Grace Institute: Relating to You World: Relating to the Anti-Religious

Relating to the Anti-Religious Relating To Your World Spring 2007

A look at the beliefs and perspective of Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists. How can we best communicate with people with this worldview?

Listen to the Lecture

• Lecture - Part 1
• Lecture - Part 2

Statement of Non-Theistic Beliefs

Foundational Doctrines

Atheism

The defining doctrine of Atheism is that God does not exist. This belief, however, is founded on a naturalistic viewpoint that states that nothing outside of the natural world exists. While there may be things that are beyond our knowledge or current discovery, those things are still natural and are awaiting discovery. God, by definition, exists beyond the natural, and therefore does not exist.

The Atheists reasoning for these beliefs are varied, but tend to fit within one of the following six categories:

Disproofs from the Law of Cause and Effect

Theists argue for the existence of God by stating that everything must have a cause, and ultimately that cause will lead one to the existence of God. Atheists turn this around to show that if everything requires a cause, that God himself would require a cause. The law of cause and effect then doesn't lead to the existence of God but only leads to an infinite regress. An infinite regress is where an one cause leads to another cause which leads to another cause, ad infinitum.

Theists will try to counter this argument by saying that God doesn't require a cause, but is self-caused. However the theist responds that a self-caused God is self-denying. Therefore God does not exist because by nature he is either unnecessary or because he is self-denying. Both disprove the existence of God.

Disproofs from the Law of Necessity

The law of necessity states that God, by definition, is a necessary being. However, the atheistic argument is that no statements about existence are necessary. Existence is just existence. Therefore nothing can exist necessarily. Therefore, the only way God could exist is the very way he cannot exist.

Disproofs from the Moral Law

Atheists claim that an all-powerful God is inconsistent with a completely just God. The basis of this claim comes from the observation that injustice or evil exists. Because injustice exists, either God does not have the capacity to end injustice, which disproves his omnipotence, or he lacks the willingness to end injustice, which disproves his justice.

A second approach to the same argument states that if a moral law comes from God, then God either arbitrarily determines what is right, which makes him an uncaring God, or God is bound to an external moral code, which denies his all-powerfulness. In either case God cannot exist with a nature by which he is necessarily defined.

Disproofs from the Nature of God

Atheist would state that the nature of God as necessarily defined is, in and of itself, self-contradictory. For example, omnipotence is self-contradictory. An all-powerful God cannot make a stone that he could not lift. Therefore he can not be all-powerful. If God is not all-powerful then he is not God.

God's eternal nature is also self-contradictory. If God existed before time existed, then there was a time before time existed. Therefore God is subject to the limitations of time and cannot be eternal. If God is not eternal then he is not God.

As discussed under the moral law, love and justice are seen as contradictory attributes of God. If God is loving then he cannot justly punish his creation. But if God justly punishes his creation, he is not loving. Yet if either of these two attributes isn't true about God, then he is not God.

Disproofs from the Nature of Humanity

Humanity has free will. We have the ability to control our own lives. The realm of our free will is outside of God's power. Therefore if we have free will, then God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent then he is not God.

Disproof from the Nature of the Universe

Scientific evidence would tell us that the order found in the universe formed out of randomness by chance. If it is possible that the universe was formed by chance, then God is not necessary. If God is not necessary, then He is by definition not God.

Agnosticism

While atheists would state emphatically that God does not exist, the agnostic only states that God may or may not exist. While the agnostic does not deny the possibility that God exists, the bottom line approach to life is the same as the atheist. This is because most agnostics believe that if God exists, his existence is irrelevant.

For agnostics, there is no conclusive proof to God's existence. Because there is no conclusive proof, either he does not exist, or he doesn't involve himself enough in his creation to provide that conclusive proof. If he doesn't involve himself in his creation, his existence is irrelevant. Therefore, searching for knowledge of God is a futile effort and life should be lived as if he didn't exist.

Deism

While agnostics are happily ignorant of God existence, a deist accepts that God exists. However a deist would agree with the agnostic that God does not involve himself in his creation. The deist believes that God created the world with a natural order based on natural laws that he established. But then he left the creation to operate solely on the basis of these laws.

The deist sees that the order found in nature points to the existence of a designer. But the deist does not see conclusive proof of miracles or the supernatural. Therefore God does not interfere with this natural order nor does he violate his own natural laws.

The World View

Non-theists do not define themselves solely as lack of belief in a theistic God. To characterize atheists, agnostics, and deists by their non-theistic viewpoints would be similar to characterizing Christians as anti-Hindu or non-Islamic.

The atheist, agnostic, and deist, while disagreeing in their perspective on God, typically share a common positive belief in the supremacy of humankind. This worldview is sometimes called “humanism.” While the exact beliefs of humanism will vary greatly amongst the non-theist, there is a consistent belief that human kind is valuable and important.

This belief is tied closely to evolutionary theory. Under evolutionary theory, species that carry traits ensuring the survival of that species are more likely to survive and thrive. Humanity has survived and thrived and become the dominant species on our planet. That provides evidence that human kind is valuable and important.

But this evolutionary worldview provides more than the basis for valuing humanity. It provides for an instinctual moral code. Certain social mores have strategic advantages in the survival of the species. For example, moral instincts prohibiting murder means more people in the species will survive. Since a species with that moral code will have an advantage in survival, that code becomes inbred in the species. As a result, evolution and humanism provides for a positive moral basis without a God.

Since our characteristics as humans have come from our survival instincts, our purpose as individuals and as a species must be to ensure our survivability and to continue the development of human evolution. Humanists therefore tend to be pro-technology, environmentally conscious, believing in the inherent goodness within humanity and belief in the rights of the individual. Humanism then has a developed a purpose without a God.

Evaluation of Non-theistic Beliefs

Misconceptions

Because most Christians define non-theists by what they don't believe rather than by what they do believe, there are substantial misconceptions about them.

Non-theists are not necessarily amoral or immoral people. Their morality comes from a different viewpoint, but still looks strikingly similar to our morality. God's moral law was developed by God to ensure the survivability of humankind and to help humanity to thrive. Therefore theistic morality is going to have the same basic tenants as a moral instinct developed through the evolutionary process. Some theistic evolutionists might even say that God used the evolutionary process to instill that moral code in the human race.

Non-theists are not merely anti-religious. Most of the anti-religious viewpoints are not solely based on their negative views of God, but usually based on the hypocrisy and irrational behaviors of religious people. While their distaste for the hypocrisy and irrationality of religion seems to always be a point of discussion, it is not the sole focus. The humanist worldview is highly developed and positive. Humanists want to see humanity thrive and grow and want to see the rights of the individual upheld in that growth.

Finally, because humanists base much of their doctrine on the theory of evolution, theists often confuse the issue. Evolution is not the issue. The existence and nature of God is. Belief in evolution does not preclude the existence or the theistic nature of God. Further, an atheist cannot believe in creationism until they believe in a creator. If we insist on arguing the creationism/evolution debate, we will distract and hinder the non-theist from the central tenants of the gospel message.

Shared Values

The premise of our class is that the most effective way to give a reason for our faith is to learn to relate to our world. Therefore, to effectively communicate with the non-theist, we must find common values and common understanding. The following are some positive values that we share with the humanist worldview.

Humanism focuses on the value of life and the dignity of humanity. While we might disagree with how this plays-out (e.g. abortion and capital punishment), we share a common values in the abhorrence of violence and the value of the individual.

Humanism focuses on the value of the environment. While we might disagree with the premise behind their environmentalism or the extremist tendency of some environmentalists, we have do share a common value in that as Christians we believe in the proper stewardship of creation.

Humanism looks to an objective and consistent test for truth. Their reliance on the scientific method provides an objective tool that we can use to find common ground.

Finally, non-theists have forced Christians to refine their concept of God and the Universe. As we will discuss in our critique of the non-theistic beliefs, many of the arguments raised by atheists point out irrational or inconsistent viewpoints in our concept of God. The discussion forces us to refine our understanding on God. We share a desire to see truth from a rational viewpoint and to have a consistent look at truth.

Critique of Non-Theistic Beliefs

Atheism

In our critique of the atheist reasoning, we will divide it into two categories: misconceptions of God and self-contradictory or self-denying statements.

Reasoning Based On Misconceptions of God

Many of the reasons given to disprove the existence of God are based upon misconceptions about God. Unfortunately, most of those misconceptions come from Christians who have not thought through the logic of their own understanding of God's character. Fortunately, these reasons for atheism are easily addressed by clarifying God's nature.

For example, the disproof based on the law of cause and effect is based on the assumption made by theists and non-theists that all things require a cause. A refined understanding of the law of cause and effect would state that only finite things require a cause. Therefore, infinite regress stops when it comes to an infinite being. Likewise the argument that God is self-caused is in accurate. God is not self-caused. As an infinite being, a cause is not required for his existence.

The moral disproof is based on the assumption that nothing has been done to defeat evil. Christians believe Jesus' crucifixion defeated evil. Secondly, the moral disproof assumes that if evil has yet to be completely defeated that it will never happen. The second part of the moral disproof assumes that God arbitrarily defines goodness. Christians actually believe that good is defined as that which is consistent with God's nature. Therefore God is neither arbitrary nor unjust, nor is he bound to an external law that would negate his power.

The disproof from the nature of God results from an imperfect understanding of what the various characteristics of God really mean. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do what is logically impossible. Further God's eternal nature is not that he always existed, but that he exists outside of time itself. Time is created.

God's infinite love and justice are not contradictory. Rather God works in consistency to his loving-justice at all times. But just as the consistent application of the sun's nature can soften wax or harden clay, the consistent application of God's nature can result in wrath or mercy based on the response of his creation to his consistent loving-justice.

The disproof from the nature of humanity first assumes that humanity has free will. At best humanity has limited free will, for I cannot will myself to break the laws of nature. Secondly, freedom does not eliminate the possibility of God. God has ability to voluntarily give freedom to his creatures without giving-up his sovereignty.

Reasoning Based On Self-Contradictory or Self-Defeating Statements

After working through reasons based on misconceptions, we must look at the remaining statements. These are found to be self-contradictory or self-defeating. Most end up in the place where one must assume God in order to disprove God.

In the disproof of necessity, the atheist states that “no statement about existence is necessary.” This is a self-defeating argument. If that statement is true, then the statement itself is not necessary. If the statement is not necessary then the argument is excluded from being made.

The moral disproof presumes that injustice exists. Injustice presumes a standard of justice that exists outside of nature. One must therefore assume God in order to disprove God.

In the disproof from the nature of the universe, one must assume a design in order for chance to exist. One must assume order in order to prove that randomness exists. Order can only meaningfully exist from outside the natural universe.

The final critique is made on the general presumption of atheism. To deny the existence of God presumes that one knows everything. To claim that one knows everything is not rational. To admit that one does not know everything presumes that the existence of God is at least a possibility. This converts the logically consistent atheist into an agnostic.

Agnosticism

The assumption that God has done nothing to provide conclusive proof is presumptuous. It depends on your definition of proof. The fact that all cultures have a belief in the supernatural suggests that for most people there is conclusive proof.

Beyond that, as we demonstrated last week, pure agnosticism is self-defeating. An agnostic must know enough about God to know that God is unknowable. If that much is known, then the possibility exists that more can be learned about God.

Deism

The essential critique of deism is that it cripples or undermines the infinite nature of God. This creates a self-contradictory description of God. If God is infinite, then one must assume that he is not only infinitely large, but also infinitely small. If he is infinitely small then he is involved in not just the establishment of the world, but in the details of that world. Anything less would deny his infinity.

Furthermore, a God who created humanity, but then ignores humanity would be an unloving God. Most deists would insist on a benevolent God. But if he is not involved in the human struggle, he cannot be benevolent. At best he is apathetic. As worst he is sadistic.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998.