Theism vs. Philosophical Atheism

Introduction

Since creation there has not been a rebellion against God such as that is found in atheism. In its purest form, atheism is a complete denial of God however, there is much more to it than most really know. All the major religious systems worship various gods and could easily be declared atheism to certain people due to the fact that they do not worship the god that they worship. The God of Christianity worship the same God that is worshipped in the Old Testament, but they were considered atheists in ancient times. There are various “forms” of atheism today. Many today like to consider themselves ‘New Atheists’ and ‘Secularists’, but provide little to the discussion of the philosophical atheist. This paper will discuss the background of atheism particularly philosophical atheism, evaluate their worldview, discuss how Christianity can correct that worldview, and defend the Christian worldview against philosophical atheism.

Background to Atheism

Feinberg states that, “The Greeks used atheist in three senses: 1. Impious or godless, 2. without supernatural help, and 3. not believing any god or the Greek conception of god.”[1] In this sense those who were in the newly formed Christianity were often called atheists because they did not worship the popular gods of the day. Later Protestants were accused of being atheists when they would not worship Mary or deify other saints. In other words, there have been a long history of the usage of atheism without the true form of the meaning of atheism.

Christianity, for example, is a form of theism that believes in a God especially, the One true God Who created the universe. If that is true, a-theism is the exact opposite. Atheism in the purest form claims for itself that there is no god of any kind. However, Feinberg, wrote again that, “In modern usage four senses of atheism may be identified. 1. Classical atheism is not a general denial of God’s existence but the rejection of the god of a particular nation. 2. Philosophical atheism may be contrasted with theism, which affirms a personal, self-conscious deity (not a principle, first cause, or force). 3. Dogmatic atheism is the absolute denial of God’s existence. 4. Practical atheism does not deny God, but life is lived as if there is no God.”[2]

When most people think of atheism they think of the atheist who completely denies a god and lives in complete wickedness however, this isn’t really the case. The true form of atheism that denies God is very rare. Beattie states, “Critics argue that it (atheism) is simply a distorted version of Christianity, since it is a form of rebellion which is defined by and dependent upon that which it rejects.”[3] She goes on to describe a popular Hitchens that exclaimed that his brand of atheism was a Protestant form of atheism.[4] Therefore, a godless form of atheism is a very rare form. Atheism is more of a rebellion against God in the more popular sense even in the case of the recent popular Richard Dawkins. The question isn’t what they believe in, but how they defend that belief.

An Evaluation of the Philosophical Atheist Worldview

The difference in the various forms of atheism is how they defend their beliefs. Philosophical atheists differ considerably on important points of detail in their accounts of how responsible claims to knowledge are to be established. But, there is substantial agreement among them that controlled sensory observation is the court of final appeal on issues concerning matters of fact. It is indeed this commitment to the use of an empirical method which is the final basis of the atheistic critique of theism. This critique seeks to show that one can understand whatever a theistic assumption is alleged to explain, through the use of the proved methods of the positive sciences and without the introduction of empirically unsupported ad hoc hypotheses about a deity.

Apart from their polemics against theism, philosophical atheists have not shared a common set of positive views, a common set of philosophical convictions which set them off from other groups of thinkers. In one very clear sense of this query the answer is undoubtedly negative. For there never has been what one might call a school of atheism, in the way in which there has been a Platonic school or even a Kantian school. Point of fact, atheistic critics of theism can be found among many of the conventional groupings of philosophical thinkers.

Philosophical atheist are good at twisting the truth to ensure that their point is made. In one such case, Kaufman takes the viewpoint of Findlay by stating that, “Hegel is a philosopher of liberal Humanism.”[5] While others have interpreted Hegel as being a great philosopher for God. Despite the variety of philosophical positions atheists have subscribed to throughout history, it seems that atheism is not simply a negative standpoint. There is a certain quality of intellectual temper that has characterized and continues to characterize many philosophical atheists. Moreover, their rejection of theism is based not only on the inadequacies they have found in the arguments for theism, but often on the positive ground that atheism is a corollary to a better supported general outlook upon the nature of things.

Philosophical atheists reject that there are disembodied spirits or that incorporeal entities of any sort can exercise a causal agency. Simply put, they do not believe in the spiritual realm. Atheists overwhelmingly agree that any answers that can be found are found in the material body. That is why atheist, especially philosophical atheist find it hard to believe in Jesus Christ. Another “brand” of atheism can also be found in the form of agnosticism. Michael Krasny is such an atheist (or agnostic) who does not believe in the spiritual realm, God, or Jesus Christ. He wrote, “All of them (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Thomas the poet) had contributed to the life philosophy I was formulating.”[6] As with many philosophical atheists, they take cues from others for their rebellion to justify their work.

To atheist, the various processes taking place in nature, whether animate or inanimate, are to be explained in material objects. Nature is ineradicably plural, both in respect to the individuals occurring in it as well as in respect to the processes in which things become involved. Accordingly, the human scene and the human perspective are not illusory. Man and his works are no less and no more "real" than are other parts or phases of the cosmos. At the risk of using a possibly misleading characterization, all of this can be summarized by saying that an atheistic view of things is a form of rationalization, but more explicitly materialism. If they cannot see it, touch it, or taste it then it must not exist. Again, twisting the Truth, relying on mere material evidence that cannot be seen now, Moss states, “It will be evident that I hold that there is no sure evidence of death unless where there are positive signs of decomposition.”[7] He stated this in his discussion about Jesus going to “awake” Lazarus or to raise the widow’s son from the dead.

Correcting the Worldview

In order to correct this worldview there is much work to do. The philosophical atheist is a difficult one to correct in the first place. The reason for this is because their worldview has been shaped by deep philosophical educational choices. As stated, atheist shape their worldview for the material world; only what they can see, touch, taste, or smell. Groothuis states that, “If the unbeliever is an atheist we must start from scratch and argue for theism.”[8] This is why correcting the worldview of atheism is difficult.

As stated, it seems as if atheist are rebelling against God rather than a total disbelief. It’s very rare to see someone that has never heard of God or the Gospel rebelling against God in such a manner as someone such as Richard Dawkins. If an apologist is a careful listener he/she will hear where the atheist has started to rebel. It may be that the atheist was raised in a religious home that was harsh or very liberal. It could be that the atheist was raised in a godless home and knows about God, but refuses to accept Him for Who He is for the fact that they do not want to change their lifestyles. There are several reasons for the worldview of atheists, but the bottom line of the matter is that if there is a chance to win a prodigal back or a lost one, the chance encounter for the apologist is a divine one to fulfill the Great Commission.

Bush wrote, “As Scripture itself acknowledges, sinful people are naturally set against God and against God’s truth.”[9] Whether it is a total disbelief or a rebellion against God, an argument against a philosophical atheist may be an arduous task, but a worthwhile one. Listening carefully, an apologist can argue against what the atheist disbelieves or it could be the case of starting at the very beginning for theism. Just as the philosophical atheist has been “built” up in a worldview of rationalism and so-called “logic” so, must the apologists. Groothuis says, “Apologetics means philosophical engagement, and philosophy trades on logic.”[10] Therefore, an apologist should be the most ready to meet the philosophical atheist.

Disregarding logic in this case would be the death of an argument. Secular atheists believe that Christians are generally ignorant in the field of rationality and refuses to adhere to it. So, when they encounter someone that is both a Christian and uses the sword of logic they are thrown back a bit. Take for example what Antony stated, “Throughout contemporary U.S. society, reason is denigrated as cold, mechanical, and sterile, while irreason is celebrated.”[11] It is difficult for atheist to fathom a Christian that uses logic, reason, and rational when arguing for theism. However, if the statement of Day is considered, all atheists especially philosophical atheist, were grounded in the Enlightenment which was ushered in by Voltaire and Denis Diderot, “The idea that he (Richard Dawkins) is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.”[12]

C. Brown states that, “The Age of Enlightenment was characterized by the desire for a superior, more rational view of everything. It was a desire that contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction.”[13] Kant defined the Enlightenment as, “Humanities coming of age.”[14] The Age of Enlightenment lasted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. During this time reason began to flourish in the minds of philosophers and scientists. They began to fill the minds of people with this reason in order to lash out to mainstream “religions” especially, Christianity. It was during this age that the historical Jesus owes its credit. This “movement” was created in order to maintain that the Christ of orthodox faith was not the Christ of history. Because of the Age of Enlightenment atheism grew at a more rapid pace and it cannot be said enough that Christians particularly apologists need to be well versed in Scripture, history, philosophy, and a heavy dose of logic and reason when arguing with philosophical atheists.

A Plan for Defending the Christian Faith

There is no higher calling than defending the faith and fulfilling the Great commission. Atheists cannot build their moral foundations upon which so many men conduct their lives. In particular, atheism do not offer the incentives to conduct and the consolations for misfortune which theistic religions especially Christianity supply to their adherents. It can offer no hope of personal immortality, no promise of eventual recompense for injustices suffered, and no path to sure salvation. For on its view of the place of man in nature, human excellence and human dignity must be achieved within a finite life-span, or not at all, so that the rewards of moral endeavor must come from the quality of civilized living, and not from some source of disbursement that dwells outside of time. It is hard to go into detail in such a short space on defending the whole of theism however, it would suffice to defend against the three points already pointed out: Truth, Spiritual Beings, and Material. These three can cover a multitude of the Scripture as blanket and a good starting point for a defense.

“Preach the Word! Be Ready in Season and out of season. Convince, rebuke exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:2; NKJV)

This was a final exhortation that the Apostle Paul commanded his young disciple, Timothy. He went on to say, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers.” (2 Timothy 4:3; NKJV) This certainly sounds much like the current era of time and maybe even more. Therefore, it is important for Christians, true defenders of faith, to be ready now to defend the faith without hesitance.

The first defense should be of Truth. This could be at the very first of the argument when defending the Christian faith against a philosophical atheist. Truth argument may be the beginning of the argument however, it could very well be the end of the argument depending on the tenacity of the atheist. If he/she is well versed in philosophy they will not stop here. It will just be a long argument until the argument reaches the Material Argument.

Groothuis wrote, “We must be ruthless with ourselves in the process of pursuing truth, given the manifold temptations to self-deception and denial.”[15] This must be the case for “defenders of the faith” and apologists. Faith defenders and apologists must arduously be searching for the Truth as if mining for a lost coin when they have only ten. Truth has to be stored within the heart.

The word longsuffering appears in 2 Timothy 4:2 which means patience. It is with patience that Truth defenders and apologists should defend the Truth. When arguing with philosophical atheists if patience is not displayed they will think that the Christian is acting erratic out of ignorance or lack of Truth. That could be one reason that the Apostle Paul exhorted Timothy to display this kind of character. The second reason for this exhortation is because of the character of the Lord Jesus Christ was filled with grace and patience.

Along with patience, humility also comes with Truth. Groothuis states, “As sinners, we can only receive it in humility.”[16] When the character of humility is displayed defenders of Truth and apologists have more credibility with atheists and stand a better chance to stay in the arena. Just because atheists and some in the Christian faith as well act with contempt does not mean that everyone should. The more that the apologists search for Truth and act out that Truth with humility, the more credibility they will begin to have with philosophical atheists.

This short argument could lead into Spiritual Beings after Truth has been discovered. It is important for Truth defenders and apologists to know at least the basics of the spiritual realm. If Christians cannot discuss the spiritual realm from Truth (Scripture) it would be a difficult task to continue the argument. After all, Christians believe in angels for the Book of Hebrews discusses angels. The Bible discusses to very important angels Michael and Gabriel. Then there is another angel who is the “god of this age” which is Satan who is a fallen angel. If the Bible is to be taken seriously then it can be interpreted as churches having guardian angels as seen in Revelation two and three. These are some basic Truths about the spiritual realm that each Christian should know about the Christian faith that can be defended.

Then there is the divinity of Christ. Kreeft and Tacelli state that, “The divinity of Christ is the most distinctively Christian doctrine of all.”[17] This is because there is no other religion in the world that claimed that one of their “prophets” was God. It is not found in Islam for their prophet, Muhammad, is explicitly demonstrated in the Quran as their prophet. Buddha was not God. It is only found in Christianity that Christ came to earth claiming to be God. There has been no other to dare to claim to be God. Then there is the evidence of the resurrection such as the change of attitude of the apostles after they witness Him.

The final argument could easily be the first or the second which is the defense against the material argument. Atheist particularly philosophical atheist are against all things that cannot be touched, smelled, or tasted. Geisler and Turek states that, “If materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can’t evaluate whether or not a theory is true or not. Chemicals don’t reason, they react.”[18]

This argument alone can bust the argument of the philosophical atheist. All that he/she has believed in of the material has just been eradicated. The very brain that they are using to knock down all beliefs just turned its back on them. Faith requires reason while the “material” world begins to unfold as to unfold as a world without reason.

Conclusion

There is no other rebellion against God such as that is found in atheism. Atheism is a worldview that is usually found in those who have some background with religion. They are just acting out against the One Who they once believed in. They gist of their belief is that they think they believe in truth even if they have to twist it, they refuse to believe in the spiritual realm, and they believe in only the material world. In defending the Christian faith it would be fitting that Truth defenders and apologists should be versed in these three areas. Lastly, Truth defenders and Christians should always be ready in and out of season without hesitancy with all patience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Antony, Louise M. Philosophers Without God: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Beattie, Tina. The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2007.

Bush, L. Russ. The Advancement. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing, 2003.

Day, Vox. The Irrational Atheist. Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, 2008.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.

Geisler, Norman L. and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Publishing, 2004.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2011.

Kaufmann, Walter. Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1965.

Krasny, Michael. Spiritual Envy. Novato, California: New World Library, 2010.

Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald, K. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1994.

Stein, Gordon. A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987.

---

[1] P.D. Feinberg, Atheism in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001), 113.

[2] Feinberg, Atheism, 113.

[3] Tina Beattie, The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2007), 5.

[4] Beattie, The New Atheists, 5.

[5] Walter Kaufmann, Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, And Commentary, (Garden City, New York: Double Day and Company, 1965), 275.

[6] Michael Krasny, Spiritual Envy, (Novato, California: New World Library, 2010), 32.

[7] Arthur B. Moss, Was Jesus An Imposter? In A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein, (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), 323.

[8] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2011), Kindle Loc. 385.

[9] L. Russ Bush, the Advancement, (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2003), 22.

[10] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, Kindle Loc. 407.

[11] Louise M. Antony, For the Love of Reason in Philosophers Without God, edited by Louise M. Antony, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University, 2007), 53.

[12] Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, (Dallas, Texas: Benbella Books, 2008), 7.

[13] C. Brown, The Enlightenment in Encyclopedia Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001), 379.

[14] Ibid. 377.

[15] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, Kindle Loc. 1477.

[16] Ibid., Kindle Loc. 1524.

[17] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 151.

[18] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Publishing, 2004), 129.