The articles come from the Witnessing Tips column of the Christian Research Journal,
Fall 1991 & Winter 1992, page 7, by Kenneth R. Samples.
Part One
Fall 1991
It may come as a surprise to many Christians to discover that
all atheists are not alike. Atheists argue differently depending on
what it is that grounds their unbelief. In this first of two
installments I will discuss two ways in which atheists attempt to
explain and defend their atheism. I have labeled them "offensive
atheism" and "defensive atheism." I will also offer suggestions as
to how Christians can successfully answer some of the claims made
by atheists and effectively present the claims of Jesus Christ. In
Part Two I will examine some of the traditional arguments for God's
existence.
*Offensive Atheism.* When Christians and atheists engage in
debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently
assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian.
This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher
William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does
God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof
and provide support for what they consider to be the correct
answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does
exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the
affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question
of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are
obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian
should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged
nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the
atheist.
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the
existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or
offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not
now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this
dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And
here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would
require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain
this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of
the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of
the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike
characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is
therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed
out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self-
defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize
that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof
of God's existence.
*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are
fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or
dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl
Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproven. This
has led such atheists to advocate what I call defensive atheism.
Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be
logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless
unproven.
Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to
mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's
existence." For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of
"God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they
cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's
unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's
existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God (or
any other God) lacks logical consistency.
An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that
defensive atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard
definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist
and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist
as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore
implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief.
It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief
sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to
determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the
defensive atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs
from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no
God?
*The Inadequacy of Atheism.* Whether offensive or defensive,
there are a number of reasons why atheism is inadequate as a
rational world view. First, atheism cannot adequately explain the
existence of the world. Like all things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation. The atheist, however, is unable to
provide a consistent one. If he argues that the world is eternal,
then he is going against modern science which states that the
universe had a beginning and is gradually running down. If the
atheist affirms that the universe had a beginning, then he must
account for what caused it. Either way, the atheist cannot
adequately explain the world.
Second, the atheistic world view is irrational and cannot
provide an adequate basis for intelligible experience. You see, an
atheistic world is ultimately random, disorderly, transitive, and
volatile. It is therefore incapable of providing the necessary
preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal
laws of logic, and the human need for absolute moral standards. In
short, it cannot account for the meaningful realities we encounter
in life.
The Christian theistic world view, however, can explain these
transcendental aspects of life. The uniformity of nature stems from
God's orderly design of the universe. The laws of logic are a
reflection of the way God Himself thinks, and would have us to
think as well. Absolute moral standards, such as "Thou shalt not
murder," mirror the perfect moral nature of God.
*The Christological Argument.* If individual atheists are
willing to consider the evidence for God's existence, direct their
attention to the claims of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be none
other than God in human flesh (John 8:58). This astounding claim
was supported by His matchless personal character, His fulfillment
of predictive prophecy, His incalculable influence upon human
history, His many miracles, and ultimately by His historically
verifiable resurrection from the dead (for a fully developed
discussion of the Christological argument _see_ William Lane
Craig's book, Apologetics: An Introduction). The evidence is
definitely there for the honest atheist to examine. As the late
Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer put it, "God is there and He
is not silent."
-------------
Part Two
Winter 1992
In Part One, we examined how atheists go about explaining and
defending their naturalistic world view. I gave suggestions as to
how Christians can respond to both the dogmatic (offensive atheism)
and skeptical (defensive atheism) approaches taken by atheists. In
this installment we will examine a way in which the Christian can
go on the offensive by offering evidence for God's existence, thus
illustrating the rationality of Christian theism.
Nearly everyone, at least in their more reflective moments, has
asked some simple but deep-seated questions such as: Where did the
world come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? How
did the world come into existence? The asking of these elementary
but profound questions has led to the formulation of a popular
argument for God's existence. The argument is known as the
"cosmological argument." It derives its name from the word
kosmos, the Greek word for world. While there are several
variations of the argument (see Scaling the Secular City by J. P.
Moreland [Baker Book House, 1987] and Questions That Matter by Ed
L. Miller [McGraw-Hill, 1987]), the basic point of the argument is
that God is the only adequate explanation for the world's
existence. This argument, which I consider to be both cogent and
persuasive, was first formulated by the Greek philosopher
Aristotle. Its most famous presentation, however, was given by the
medieval Christian philosopher/theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. We
will now examine a popular and simplified form of the cosmological
argument that can be presented to the atheist.
Just how do we account for the universe? How do we explain the
existence of the world? Well, logically speaking, there are only a
few options -- and only one of them is rationally acceptable.
Our starting point in discussing the world is to assume that a
real world of time and space does in fact exist. There are some who
would dispute this assumption, arguing rather that the universe is
simply an illusion. However, most atheists, being materialists (who
believe that all reality is ultimately matter and energy), will be
willing to accept your starting point. (If the world _was_ an
illusion, there would be no good reason to believe that we would
all perceive the world even remotely the same way. But we do,
generally speaking, experience the world the same way -- and can
even make accurate predictions [science]. To argue that the world
is illusory violates our common sense and experience.)
Since we have a real world staring us in the face, how do we
account for it? Well, the first option is that the world somehow
caused or created itself. This, however, is an irrational
conclusion. For something to create itself, it would have to exist
before it was created, and that is completely absurd. Something
cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same
way. Concluding that the world created or caused itself is simply
not a rationally acceptable alternative.
A second suggested explanation is that the universe came from
nothing by nothing. Some atheists do, in fact, argue this way.
This, however, is also irrational because something cannot be
derived from nothingness. An effect cannot be greater than its
cause -- and in this case the cause would be nothing. One of the
basic laws of physics is expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo,
nihil fit, "from nothing, nothing comes." It's a tremendous leap
of faith to believe that the world emerged from nothing. Remind the
atheist that he is not supposed to have any faith.
Our third option is that the universe is simply eternal. It has
just always been here. This alternative, however, is also doomed to
failure. First, the world that we live in shows signs that it is
contingent (dependent for its continued existence on something
outside itself, ultimately something uncaused and absolute). The
fact is, no single element in the universe contains the explanation
for its existence. Therefore, this chain of contingencies we call
the world necessitates the existence of a noncontingent or absolute
ground of being.
Further, the concept of an eternal universe directly
contradicts the prevailing view of contemporary science which
teaches that the universe had a specific beginning (Big Bang) a
finite period of time ago. Worse still, it contradicts the
scientific fact that the world is gradually running out of
available energy (Second Law of Thermodynamics). If the universe
was always in existence (i.e., eternal), it would have already run
down (see The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross [Promise
Publishing, 1989]). Additionally, if the universe was eternal, then
it would have an infinite past (i.e., an infinite number of days,
weeks, months, years, etc.). This, however, leads to a logical
contradiction. By definition one can never reach the end of an
infinite period of time; nevertheless, we have arrived at today,
which completes or traverses the so-called infinite past (_see
Scaling the Secular City_). These points make an eternal universe
theory scientifically and philosophically untenable.
Seeing that these other alternatives have failed, the only
truly rational alternative is that the universe was caused by an
entity outside space and time, an entity that is by definition
uncaused and ultimate. And, because this Being created other beings
who possess personality, He must also be a personal Being
(remember, the effect cannot be greater than the cause). This
explanation is perfectly in line with what the Bible teaches: "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).
This argument, even if it is considered cogent, does not bring
the atheist to personal faith in Christ. At best, he or she arrives
at a deity with many theistic attributes. However, this argument
does illustrate that believing in God is rational, and in this case
is the only rational alternative in explaining the universe.
It is at this point that we can turn the discussion back to
Jesus Christ and set forth His credentials as being God incarnate
(see Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler [Baker Book House,
1976] and History and Christianity by John Warwick Montgomery
[Bethany House Publishers, 1964). Remember, simply believing in a
God does not save a person. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ
that saves (John 14:6).
We haven't been able to discuss some of the objections atheists
have raised concerning this argument. For a list of objections and
responses concerning the cosmological argument, consult Faith and
Reason by Ronald Nash [Zondervan Publishing House, 1988] and The
Existence of God by Richard Swinburne [Oxford University Press,
1979].
-------------
Samples is currently serving as director of the Augustine
Fellowship Study Center.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home