What About Arguments for Atheism?
Common Arguments
Debate Preview?
Allen Hainline
Reasonable Faith UTD
September 26, 2013
www.OriginsDiscussion.info
Let’s go out to eat with ASH after the debate
Outline
• More Fine-Tuning discussion
• Dawkin’s Central Argument (God
Delusion)
• Rhetorical Arguments
• Scientific Arguments
• Philosophical Arguments
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
Rhetorical Arguments
1. Atheism is not a belief.
Rather, it is the lack of a
belief in God. As such, it has
nothing to prove and the
theist bears all the burden of
proof in the debate.
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
What's at Stake in Defining Atheism?
 By trying to define atheism as merely a lack of
belief in the existence of God rather than as the
denial of the existence of God, atheists are
attempting to shift the burden of proof in the
argument entirely to the theist.
 If no truth claim is made that no gods exist
then agnostic
 But an agnostic mindset would more open to
searching
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
The definition of atheism is changing
"According to the most usual definition, an
'atheist' is a person who maintains that there
is no God, that is, that the sentence 'God
exists' expresses a false proposition. … On
our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who
rejects belief in God, regardless of whether
or not his reason for the rejection is the claim
that "God exists" expresses a false
proposition.
Paul Edwards
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
Responses Redefining of Atheism
This new definition leads to confusion:
a.
b.
Cannot distinguish atheism from agnosticism
Makes atheism compatible with theism
•
‘Atheism’ means ‘lack of a belief in God’
•
It’s possible for God to exist and for someone
to lack belief in gods?
•
Thus, it follows that theism (the existence of
God is) is compatible with atheism!
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
2. We are all atheists about
most Gods. I'm just atheist
about one more God than you.
When you understand why you
disbelieve in the existence of all
the other gods, then you'll
understand why I disbelieve in
your god.
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
 This can be helpful in
understanding and not looking
down on atheists



May be being rational based on their
current knowledge
Reasons for rejecting the existence of Zeus
of Greek mythology have nothing to do
with whether it is reasonable to reject the
God of the Bible
There is lots of evidence for the existence
of a transcendent God
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
3. Atheists rely on reason and
religion is based on faith which is
opposed to reason
New Atheists’ redefine faith:
Dawkins: ‘blind trust, in the
absence of evidence, even in the
teeth of evidence.’
Grayling: ‘Faith is a commitment
to belief contrary to evidence and
reason…’
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
Biblical Faith - pistis
•
•
•
•
Same root as in epistemology
Means personal trust in God – I have good
reasons for trusting in God just as I do for
trusting in my wife
Doesn’t in any way imply there are not
good reasons for trusting God
‘Faith’ according to C.S. Lewis: ‘the art of
holding onto things your reason has once
accepted, in spite of your changing moods.’
1 Peter 3:15
‘Always be
prepared to give
an answer
[apologia =
reasoned defence]
to everyone who
asks you to give
the reason for the
hope that you
have. But do this
with gentleness
and respect.’
www.damaris.org
16
What AreAnswering
the Arguments
Scientific
of the
Arguments
Popular Atheists?
Atheism/naturalism should be believed over theism
because it has been a more fruitful way of gaining
knowledge about reality – “you’ll know them by
their fruits”
• Science itself is to some degree the fruit of
Christianity
“My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated
antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious
derivative from medieval theology.” Alfred North Whitehead
“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected
law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” C.S. Lewis
What AreAnswering
the Arguments
Scientific
of the
Arguments
Popular Atheists?
Atheism/naturalism leads to more knowledge …
Key question is not “which worldview leads to most
knowledge about nature?”
• All knowledge gained about the natural world will be
credited to science
• The Bible teaches about God not science
Question is “which worldview best explains reality as a
whole?”
• Are there indications of things that exist beyond nature?
• Human ability to do science is surprising under atheism –
our ability to do abstract math or understand quantum
mechanics has no survival or reproductive benefit
What AreAnswering
the Arguments
Scientific
of the
Arguments
Popular Atheists?
Scientific Arguments
Most scientists are atheists
therefore the belief in God is
not scientific.
• Percentage is very large in
National Academy of
Science
• May be selection effect
• Actually not much different
than other academic fields
• Sociological factors
contribute
Disbelief in God by
Academics
Discipline
%
Physics
40.8
Chemistry
26.6
Biology
41.0
Overall
37.6
Sociology
34.0
Economics
31.7
Political Science
27.0
Psychology
33.0
Overall
31.2
What AreAnswering
the Arguments
Scientific
of the
Arguments
Popular Atheists?
Most scientists are atheists therefore its
irrational to believe in God
•
•
To think that science is the only source of
truth is self-refuting
Scientists are not trained in the philosophy of
religion and have no special qualifications for
weighing in on the existence of God
• Most don’t know the philosophical
arguments for God and the historical
evidence (Quentin Smith)
• Among philosophers of religion 72% were
theists – this is also sociological !
Dawkins’ “Central Argument”
for Atheism
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been
to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design
in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design
to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis
immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the
designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian
evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising
in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology
Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
The conclusion doesn’t follow even if you grant all the premises
• At most the argument from design might fail
Dawkins’ “Central Argument” for Atheism
3. The temptation [to attribute appearance of design to a designer]
is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises
the larger problem of who designed the designer.
This premise should be rejected:
• In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn’t
have an explanation of the explanation
• A pile of machinery discovered on the backside of the
moon could be deemed the product of intelligence without
knowing the details of that intelligence
• Requiring an explanation of an explanation leads to an infinite
regress and no scientific progress would be possible
Examples from Science:
• Darwinism was accepted before genetics were understood
• A period of rapid cosmic inflation early in the universe is
considered the best explanation of a set of observations even
though scientists do not know what causes the “inflaton” field
Dawkins’ “Central Argument”
for Atheism
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian
evolution by natural selection. … We can now safely say that the
illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion
• In order to make such a strong statement Dawkins needs to
show that life can arise from non-living matter in a way that is
not unexpected under naturalism.
• Needs to show a plausible way under naturalism for evolution to
arise
• “To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to
go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” Lynn
Margulis
Could Life Originate From Non-Life
Apart from a Creator?
Most scientists admit no plausible naturalistic scenario exists
– “A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes
which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.“
Hubert Yockey
– “The formation of the first life is viewed as a chance process that occurred in spite of
minuscule odds such as 1:10300 and which is accepted only because we are here. “
Christian Schwabe
– “No one has an adequate materialistic explanation for how life arose“ Dawkins
• Atheists must appeal to chance to even get evolution started
– “Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms” Dobzhansky
– The first evolver cannot itself have evolved
– $1,000,000.00 is offered to anyone who can provide a plausible theory
• http://www.us.net/life/
Origin of Life Scientist Now Appeals
to Multiverse/Anthropic Principle
“For biological evolution … to take off, efficient systems for replication and
translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear
to be products of extensive selection.” Eugene Koonin
– Yet to get both in first living cell is 1 in 101018 chance
“I will argue that I am afraid his answer to this problem might open too
broad an avenue to the supporters of intelligent design, as it is currently
formulated, and thus does not satisfy me as such as an alternative to the
theory to the RNA world.” Eric Bapteste (in reviewing article)
27
Why Doesn’t
Answering
God Leave
Scientific
More Scientific
Arguments
Evidence?
There is very strong and growing body of
evidence but admittedly it could be
stronger …
Science is not the only means to truth
Science is not the best way to reach all
people
• Modern science didn’t exist for
millennia
• Science is not the best way to reach
people who are not good at science
• Science is not the best way to reach
cultures that do not esteem science
What AreAnswering
the Arguments
Scientific
of the
Arguments
Popular Atheists?
Why isn’t all of the evidence clearer than it is?
“There is enough light for those who desire only to
see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary
disposition.“ Pascal
• Evidence is not the ultimate issue
• God’s comprehensive claim on our lives
makes us uncomfortable
• If no amount of evidence will remove the
fundamental obstacle between us and God,
why blame God?
•
If God knows we’re not ready to submit to His will, He’s
being merciful by not forcing His knowledge on us – this
would increase our accountability
Answering Rhetorical Arguments
Rhetorical Arguments
4. Science flies you to the
moon. Religion flies you into
buildings.
Science is good.
Religion is bad.
Science causes
wide-spread
death and
destruction.
Religion cares
for the injured,
sick, and hungry.
Science is bad.
Religion is good.
Government
protects the
innocent and
establishes
justice.
The private
sector robs and
pillages the
innocent and
flouts justice.
Government is good.
The private sector is bad.
The private sector
contributes to
community
flourishing.
Government kills
the innocent.
The private sector is good.
Government is bad.
Answering Philosophical Arguments
Philosophical Arguments
Can God make a rock too heavy
for Him to pick up?
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 Homer Simpson's
version of this
dilemma was "Can
God microwave His
taco too hot for
Him to eat it?"
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 This question is
supposed to
highlight the
problem with God
being omnipotent.
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 If God can make a
rock too heavy for
Him to lift, then there
is something God
cannot do, namely,
lift the rock.
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 If God cannot make a
rock too heavy for
Him to lift, then there
is something God
cannot do, namely,
make the rock.
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 Either way, there is
something that God
cannot do.
 If there is something
God cannot do, then
God is not
omnipotent.
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 By definition,
anything that is
created and is
physical cannot be
too heavy for God to
lift.
 So the answer to the
question is "no" God
cannot create a rock
too heavy for Him to
lift.
Answering Philosophical Arguments
 But to say that God
cannot create such a
rock does not
compromise His
omnipotence.
 This is so because
the notion of a
physical rock that is
beyond the power of
an omnipotent God
is a contradiction.