I have many dear friends who don’t believe in God, so I want to indicate here that this is not intended as a personal attack on any individual. I know that what I write below is a generalisation, but I believe that the points which I raise are valid.
In the same way that I do not consider myself culpable for the crusades, the inquisition, the burning of witches, or any other lunacy disguised as Christianity, I also do not regard what I have written below as applicable to all who call themselves atheists. I suspect that many people who call themselves atheists are, in fact, disillusioned with the church. That's another matter that does not belong in this post, but is—perhaps—fuel for another post.
I am acutely conscious that quoting the Bible to unbelievers is an exercise in futility, therefore, I’d like to advance some thoughts of a philosophical nature relating to antitheism, atheism and/or agnosticism that do not appeal to Scripture for support. I shall, however, refer to the Bible as part of the motivation for evangelism, since Christians (including me) regard it as authoritative in their (our) lives. As a matter of interest, in my experience, people who have scoffed at the Bible and rejected its verity have generally admitted that they have never actually read it. Sadly, many of its most enthusiastic supporters have not read it either.
Semantics
In discussing my faith, I try to keep in mind these words of Peter the Apostle:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
(1 Peter 3:15 NIV, emphasis added)
With this in mind, I want to draw a distinction between two words that I plan to use in this post, lest I cause offence to friends of mine who don’t believe in the God whom I serve. They are both words that have been part of the English language for centuries, sourced—needless to say—from Greek. I am sure that the first one will be familiar, but the latter might seem a bit obscure.
- Atheist – One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God, or one who denies God morally. Greek αθεος (atheos) – without God.
- Antitheist – One opposed to belief in the existence of a God. The earliest citation given for this meaning dates from 1833. Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behaviour. Greek αντί θεος (anti Theos) – opposed, or opposite, to God.
I also need to mention a rhetorical construct whose name is regularly used by ignorant journalists and others who claim to speak English and want to sound erudite: ‘begging the question’. Begging the question does not mean ‘asking the question’. Whereas asking the question simply means ‘trying to elicit information’, begging the question means (briefly) ‘using what you are trying to prove to to try to prove what you are trying to prove’, or ‘using unproven evidence to support an argument’. If you ever watch courtroom dramas on TV, ‘facts not in evidence’ might sound familiar. This is another way of saying begging the question.
Six Points
- It is very difficult to prove the non-existence of something or someone beyond all reasonable doubt. For example; imagine that I wished to prove that no person existed on earth who had two hearts. The only way I could be absolutely certain that my hypothesis was correct would be to examine—or cause to be examined—every one of the seven-point-something billion people on the planet. Anything less than this would not give certainty.
Now, in our infinitely large universe, in order to prove the non-existence of God one would have to examine an infinitude of options/states/places where a ‘god’ could exist. On this basis, it would seem that one could, at best (or worst), claim only to be an agnostic. The fact that God has not become manifest to one person (or to many people) cannot be sufficient proof that He does not exist. Similarly, and sadly, the fact that I have never met Adolf Hitler does not mean that he never existed. Even Carl Sagan, one of my generation’s gurus of atheism, quoted--and agreed with—the old aphorism: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. - Agnosticism claims that we cannot know enough to state that God exists. This seems to suggest that all possible proofs have been examined, which is clearly absurd (see point 1). I wonder if one could extend this statement to say “… and we cannot know enough to state that God does not exist”. The strongest claim that can be made is to some kind of ‘personal agnosticism’. In other words, the claim should be: “I have not encountered sufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of God”. (There was a time (quite a long time!) when this was my stance). Obviously, one cannot dispute this claim, since it is someone’s personal opinion; however, it is an enormous step—and arrogant to boot—to assume that this personal opinion is normative for the whole human race (and for God). In a perverse way, I have more respect for atheism than for agnosticism. Atheism at least takes a stance, whereas agnosticism is a kind-of philosophico/theological fence-sitter.
- Atheism is unscientific in its claim that God does not exist. A fundamental premise of atheism is a rejection of supernature, usually because it cannot be explained or proven. This lapse in academic equipoise, ipso facto, blows belief in God right out of the water. The premise that there is no supernatural world, however, also has no proof, so this is, in fact, begging the question. This is as illogical as conducting research to ascertain the shape of a sphere, but first stating that it cannot be considered spherical. Thus, all chance of objectivity is banished.
It interesting to note that Carl Jung—not renowned for being one of the great theists of his generation—said the following: “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud”. - Antitheism is unloving. If my ‘superstition’ helps me to make sense of the world and, thus, keeps me happy and—perhaps—prevents me from throwing myself off a passing high-rise building, why should an antitheist feel the need to disabuse me of my belief? Does she or he feel a sense of satisfaction at having made me unhappy? My faith helps me to survive each day and to make sense of my life and of the world. Why should someone feel that it was for my good that they set out to break that faith? I need to mention here that none of my atheist friends has ever tried to convince me of the non-existence of God; we just accept one another as having different world-views.
- It is difficult to understand what motivates antitheists to share their (un)beliefs. Apart from the personal endeavour to disprove one’s faith (discussed above), there seems also to be a commitment to spread the teachings of atheism amongst the general public. Yes, Christians promote their beliefs amongst the general populace, but we base this upon the claim that God, through His Scriptures, commands us to spread the faith. Since—for atheists—there is no God and there are no authoritative Scriptures, there seems to be no commander or command that orders antitheists to spread their bad news. So, why do it? Just for the joy of winning the battle, regardless of the collateral damage? I don’t know.
- Opinions of the (supposed) cognoscenti. If someone who had no training in the field of neurology made some sweeping statement about brain surgery, would we take him or her seriously? I doubt it. Would we allow him/her to operate on our brains? Not a damn’! And yet, when people who are undeniably brilliant in their chosen fields, but who have had no training in theology (e.g., Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins) make statements about the supposed non-existence of God, the whole world takes notice and believes them, even though these people are dabbling in topics about which they know little. I’m sure that I could make some profound statements about quantum mechanics (that’s not guys who work on Toyota taxis), but no one would take me seriously, since I have no education in that field (I’m better with motorbikes).
“But, they are/were very brilliant people!” is the usual defence. True; I don’t dispute that. If I needed brain surgery, I would rather have the work done by a neurosurgeon of average intelligence than by a brilliant theoretical astrophysicist with no experience in neurology. I wouldn’t even let him/her touch my appendix! We need to keep in mind that great intelligence and/or great education do not confer omniscience, nor—sadly—do they necessarily bring wisdom.
I am not “anti-science”, but I must admit that much of what is called science today is, in fact, speculative philosophy. As I say, I am not opposed to science, but it is interesting to note that the ‘correct’ answers coming from science have changed many times. There was a time when science stated that the sun revolved round the earth, that the earth was flat, that the Oscillating Universe theory was correct, etc. Those ‘correct’ answers have changed.
There was also a notorious atheist—Antony Flew by name—who, in 2004, made an open statement that, because of his lifelong commitment to follow where the evidence led, he now believed in the existence of an intelligent creator. He didn’t become a Christian (as far as I know), but he did reject the idea that everything that exists is just the result of chance.
You might want to decide for yourself whether Q.E.D. stands for ‘quod erat disputandum’, or ‘quod est demonstrandum’.