The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
—Psalm 14
If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
—G.K. Chesterton
Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.
—C.S. Lewis
Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.
—Tom Stoppard
The last issue of Modern Reformation (March—April 08) discusses the ‘New Atheism’. This new atheism is represented by such persons as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who truculently peddle their religion vehemently assailing any opposing ideas. While the positions of the New Atheists are no different from the Atheism during the Enlightenment and similar hostility toward Christianity and deist religion is found in Marx and Nietzsche, the difference lies in the agenda: proselytisation.
The New Atheists see religion as dangerous and threatening to civilization. With the obvious example of modern day (radical) Islam and its association with terrorism, they search history and find examples of violence in other religions. Now while Christians have and will do terrible things in the name of heaven, just because one (or a group) fails to understand his worldview does not mean the worldview is invalid. Al Gore travelling in a private aeroplane does not necessarily disprove climate change. (Concerning church history, I quote Craig Parton’s article ‘God Does Not Believe in Atheists’, ‘If the history of the church was only a history of “sweetness and light,” it would refute a central and repeated teaching found in the biblical data—i.e., the depravity of man.’ In this the fundamental (new) atheist has all the zeal and ambition as a jihadist, Hindu nationalist, or a Bible thumping Christian fundamentalist.
Beneath the surface of these … arguments [for or against God] are some enormously complex issues; and the side that one takes — after weighing all the evidence and sometimes regardless of where the evidence really points — is still largely determined by the position one originally takes.
—Adam Francisco ‘The New Atheism’
Several arguments are presented in favour or against God. Ultimately, however, empirical evidence cannot prove (or disprove) God. Which introduces us to presuppositions; presuppositions are beliefs which a person tacitly subscribes from which her arguments follow. The atheist presupposes empiricism: only that which may be discovered by the senses is true. (Yet one cannot empirically prove empiricism.) In addition, she presupposes naturalism: natural causes explain all things, there is no place for the supernatural. Therefore when presented with God-in-history Jesus Christ, the atheist immediately rejects him without considering the evidence because it does not fit into her weltanschauung; her presuppositions will not allow it.
Therefore, the proper place to deconstruct empty philosophies is at their roots. Naturalism systematically discounts the accounts of Jesus’s life because it cannot consider supernatural explanations; the material is all there is. Miracles do not exist because they do not exist. Likewise, empiricism cannot be empirically proven but rests on deeper presuppositions. Presuppositions such as: the universe is understandable; our senses do not mislead us; everything that can be known can be discovered by the senses. These presuppositions must be taken on faith as they cannot be proved or disproved. It is an interesting note that we do not relate to our friends on the basis of the third presupposition.
Fundamentally, the desire to dethrone God and enthrone one’s self runs deep in the being of fallen humanity. While atheists oft charge that Christians’ belief in God is because of wish-projection or similar psychobabble whereby they imply that we wish for there to be an orderly universe with a purpose for us in it, we find a god who orders the universe and provides purpose and plan. However quite the opposite may be true; an atheist longs to establish himself as final authority and not submit to another and, behold, he finds no God, no purpose, and no final judgement.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? ‘I the LORD search the heart and test the kidneys, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.’
—Jeremiah 17
When we engage our atheist friends let us direct our attention at the core of the matter, the presuppositions, and pray, for unless the Holy Spirit removes the cold heart of stone and inserts a living heart of flesh, no one will embrace God and truth.
5 responses so far ↓
Doug Indeap // Saturday, 29 March 2008 at 9:10:50 am
C T,
I just happened on your entry and found it interesting and thoughtful. Three thoughts occur to me:
1. While your title suggests the “folly” of atheism and atheism is the focus of your “presuppositions” point, doesn’t your discussion actually argue that both atheism and theism rest on presuppositions (though different ones) and, thus, on that score at least, one is as valid (or invalid) as the other?
2. Your recitation of the presuppositions of naturalism (or materialism) strike me as a little off–or at least unfairly stated. Your present them as “the universe is understandable; our senses do not mislead us; everything that can be known can be discovered by the senses.”
The first you have right, I think, at least in large part. If the universe is not understandable, if it is simply unavailable to us that way, then of course attempts to understand it are futile. (That would be equally true for attempts based on reason or faith.) While philosophies such as materialism are predicated on the assumption that the nature of things in the universe are susceptible of being understood, that is not to say that humankind currently has the mental and technical wherewithal to gain an actual understanding of the entire universe.
By the second, I’m not sure of your meaning. By the term “senses,” I gather you also mean to encompass “reason” or the process by which we make sense of the information we gather through our fives senses. While philosophies such as materialism are grounded on the application of reason to facts, and we necessarily gather information about the universe through our senses, materialists generally are among the first to note that initial appearances derived from our senses or intuition or common sense are not correct. How else would they get to general relativity, quarks, string theory, and such? In that regard, materialists are the vanguard of those not misled by the senses. If, though, you mean that in the end even “sound” use of our senses and reason will “mislead” us, I’m not sure what you mean–other, perhaps, than to simply say another way that the universe is not understandable.
By the third, again, I am not sure what you mean. Definitions are required, I think. Depending on definitions, what you call a presupposition is a tautology. To the extent that “knowledge” refers to information and understanding gained through reason based necessarily on data obtained through our senses, your stated presupposition is correct–and unsurprising. To the extent that “knowledge” is meant to encompass not only that, but also understandings derived through faith or other nonrational means, your stated presupposition is incorrect–or at least is expressed using a vocabulary different than materialists typically use.
3. Your final and fundamental point, while expressed from a point of view and in terms other than mine, appears to be a point of agreement between us. You speak of “dethroning” god(s) and “enthroning” one’s self as the final arbiter of what is true and what is not. I put it differently: We, as humans, can either trust ourselves in our endeavor to understand the universe or not. If we think we are up to it and if we think the universe is available to us (in the sense of being understandable), then the endeavor is wonderful. If we think that the universe is fundamentally ununderstandable or that, even if it is, we are fundamentally incapable of obtaining that understanding, then of course the endeavor is pointless. If that is the case, I suppose, giving one’s self up to faith is about as good as anything else.
Darron S // Saturday, 29 March 2008 at 9:58:07 am
I don’t fully agree with the presuppositions of empiracism you listed, but I’ll grant them to you for the sake of this conversation. Now, given those presuppositions, let’s contrast those to a summary of the presuppositions of Christianity:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
So, which set of presuppositions sounds more… sane? ;-)
Ubiquitous Che // Sunday, 30 March 2008 at 7:34:32 pm
Just to add to Doug’s critique of the original article:
Under point 3, another distinction between dethroning God and enthroning yourself comes down to your personal belief about humanity - whether humans are innately good, innately bad, innately neutral, not innately anything but determined by context and upbringing, etc, etc.
C T Hall // Friday, 4 April 2008 at 12:53:37 am
Doug and Che thank you for your replies.
Concerning your points in order:
1. Yes, every philosophy/worldview has presuppositions. I (incorrectly) assumed that my readers had more of a background in (Christian) presuppositional apologetics. In essence, evidence while important is viewed from a person’s presuppositions, and arguing evidence is not the most effective way to be ‘prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you’ (1 Peter). Thus the goal of presup apologetics is to show inconsistency in non-Christian worldviews.
2. Senses was a poor word choice; I meant reasoning along with the term. Per my third presupposition of materialism I suppose the best way to explain it is by contrast. A presupposition of Christianity is that knowledge is revelational. Similar to how you know much information about your friends through conversations with them and them revealing themselves to you, God has revealed himself to us. (This is normally discussed as two forms of revelation: general [nature] and special [Scripture]. General revelation cannot be accurately interpreted without the framework of special revelation. [Remembering that the Bible is not a science textbook etc. (The Bible primary purpose is to reveal God and his story of salvation), and that God has given us minds to analyse nature, but I think I'm getting off topic.])
3. I’m glad my final point came across. Yes, the difference between the worldviews is that the Christian is committed to his dependence of revelation, whereas the materialist is committed to his independence, i.d., he (or humanity) is the arbitrator of knowledge or as the old expression, ‘Man is the measure of all things.’ Che I agree very much with your assessment that beliefs concerning the nature of humanity is essential to the discussion. Presup apologetics recognises the effects of the fall of man, ‘In Adam’s fall we sinned all.’ The fall affected the whole (or totality) of man’s being, his soul, his strength, his physical nature, and his facilities (intellect). While not as corrupt as they could be (by common grace) every aspect is affected and it would unsafe to rely upon them for discerning meaning, there are no neutral humans or neutral facts or reasoning.)
*For additional insight (maybe) on my view see my related post. Also the major proponent of presup apologetics was Cornelius Van Til. Some Van Tillian authors are: Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and Richard Pratt.
C T Hall // Friday, 4 April 2008 at 1:03:58 am
Darron,
My wife found your post humourous which saved your reply. So as not to encourage feeding the troll :) I’ll comment on what you probably don’t regard as the content of your reply.
As almost a side note, I am now more convinced that a basic understanding of the Trinity is essential to an understanding of God and the Christian religion.
And more on topic, Who (or what) determines sanity?
Leave a Comment