Robert Meyer
Any time you happen to dialog with an atheist online, most will tell you that atheism is not a belief, but “the lack of belief in a god or gods.” You may be puzzled because if you check an older dictionary you may see a different definition, something such as “denial of the existence of God.” Atheists will get angry and correct you if you use the latter definition. Does it actually make a difference? What is this newer definition all about?
While the current definition of atheism can be traced back at least as far as Charles Bradlaugh’s pamphlet, “Plea for atheism,” published in the 1830’s, the mainstream usage of that definition has a more recent origin. In 1972, atheist philosopher, Anthony Flew wrote an essay entitled “Presumption of atheism” In the essay he argued that in formal debate, atheism should be presumed, until evidence refuting it can be offered. So, you can readily see how the “lack of evidence” definition fits hand in glove with Flew’s proposition
Understanding the protocol of formal debates is important. The participants in a debate beforehand agree on the topical parameters of the debate, along with the thesis to be debated. If the thesis is worded as a question “Does God exist?” then each side has equal burden of proof. If the debate thesis is a statement “The God of scripture exists,” then the participant taking the affirming position has the burden of proof, but is awarded with both the opening and closing statements in order to compensate for the disadvantage.
One can see the sleight of hand almost immediately. Atheists have taken this protocol and applied it inappropriately to any conversational situation. The disadvantage and illicit nature is obvious, as outside of a formal debate setting, the other individual is not going to be awarded an uninterrupted opening and closing statement.
So, a conversation among friends may turn out like this. Friend number one says “I am now an atheist” Friend two asks “Why?” Friend number one responds “I don’t need a reason you have to provide evidence as to why you are not an atheist.” I think we can see the absurdity and unnecessary confrontational tension that is created by applying the new definition to that situation. At best, all this situation does is issue in intellectual slothfulness. The atheist thinks he has nothing to defend.
But here is the dirty little secret on top of everything else. In 2004 Anthony Flew renounced his conviction of atheism, saying that he vowed to go where ever the evidence led. That journey brought him to the place where he found evidence that God does exist. Given Flew’s conversion, would it be unreasonable to demand that atheists stop using the definition of atheism spawned by Flew’s essay? At very least we should demand that any atheist who claims there is a lack of evidence for God, address the line of reasoning and evidence that Flew presents in his Tome “There is a God.”
The Christian apologist could play the same semantic game and say his position is a “lack of belief in atheism.” But Christians aren’t going to do that because we are exhorted in 1Peter 3:15 ‘But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”
If I were a person who lacked evidence in God, I would be studying the many tomes cataloging such evidence, rather than behaving like a troll in the internet forums, expecting a person to make a substantive case in a couple paragraphs. Personally, I believe that atheism is not so much a function of lack of evidence as it is a psychological aversion or instrument of liberation. This is not universal, but I suspect it is predominant.
What reasons do I give? First many atheists have a problem with ultimate authority as evidenced in this quote by atheist professor Thomas Nagel. And notice he doesn't just speak for himself, but says the problem is likely commonplace.
“..I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.
Then we have Aldous Huxley, who saw atheism as a liberating force that would enable unfettered personal autonomy. And no God means no final accountability. And notice again, Huxley denies he is speaking only for himself.
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently, assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”
― Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means
Finally, we have the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. Will any amount of evidence prevail against such a demented mindset?
“Illusion has been smashed to bits; martyrdom, salvation and immortality are falling to pieces; the edifice is going to rack and ruin; I collared the Holy Ghost in the basement and threw him out.” (The Words, 1964).
On top of everything else we have the work of NYU psychoanalyst Dr. Paul Vitz, who in his research work “Faith of the Fatherless,” documents that among prominent atheist philosophers there is a high correlation between poor father figures and adoption of atheism. Link to his work below.
One is forced to conclude that atheism is less about a lack of evidence and more about that all evidence for the atheist lacks persuasiveness.
© Robert MeyerThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
