have you been skim-reading Douglas Adams again?
“I refuse to prove that I exist” says God, “because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
You are a credulous moron and I claim my five pounds.
October 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Being a little less flippant…
@Ladoli: Why would I want to “pick” agnosticism, a “safer” option, when there is no evidence to support the evidence of a god? I do not “pick” my beliefs, I do not blindly “believe”. As a rational human being, I believe the evidence a
October 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm
…around me. There is nothing I see which needs a giant sky pixie to explain.
Back to Mr Adams; “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
October 21, 2009 at 2:12 am
Becky,
1. You cannot prove a universal negative, so you cannot say authoritatively there is no God, only that you cannot see any evidence. That is likely a problem with your eyes, though, and not God. It’s like a blind man choosing to believe Mt. Everest doesn’t exist because he can’t see it.
Since there is always a possibility of God existing, it probably makes more sense to be honest and become an agnostic.
2. There is plenty of evidence for God, such as the fact that you have a thinking mind. Minds create minds. You pride yourself on being rational. From whence comes reason?
Not only do you think, you think using inflexible laws of logic. Where did those laws come from?
You have excluded God from your paradigm through willful choice, not lack of evidence.
3. I’ve never read Mr. Adams, but I don’t need to. The question he should ask is not why he should believe fairies, but how he knows the garden is beautiful. What is beauty? How can we appreciate it? Why would evolution give us the appreciation for the beautiful? Animals function just fine without it. I suggest you read G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” instead of Mr. Adams.
4. Think twice before you say you don’t pick your beliefs and you just look at the evidence. The vast majority of people and cultures throughout history have looked at the universe and themselves–the evidence–and concluded there must be a God behind it. Very few (yes, Atheists are a minority) choose to believe in no God at all. If we were all rational and neutral, as you claim to be, at birth, we wouldn’t have the God “problem.”