Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.
"Putting The Atheist on The Defensive, Parts One and Two" (articles from the Witnessing Tips column of the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1991 & Winter 1992, page 7) by Kenneth R. Samples.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.
-------------
Part One
Fall 1991
It may come as a surprise
to many Christians to discover that all atheists are not alike.
Atheists argue differently depending on what it is that grounds
their unbelief. In this first of two installments I will discuss
two ways in which atheists attempt to explain and defend their
atheism. I have labeled them "offensive atheism" and
"defensive atheism." I will also offer suggestions as
to how Christians can successfully answer some of the claims made
by atheists and effectively present the claims of Jesus Christ.
In Part Two I will examine some of the traditional arguments for
God's existence.
Offensive Atheism.
When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question,
Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden
of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion.
As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an
interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side
must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what
they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating
a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof
rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that
when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian
and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their
position. The Christian should insist that the atheist
provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however,
leads to a logical bind for the atheist.
By definition, atheism is
the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific,
traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms
that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or
beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically
prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent
God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things
(omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous
access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore,
to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess
godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim
is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed
out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a
self-defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize
that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof
of God's existence.
Defensive Atheism.
Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical
pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent
atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that
God's existence cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists
to advocate what I call defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts
that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically
disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.
Atheists of this variety have
actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief
in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence."
For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God"
is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot
be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's
unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's
existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God
(or any other God) lacks logical consistency.
An appropriate Christian rejoinder
at this point is that defensive atheism is using a stipulative
or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards,
a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there
is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence,
not just an absence of belief. It should also be stated that defensive
atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism
(which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The
Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how
his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know
or not know that there is no God?
The Inadequacy of Atheism.
Whether offensive or defensive, there are a number of reasons
why atheism is inadequate as a rational world view. First, atheism
cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all
things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation.
The atheist, however, is unable to provide a consistent one. If
he argues that the world is eternal, then he is going against
modern science which states that the universe had a beginning
and is gradually running down. If the atheist affirms that the
universe had a beginning, then he must account for what caused
it. Either way, the atheist cannot adequately explain the world.
Second, the atheistic world
view is irrational and cannot provide an adequate basis for intelligible
experience. You see, an atheistic world is ultimately random,
disorderly, transitive, and volatile. It is therefore incapable
of providing the necessary preconditions to account for the laws
of science, the universal laws of logic, and the human need for
absolute moral standards. In short, it cannot account for the
meaningful realities we encounter in life.
The Christian theistic world
view, however, can explain these transcendental aspects
of life. The uniformity of nature stems from God's orderly design
of the universe. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way
God Himself thinks, and would have us to think as well. Absolute
moral standards, such as "Thou shalt not murder," mirror
the perfect moral nature of God.
The Christological Argument.
If individual atheists are willing to consider the evidence for
God's existence, direct their attention to the claims of Jesus
Christ. Jesus claimed to be none other than God in human flesh
(John 8:58). This astounding claim was supported by His matchless
personal character, His fulfillment of predictive prophecy, His
incalculable influence upon human history, His many miracles,
and ultimately by His historically verifiable resurrection from
the dead (for a fully developed discussion of the Christological
argument see William Lane Craig's book, Apologetics:
An Introduction). The evidence is definitely there for the
honest atheist to examine. As the late Christian apologist Francis
Schaeffer put it, "God is there and He is not silent."
-------------
Part Two
Winter 1992
In Part One, we examined how
atheists go about explaining and defending their naturalistic
world view. I gave suggestions as to how Christians can respond
to both the dogmatic (offensive atheism) and skeptical (defensive
atheism) approaches taken by atheists. In this installment we
will examine a way in which the Christian can go on the offensive
by offering evidence for God's existence, thus illustrating the
rationality of Christian theism.
Nearly everyone, at least
in their more reflective moments, has asked some simple but deep-seated
questions such as: Where did the world come from? Why is there
something rather than nothing? How did the world come into existence?
The asking of these elementary but profound questions has led
to the formulation of a popular argument for God's existence.
The argument is known as the "cosmological argument."
It derives its name from the word kosmos, the Greek word
for world. While there are several variations of the argument
(see Scaling the Secular City by J. P. Moreland [Baker
Book House, 1987] and Questions That Matter by Ed L. Miller
[McGraw-Hill, 1987]), the basic point of the argument is that
God is the only adequate explanation for the world's existence.
This argument, which I consider to be both cogent and persuasive,
was first formulated by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Its most
famous presentation, however, was given by the medieval Christian
philosopher/theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. We will now examine
a popular and simplified form of the cosmological argument that
can be presented to the atheist.
Just how do we account for
the universe? How do we explain the existence of the world? Well,
logically speaking, there are only a few options -- and only one
of them is rationally acceptable.
Our starting point in discussing
the world is to assume that a real world of time and space does
in fact exist. There are some who would dispute this assumption,
arguing rather that the universe is simply an illusion. However,
most atheists, being materialists (who believe that all reality
is ultimately matter and energy), will be willing to accept your
starting point. (If the world was an illusion, there would
be no good reason to believe that we would all perceive the world
even remotely the same way. But we do, generally speaking, experience
the world the same way -- and can even make accurate predictions
[science]. To argue that the world is illusory violates our common
sense and experience.)
Since we have a real world
staring us in the face, how do we account for it? Well, the first
option is that the world somehow caused or created itself. This,
however, is an irrational conclusion. For something to create
itself, it would have to exist before it was created, and that
is completely absurd. Something cannot both exist and not exist
at the same time and in the same way. Concluding that the world
created or caused itself is simply not a rationally acceptable
alternative.
A second suggested explanation
is that the universe came from nothing by nothing. Some atheists
do, in fact, argue this way. This, however, is also irrational
because something cannot be derived from nothingness. An effect
cannot be greater than its cause -- and in this case the cause
would be nothing. One of the basic laws of physics is expressed
by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit, "from nothing,
nothing comes." It's a tremendous leap of faith to believe
that the world emerged from nothing. Remind the atheist that he
is not supposed to have any faith.
Our third option is that the
universe is simply eternal. It has just always been here. This
alternative, however, is also doomed to failure. First, the world
that we live in shows signs that it is contingent (dependent for
its continued existence on something outside itself, ultimately
something uncaused and absolute). The fact is, no single element
in the universe contains the explanation for its existence. Therefore,
this chain of contingencies we call the world necessitates the
existence of a noncontingent or absolute ground of being.
Further, the concept of an
eternal universe directly contradicts the prevailing view of contemporary
science which teaches that the universe had a specific beginning
(Big Bang) a finite period of time ago. Worse still, it contradicts
the scientific fact that the world is gradually running out of
available energy (Second Law of Thermodynamics). If the universe
was always in existence (i.e., eternal), it would have already
run down (see The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross [Promise
Publishing, 1989]). Additionally, if the universe was eternal,
then it would have an infinite past (i.e., an infinite number
of days, weeks, months, years, etc.). This, however, leads to
a logical contradiction. By definition one can never reach the
end of an infinite period of time; nevertheless, we have arrived
at today, which completes or traverses the so-called infinite
past (see Scaling the Secular City). These points make
an eternal universe theory scientifically and philosophically
untenable.
Seeing that these other alternatives
have failed, the only truly rational alternative is that the universe
was caused by an entity outside space and time, an entity that
is by definition uncaused and ultimate. And, because this Being
created other beings who possess personality, He must also be
a personal Being (remember, the effect cannot be greater than
the cause). This explanation is perfectly in line with what the
Bible teaches: "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).
This argument, even if it
is considered cogent, does not bring the atheist to personal faith
in Christ. At best, he or she arrives at a deity with many theistic
attributes. However, this argument does illustrate that believing
in God is rational, and in this case is the only rational alternative
in explaining the universe.
It is at this point that we
can turn the discussion back to Jesus Christ and set forth His
credentials as being God incarnate (see Christian Apologetics
by Norman Geisler [Baker Book House, 1976] and History and
Christianity by John Warwick Montgomery [Bethany House Publishers,
1964). Remember, simply believing in a God does not save a person.
It is a relationship with Jesus Christ that saves (John 14:6).
We haven't been able to discuss
some of the objections atheists have raised concerning this argument.
For a list of objections and responses concerning the cosmological
argument, consult Faith and Reason by Ronald Nash [Zondervan
Publishing House, 1988] and The Existence of God by Richard
Swinburne [Oxford University Press, 1979].
-------------
Samples is currently serving
as director of the Augustine Fellowship Study Center at Post Office
Box 23, Hemet, CA 92543; (909) 654-1429.
End of document, CRJ0131A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Putting The Atheist on The Defensive, Parts One and Two"
release A, July 31, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks
to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this
ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal
is published quarterly by the Christian Research Institute (CRI)
-- founded in 1960 by the late Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI
is concerned with and involved in the general defense of the faith,
our area of research specialization is limited to elements within
the modern religious scene that compete with, assault, or undermine
biblical Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which
deny essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ
and the Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused
in the contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions;
and aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal
include "Newswatch," witnessing tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL
RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [
] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ]
24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds)
[ ] 38.00 [ ] 70.00
Please make checks payable
to CRI
To place a credit card order
by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian
Research Journal, please print this coupon, fill in the necessary
information and mail it with your payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho
Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe
to the Christian Research Journal.
Name:
Address:
Address:
City, State, ZIP:
Country: Phone:
------------------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has
a wealth of information on various topics that is yours for the
asking? In fact, a free subscription to the Christian Research
Newsletter is yours if you contact CRI and ask for one saying
that you found out about the offer from this computer text file.
We offer a wide variety of articles and fact sheets free of charge.
Write us today for information on these or other topics. Our first-rate
research staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 7000
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
92688
(714) 858-6100
---------------
End of file.