While polytheism dominated much of ancient Greek thought and theism dominated medieval Christian view, atheism has had its day in the modern world. Of course not all who lack faith in a divine being wish to be called "atheist." Some prefer the positive ascription of "Humanist". Others are perhaps best described as "materialists." But all are non-theists, and most are antitheistic. Some prefer the more neutral term a-theists.
In distinction from a theist, who believes God exists beyond and in the world, and a pantheist, who believes God is the world, an atheist believes there is no God either beyond or in the world. There is only a universe or cosmos and nothing more.
Since atheists share much in common with agnostics and skeptics, they are often confused with them (see Russell, "What Is an Agnostic?"). Technically, a skeptic says "I doubt that God exists" and an agnostic declares "I don’t know (or can’t know) whether God exists." But an atheist claims to know (or at least believe) that God does not exist. However, since atheists are all nontheists and since most atheists share with skeptics an antitheistic stand, many of their arguments are the same. It is in this sense that modern atheism rests heavily upon the skepticism of David Hume and the agnosticism of Immanuel Kant.
Varieties of Atheism
Broadly speaking, there are differing kinds of atheism. Traditional (metaphysical) atheism holds that there never was, is, or will be a God. The many with this view include Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Antony Flew. Mythological atheists, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, believe the God-myth was never a Being, but was once a live model by which people lived. This myth has been killed by the advancement of man’s understanding and culture. There was a short-lived form of dialectical atheism held by Thomas Altizer which proposed that the once-alive, transcendent God actually died in the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ, and this death was subsequently realized in modern times. Semantical atheists claim that God-talk is dead. This view was held by Paul Van Buren and others influenced by the logical positivists who had seriously challenged the meaningfulness of language about God. Of course, those who hold this latter view need not be actual atheists at all. They can admit to the existence of God and yet believe that it is not possible to talk about him in meaningful terms. This view has been called "acognosticism," since it denies that we can speak of God in cognitive or meaningful terms. Conceptual atheism believes that there is a God, but he is hidden from view, obscured by our conceptual constructions. Finally, practical atheists confess that God exists but believe that we should live as if he did not. The point is that we should not use God as a crutch for our failure to act in a spiritual and responsible way (some of Dietrich Bonhoffer’s writings can be interpreted in this category).
There are other ways to designate the various kinds of atheists. One way would be by the philosophy by which they express their atheism. In this way one could speak of existential atheists (Sartre), Marxist atheists (Marx), psychological atheists (Sigmund Freud), capitalistic atheists (Ayn Rand), and behavioristic atheists (B. F. Skinner).
For apologetics purposes the most applicable way to consider atheism is in a metaphysical sense. Atheists are those who give reasons for believing that no God exists in or beyond the world. Thus we are speaking about philosophical atheism as opposed to practical atheists who simply live as though there were no God.
Arguments for Atheism
The arguments for atheism are largely negative, although some can be cast in positive terms. Negative arguments fall into two categories: (1) arguments against proofs for God’s existence, and (2) arguments against God’s existence. On the first set of arguments most atheists draw heavily on the skepticism of Hume and the agnosticism of Kant.
Atheists offer what they consider to be good and sufficient reasons for believing no God exists. Four such arguments are often used by atheists: (1) the fact of evil; (2) the apparent purposelessness of life; (3) random occurrence in the universe; and (4) the First Law of Thermodynamics—that "energy can neither be created or destroyed"— as evidence that the universe is eternal and, hence, needs no Creator.
Responses to the Arguments
The Existence of Evil. A detailed response to the problem of evil is given elsewhere (see The Problem of Evil, Theological Dictionary, October & November, 1999), so it will be treated here only in general terms. The atheist’s reasoning is circular. Former atheist C. S. Lewis argued that, in order to know there is injustice in the world one has to have a standard of justice. So, to effectively eliminate God via evil one has to posit an ultimate moral standard by which to pronounce God evil (Mere Christianity). But for theists God is the ultimate moral standard, since there cannot be an ultimate moral law without an Ultimate Moral Law Giver.
Atheists argue that an absolutely good God must have a good purpose for everything, but there is no good purpose for much of the evil in the world. Hence, there cannot be an absolutely perfect God.
Theists point out that just because we do not know the purpose for evil occurrences does not mean that there is no good purpose. This argument does not necessarily disprove God; it only proves our ignorance of God’s plan. Along the same reasoning, just because we do not see a purpose for all evil now, does not follow that we never will. The atheist is premature in his judgment. According to theism, a day of justice is coming. If there is a God, he must have a good purpose for evil, even if we do not know it. For a theistic God is omniscient and knows everything. He is omnibenevolent and has a good reason for everything. So, by his very nature he must have a good reason for evil.
Purposelessness. In assuming that life is without purpose, the atheist is again both a presumptuous and premature judge. How does one know there is no ultimate purpose in the universe? Simply because the atheist knows no real purpose for life does not mean God does not have one. Most people have known times that made no sense for the moment but eventually seemed to have great purpose.
The Random Universe. Apparent randomness in the universe does not disprove God. Some randomness is only apparent, not real. When DNA was first discovered it was believed that it split randomly. Now the entire scientific world knows the incredible design involved in the splitting of the double helix molecule known as DNA. Even actual randomness has an intelligent purpose. Molecules of carbon dioxide are exhaled randomly with the oxygen (and nythogine in the air), but for a good purpose. If they did not, we would inhale the same poisonous gases we have exhaled. And some of what seems to be waste may be the product of a purposeful process. Horse manure makes good fertilizer. According to the atheist’s time scale the universe has been absorbing and neutralizing very well all its "waste." So far as we know, little so-called waste is really wasted. Even if there is some, it may be a necessary byproduct of a good process in a finite world like ours, just like sawdust results from logging.
The Eternality of Matter (Energy). Atheists often misstate the scientific first law of thermodynamics. It should not be rendered: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." Science as science should not be engaged in "can" or "cannot" statements. Operation science deals with what is or is not, based on observation. And observation simply tells us, according to the first law, that "The amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant." That is, while the amount of usable energy is decreasing, the amount of actual energy is remaining constant in the universe. The first law says absolutely nothing about the origin or destruction of energy. It is merely an observation about the continuing presence of energy in the cosmos.
Unlike the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, must have had a beginning, the first law makes no statement about whether energy is eternal. Therefore, it cannot be used to eliminate a Creator of the cosmos.
Tenets of Atheism
Atheists do not have identical beliefs, any more than do all theists. However, there is a core of beliefs common to most atheists. So while not all atheists believe all of the following, all of the following are believed by some atheists. And most atheists believe most of the following:
About God. True atheists believe that only the cosmos exists. God did not create man; people created God.
About the World. The universe is eternal. If it is not eternal, then it came into existence "out of nothing and by nothing." It is self-sustaining and self-perpetuating. As astronomer Carl Sagan put it, "The Cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be" (Sagan, Cosmos, 4). If asked "what caused the world?" most atheists would reply with Bertrand Russell that it was not caused; it is just there. Only the parts of the universe need a cause. They all depend on the whole, but the whole needs no cause. If we ask for a cause for the universe, then we must ask for a cause for God. And if we do not need a cause for God, then neither do we need one for the universe.
If one insists that everything needs a cause, the atheist simply suggests an infinite regress of causes that never arrives at a first cause (i.e., God). For if everything must have a cause, then so does this "first cause." In that case it really isn’t first at all, nor is anything else (see Sagan, Broca’s Brain, 287).
About Evil. Unlike pantheists who deny the reality of evil, atheists strongly affirm it. In fact, while pantheists affirm the reality of God and deny the reality of evil, atheists, on the other hand, affirm the reality of evil and deny the reality of God. They believe theists are inconsistent in trying to hold to both realities.
About Human Beings. A human being is matter in motion with no immortal soul. There is no mind apart from brain. Nor is there a soul independent of body. While not all atheists are strict materialists who identify soul and body, most do believe that the soul is dependent on the body. The soul in fact dies when the body dies. The soul (and mind) may be more than the body, the way a thought is more than words or symbols. But as the shadow of a tree ceases to exist when the tree does, so the soul does not survive the body’s death.
About Ethics. No moral absolutes exist, certainly no divinely authorized absolutes. There may be some widely accepted and long enduring values. But absolutely binding laws would seem to imply an absolute Law Giver, which is not an option.
Since values are not discovered from some revelation of God, they must be created. Many atheists believe values emerge by trial and error the way traffic laws developed. Often the right action is described in terms of what will bring the greatest good in the long run. Some frankly acknowledge that relative and changing situations determine what is right or wrong. Others speak about the expedient behavior (what "works"), and some work out their whole ethic in terms of self-interest. But virtually all atheists recognize that each person must determine personal values, since there is no God to reveal what is right and wrong. As the Humanist Manifesto put it, "Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values" (Kurtz, 8).
About Human Destiny. Most atheists see no eternal destiny for individual persons, though some speak of a kind of collective immortality of the race. But the denial of individual immortality notwithstanding, many atheists are Utopians. They believe in an earthly paradise to come. Skinner proposed a behaviorally controlled Utopia in Walden Two. Marx believed an economic dialectic of history would inevitably produce a communist paradise. Others, such as Rand, believe that pure capitalism can produce a more perfect society. Still others believe human reason and science can produce a social Utopia. Virtually all, however, recognize the ultimate mortality of the human race but console themselves in the belief that its destruction is millions of years away.
Evaluation
Positive Contributions of Atheism. Even from a theistic point of view, not all views expressed by atheists lack truth. Atheists have provided many insights into the nature of reality.
The reality of evil. Unlike pantheists, atheists do not close their eyes to the reality of evil. In fact, most atheists have a keen sensitivity to evil and injustice. They rightly point to the imperfection of this world and to the need for adjudication of injustice. In this regard they are surely right that an all-loving, all-powerful God would certainly do something about the situation.
Contradictory concepts of God. In contending that God is not caused by another, some have spoken of God as though he were a self-caused being (causa sui). Atheists rightly point out this contradiction, for no being can cause its own existence. To do this it would have to exist and not exist at the same time. For to cause existence is to move from nonexistence to existence. But nonexistence cannot cause existence. Nothing cannot cause something. On this point atheists are surely right.
Positive human values. Many atheists are humanists. With others they affirm the value of humanity and human culture. They earnestly pursue both the arts and the sciences and express deep concern in ethical issues. Most atheists believe that racism, hatred, and bigotry are wrong. Most atheists commend freedom and tolerance and have other positive moral values.
The Loyal Opposition. Atheists are the loyal opposition to theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one’s own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God.
A Critique of Atheism
Still, the position that God does not exist lacks adequate rational support. The atheist’s arguments against God are insufficient. Further, there are good arguments for the existence of God. For many things, atheism provides no satisfactory answer.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Atheism does not provide an adequate answer as to why anything exists when it is not necessary for anything at all to exist. Nonexistence of everything in the world is possible, yet the world does exist. Why? If there is no cause for its existence, there is no reason why the world exists.
What is the basis for morality? Atheists can believe in morality, but they cannot justify this belief. Why should anyone be good unless there is a Definer of goodness who holds people accountable? It is one thing to say that hate, racism, genocide, and rape are wrong. But if there is no ultimate standard of morality (i.e., God), then how can these things be wrong? A moral prescription implies a Moral Prescriber.
What is the basis for meaning? Most atheists believe life is meaningful and worth living. But how can it be if there is no purpose for life, nor destiny after this life? Purpose implies a Purposer. But if there is no God, there is no objective or ultimate meaning. Yet most atheists live as if there were.
What is the basis for truth? Most atheists believe that atheism is true and theism is false. But to state that atheism is true implies that there is such a thing as objective truth. Most atheists do not believe that atheism is true only for them. But if atheism is true, there must be a basis for objective truth. Truth is a characteristic of a mind, and objective truth implies an objective Mind beyond our finite minds.
What is the basis for reason? Most atheists pride themselves on being rational. But why be rational if the universe is the result of irrational chance? There is no reason to be reasonable in a random universe. Hence, the very thing in which atheists most pride themselves is not possible apart from God.
What is the basis for beauty? Atheists also marvel at a beautiful sunset and are awestruck by the starry heavens. They enjoy the beauty of nature as though it were meaningful. Yet if atheism is true, it is all accidental, not purposeful. Atheists enjoy natural beauty as though it were meant for them, and yet they believe no Designer exists to mean it for them.
Sources
T. Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism
P. Bayle, Selections from Bayle’s Dictionary
L. Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity
J. N. Findlay, "Can God’s Existence Be Disproved?" A. Plantinga, Ontological Argument
C. Hartshorne, "The Necessarily Existent," A. Plantinga, The Ontological Argument
J. Hick, The Existence of God
B. C. Johnson, An Atheist Debater’s Handbook
P. Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
M. Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
K. Marx, Marx and Engels on Religion
G. Maurades, Belief in God
T. Molnar, Theists and Atheists
J. P. Moreland, Does God Exist?
F. Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom
———, Thus Spake Zarathustra
K. Nielson, Philosophy of Atheism
A. Rand, For the New Intellectual
B. Russell, "What Is an Agnostic?" In Look (1953)
C. Sagan, Broca’s Brain
———, Cosmos
J. P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness
B. F. Skinner, About Behavioralism
———, Walden Two
G. Smith, The Case Against God
R. C. Sproul, If There is a God, Why are There Atheists?
P. Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel
No comments:
Post a Comment