What is this doctrine of non-belief called atheism? It is simply the
absence of theistic belief or a person who does not believe in the
existence of a god. They refuse to believe that any god or gods of any
shape or form existed, exist now, or will exist. the word is a combination of the Greek words a + theos,
meaning “no god.”
But this unbelief has many names: atheism, rationalism, skepticism, free
thinking, deism, liberalism, humanism, materialism, Marxism, Communism,
socialism, and secular humanism. Robert Morey, author of The New Atheism
and the Erosion of Freedom, says that the modern atheist denies God’s
existence, “because they actually hate God” for he demands servitude
and the fulfillment of the destiny. The atheist then for Morey, robs man
of freedom and of choosing whatever he wants. As well, they frantically
search the Bible for ways to attack it.
George Smith, in The Case Against God, says that the public portrays an atheist as purely negative.
They destroy but make no attempt at rebuilding. The problem can also be seen in another
light if we realize abstract philosophical arguments have little meaning for
the common person. The existence of God has always been a matter of common
sense for these people. Freud maintained that belief in God was a mental illness
and anyone who believes in God must have “some deep-rooted psychological problem.”
No one is born an atheist but makes a conscientious choice to believe in not believing
and so no root causes exist for it. One possible explanation for an atheist
is in the historical situation, social context, political pressures, economic
factors, family conditions, and psychological factors. Morey says the atheist
does not want their personal causes for embracing atheism explored because
it “strip(s) them of their facade of intellectualism, reducing them to simple
human beings who rejected God because they were disappointed with or angry at Him.”
An interesting question is raised and is the point at which this discussion will divide into theist
vs. atheists, and atheists vs. theism. If the modern atheist does not believe in
God, why does it spend so much time fighting God?
This part will be written based off the perspective of Mr. Robert A. Morey and
his book, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom. It will provide the theists
interpretation of atheism.
Morey identified ten types of atheists which are as follows:
Premise: Since there is no god,
Conclusion: there are no absolutes.
Premise: Since there are no absolutes,
Conclusion: everything is relative.
Premise: Since everything is relative,
Conclusion: history is relative.
History is seen as subjective, a matter of personal interpretation, since
no one knows what really happened in the past.
Premise: Since there is no god,
Conclusion: there are no absolutes.
Premise: Since there are no absolutes,
Conclusion: everything is relative.
Premise: Since everything is relative,
Conclusion: science is relative.
They jettison the laws of nature, as well as the laws of God.
Premise: Since there is no god,
Conclusion: there are no absolutes.
Premise: Since there are no absolutes,
Conclusion: everything is relative.
Premise: Since everything is relative,
Conclusion: logic is relative.
If there are no absolutes, then atheists cannot say theism is absolutely
wrong. As well, if everything is relative, then all arguments against theistic
proofs are invalid since they try to show theistic proofs are objectively
or logically false.
Materialism may be defined as people guilty of greed and avarice of material
possessions or referring to those who reduce or limit reality to material
objects. Empiricism states that knowledge arises from objects perceived by
the senses. Materialism takes it further to say since we cannot know immaterial
things, these things do not exist.
Materialism contains its own problems that make it self-refuting. First,
they fail to recognize that their system is based on metaphysical assumptions
as the foundation to its philosophy. This includes the doctrine of autonomy
which states man can understand man and the world around him without supernatural
revelation or information, the assertion that empiricism is true, belief that we are
living in a closed universe in which everything is explainable in material
categories, and ontological thinking, in which reality must conform to what we think
it to be.
Second, materialism is self refuting. If all thoughts have an irrational
causes, then materialism as a thought has an irrational cause. Materialism
itself is not coherent and reality is made solely of matter or objects which
have material properties. Additionally, materialism uses circular reasoning
and it cannot speak of the world or the universe as a totality validly.
Materialism attempts to give a plausible explanation of the origin and nature
of the universe but contains five major defects. First it is simplistic.
Second it is guilty of reductionism. This selects one element of reality as
absolute and reduces the rest of reality to that one category. Third, it is
inadequate to explain the origin of the universe. If all knowledge is restricted
to what our senses perceive, then no one can explain the origins of the universe
since no one can perceive it. Fourth, it does not correspond to reality.
Materialism denies what it cannot explain. If all is matter, where did the
idea of “mind” come from? Finally, the findings of modern physics have raised
serious doubts about the scientific validity of materialism’s understanding of
the nature of reality.
Man is an electrochemical machine, that all he is and does can be explained
solely in terms of the movement of particles of matter. Man is no different than
all other objects. For if this true it says the following: a. materialism is again
guilty of reductionism for both are a collection of atoms, and b. it cannot
explain man. It never proved the non-existence of self, for to do so proves its
existence, since the activity of doubt demands the existence of the doubter.
Also, it never developed a plausible theory for the origin or survival of man’s
morality, aesthetic appreciation, religious drive, rationality, personality,
sense of responsibility, or self-awareness. The fact that man remembers the past,
perceives the present, and anticipates the future reveals he is a transcendent self
as well as body.
Hence, atheists cannot live what they believe. They cannot logically believe
in love yet they fall in love and marry, Morey says. It leads to denial of social values
and ethics which have formed the basis of human worth, freedom, and democracy.
Atheists use three tactics in undercutting a religion which include:
ANSWER - If Jesus was a good man and a great teacher, then we must accept
what He taught about himself - that he is God the Son, the Savior of the World.
ANSWER - History and psychology give irrefutable proof of man’s creation.
ANSWER - It is a true religion because it meets all the needs of man. Since
God created man He knows what we need.
ANSWER - The only person who can be an atheist is God, for it requires one to
know all things, to be omnipresent, and omnipotent.
ANSWER - This is selfishness and it is the Christian’s task to bug others.
Just because it feels good does not make it right.
ANSWER - All people are sinners, in various degrees. “God demands 100% of
us keeping 100% of the law, 100% of the time.” Sin is true guilt before God.
ANSWER - The philosophy of human autonomy always ends in skepticism and confusion.
If we start with God the universe is intelligible.
ANSWER - True Christianity is relevant and practical. The Bible is concerned
with all of life.
ANSWER - We are not a part of God. He is the personal being who created the
Universe out of nothing.
ANSWER - It is possible to have a false conversion experience but one does not
make all false.
ANSWER - Either all religions are false, or there is only one true religion.
If there is only one God, then there will only be one religion.
ANSWER - God is not a man and does not think, feel, or act as a man would
since His thoughts are above us. The love of God for His own nature, law,
universe, and people makes Hell a product of love and justice.
ANSWER - Sincerity cannot displace truth or morality since you can be sincerely
wrong and immoral.
ANSWER - All hypocrites are condemned by God. Isn’t it better to put up
with a few of them in church for a few years then for eternity in Hell. It
is wrong to think Christian’s have to be perfect.
ANSWER - God has revealed His nature, and How he is to be revealed. Christianity is
unique and set apart from all other religions by its doctrines.
ANSWER - If you begin with your reason or common sense as the absolute authority,
you end in skepticism (human autonomy).
The principle text used to shed some light on the argument of the atheist is,
Atheism: The Case Against God, by George Smith.
As Morey identified certain types of atheists, so does Smith. He subdivides
atheism into two types, namely implicit and explicit. Implicit is the absence
of a belief in the supernatural without a conscious rejections of it. They do
not believe in a god but also have not explicitly denied the truth of the theist.
Explicit atheism is absence of a belief in the supernatural because of a conscious
rejection of it. They totally reject belief in god for several reasons. They may
have reasons pertaining to family problems as hating religious parents, they
may feel life is pointless and the belief in a loving god in a pain-filled universe is
absurd, or see God as an unintelligible being.
Out of explicit atheism rises a third form or subform called critical atheism
which places its foundation in the criticism of theistic belief. It shows itself
in several ways, from simply saying one does not believe in a divinity to declaring
vehemently that the existence of god is impossible. The endstate of atheism is
negativism.
Atheism is not a way of life nor does one atheist necessarily agree with another.
An atheist in not mentally challenged, confused, or self-frustrated, nor is he less
than human. An atheist is not self-destructive or unhappy. To assert that happiness
in contingent on a belief in a god is a paradox and absurd in itself. A young atheist
is seen by the theist to be rebellious and immature, the middle-aged one frustrated
with life’s banality or alienated, and the old atheist is seen as a cynic and lonely.
Religions seek to make happiness and morality lofty ideas attached to a divine concept while
atheism attempts to bring them back down into man’s reach.
The word supernatural does not tell us what God is, but what He is not. The word means that God is not part of the natural universe. Theists believe that God is unknowable. The atheists say that the idea of “god” is then devoid of content and meaningless, his attributes are then incomprehensible, and by saying God is unknowable, the speaker presupposes omniscient knowledge for how can one know something that is unknowable.
Theists claim many attributes for a god that is “incomprehensible” as infinite,
immutable, just, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, perfect, and
supreme. How can we know the attributes of an unknowable being. Again we see God defined
with negative qualities as immutable (not changing), invisible (not visible), etc...
How can he be distinguished from non-existence if we define him negatively? To say what He is not, we must know what He is.
Also, Christians define God with positive qualities that are secondary in
importance and arise from human context of finite existence. These qualities
apply to His personality, not metaphysical nature, thereby causing an imbalance of
the positive and negative importance. His nature is described as immaterial,
without nature or form, which only tells us He is beyond existence as we understand
it. Or as infinitude, which says He has no limits. All that man understands has limits
so we know God is beyond this comprehension.
If God is omnipotent or without limits to his power, the atheist wants to see God
create a square circle. Omniscience says God knows all things so then how can man be
free? All we will do is already predetermined and man is powerless in the universe.
As well, if God is aware of the future but cannot change it, he cannot be omniscient.
These concepts are self-refuting. God is said to be benevolent but Jehovah is directly
responsible for exterminating thousands of people. As well, the Christian God is said to
be merciful and loves man but constantly threatens mankind with Hell.
What about evil? If evil exists outside His knowledge then He is not
omniscient or if God is unable to stop it then He is not benevolent.
Faith is the base upon which Christianity rests. If it collapses, so does Christianity.
To them, reason and faith are two different and separate methods for gaining knowledge. As
such, neither one contradicts the other and both have truth as the goal. The atheist
answers the question of why Christianity has to enter faith into the epistemological debate
with the assertion he holds beliefs that cannot be demonstrated through rational methods and faith allows
him to claim their beliefs as truth.
For the Christians to have us accept any belief on anything other than firm
empirical evidence is to leave their concept without verification and thought.
Christianity is guilty of trying to remove scientific principles that conflict
with it, employing measures of violence and intimidation. They do this because of the
awareness that they are, “peddling an inferior product, one that cannot withstand critical
investigation.” The author makes an interesting point that when Christianity was developing the
world was filled with mysticism, thereby making man’s mind more susceptible to stories of miracles,
virgin births, hellacious worlds, and resurrections. But modern man’s more scientific and
technologically inclined mind, does not so plausibly accept this as fact.
Additionally any doctrines out in left field and difficult to explain are ignored or surrounded
with a hushed silence by the Christian. Hell is one example and the problem of evil. It is up to
the Christian to explain these “articles of faith” to show how they are compatible with reason.
“Faith does not erase contradictions and absurdities; it merely allows one to believe in spite of
contradictions and absurdities.”
As well, Christianity does not allow its adherents to freely investigate the
truths of its dogma, for to do so would be immoral and evil. To keep man mentally
complacent promises are made of miraculous powers and a future kingdom of Heaven.
Under Christianity, admonitions replace argumentation and the person is left as sheep
led by its “shepherd.” Christians say some specialized knowledge is to be demonstrated
solely by an authority and is not open to personal verification. But in doing this, the
responsibility to justify any claims is placed on this authority, through rational methods.
For the Christian, a miracle involves divine intervention and as such, presupposes the existence
of God. It is interesting though, each religion professes the genuity of their
miracles but denies those of any other religion. As man’s mind matured out of its
childish amazement, reports of miracles decreased.
To the theist, every natural occurrence requires an explanation. But often
much search finds no rational explanation so posits the supernatural as the source
of this phenomena. This though yields no knowledge, for the supernatural itself is
unknowable. First cause states that every effect has a cause so we keep going back
until we reach the first cause. This theory does demonstrate the existence of a first
cause in the past but says nothing of the present existence of this cause. No reason
exists to assume it is still around. If we assume a god is the first cause, and
everything has a cause, then what caused it? This being is of course uncaused but
brings the universe into existence, which is an absurd idea in itself.
The telelogical argument says natural entities act in certain ways to achieve
specific goals, therefore, some higher power must be directing their action. This
designer is responsible since nothing occurs by chance, but in saying that, what caused it?
If it has a super-designer what caused this creator and so forth? It is unfruitful in
yielding any new knowledge. For the theist, chance is impossible since every effect has a
cause, but if a phenomena occurs outside the order of nature, some supernatural force is
assigned as the cause. Thus, uniformity in nature and the lack of uniformity in nature prove
God. No matter what the scenario, God receives the credit.
Religion attaches ethics to itself and criticizes atheism for leading to moral
bankruptcy. Man is a being who requires a system of values to direct his choices,
to guarantee “his survival, well-being, and happiness.” Religionists see a world of
moral order established by divine authority and which man is constrained to. In
essence, this system of morality serves God’s purpose, not man’s. In this system,
God sets up rules for man to obey and a plethora of sanctions, “a physical or
psychological means of coercion or intimidation used for the purpose of motivating
obedience to a principle of action.” This punishment or even reward is determined by
how quickly one snaps into line with the set of rules.
Of sanctions, two may be identified. First are physical sanctions which attempt
to arouse fear in the adherent while the second, psychological sanctions, emote a
feeling of guilt. The second has been used by religion for a long time as a means of
making individuals obey God’s laws. To disobey these rules is to commit an immoral act
while the basis of a moral life is following God’s rules. Since atheists do not
subscribe to this religious morality they inevitably are morally deprave.
Christianity employs both of these sanctions. Hell represents the physical and sin
the psychological sanction. These ideas of punishment reflect a religion that is anything
but benevolent. Consider countless acts of heretics burned at the stake by the Christian
Inquisitor and then you can see the full scope and true nature of Christianity. Not just
through sanctions, but also through promises of salvation and a future heavenly kingdom are
men held in check by Christianity.
Jesus told his followers to be like children and then you could receive God. But, as
Smith points out, children will believe virtually anything. The need to dismiss reason from
man’s mental process is an attmept to take away man’s self-esteem for he uses reason to exert
control over his environment and understand reality. Another absurd teaching of the Son of
God is to love your enemies and to turn the other cheek if smote. This only presents the
individual as a sacrificial lamb to be pushed around.
END
If you would like to comment on this site forward correspondence to the e-mail address below. All messages will be responded to unless otherwise noted. If you desire direct e-mail debate, please forward an e-mail address to which correspondence can be sent to. Average response time is one week.
