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."
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].
About the Author
Samples is currently serving as director of the Augustine
Fellowship Study Center at Post Office Box 23, Hemet, CA 92543;
(909) 654-1429.