DEALING WITH ATHEISTS
[The following was delivered Fall 1976]
Some Introductory Matters
1. The problem and its importance. Presently many Christians are very naïve about the danger (to the cause of Christ) of skepticism both in our own nation and around the world. But every Christian should be easily alerted to this great danger by coming to realize just how widespread skepticism is today. For example, atheism is a fundamental element of Marxist Communism, which is now the dominant power in nations which comprise approximately one-half of the world’s population. Marxism is militantly anti-God and anti-religion. The devotees of Marxism hold that it provides an all-around criticism of any and all religion and shows ways and means of ridding the world of it. In the light of this fact, it is fearful to realize that not only is Marxism completely dominant in such nations as Russia and China, but clearly gaining followers in such “religious” nations as Italy, France, and Portugal.
Further, Marxism apparently has a considerable number of followers here in America. And, other philosophies which are widely taught and accepted in our own nation are either atheistic or agnostic. I dare say that there is not a state college or university in the United States which could not be described accurately as a “hotbed” of both atheism and agnosticism. The theory of atheistic evolution is taught, not as a mere theory, but as an established fact not only in our state colleges and universities but also in our public schools. The influence of this false theory against the cause of Christ is indeed enormous.
2. Science cannot provide the answer to the question as to whether God exists. Many have been misled into accepting the view that scientists are peculiarly equipped (as scientists) to deal with atheism. The truth of the matter is: the question of the existence of God is a philosophic and revelational—not a scientific—problem. Some men who are scientists may be able to handle the question properly, but, if they are, it is because they have expertise in something else besides science to determine whether God exists. I am planning a thorough work on this topic, but such a discussion is beyond the scope of the time allowed for this lecture.
3. My task in this lecture. In this lecture, we are concerned basically with the atheist. More specifically, we are to deal with the question, “How can Christians best deal with atheists?”
There are a number of very important matters which are quite crucial to any adequate dealing with atheists. For example, many atheists make much of their contentions that “God” is not even a coherent (meaningful) term. Holding that the very concept of God is beset with self-contradiction, atheists contend that this point alone is sufficient to prove that atheism is true. In a future work, I plan to answer this in detail, but in this single brief lecture I must confine my efforts to responding to what is regarded by the atheists themselves as the strongest argument they can advance: the existence of evil in a world claimed (by theists) to have been created by the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. In dealing with this problem, I plan to show that the Bible can be used in a negative way to undermine what atheists regard as their strongest argument. (It can be shown that the Bible can play a crucial role in the setting forth of positive proof of the existence and attributes of God.
I. Some Crucial Distinctions.
Throughout this discussion I will be referring to atheism and theism. Thus, it is important that these terms be explained. Both the atheist and the (biblical) theist hold that evidence is available to men sufficient to warrant a deduction (concerning the existence of God) which has cognitive status—that is, sufficient to enable one to learn whether God exists. It will be helpful to note the agnostic position in contrast to both the atheistic and theistic views. When God has been understood to mean “the supreme personal Being, distinct from the world and creator of the world,” then (1) the atheist says, “I know that God does not exist,” (2) the agnostic says, “Neither I nor anyone else can know whether God exists,” and (3) the theist says, “I know that God does exist.” It must be borne in mind that each of these three basic views occupies a definite position and that burden of proof is upon the shoulders of each respective proponent of a particular view.
Permit me to say a few more words about theism, which, quite obviously, I will be upholding in this lecture. I plan to refer to theism and atheism of very particular kinds. This is the case because theism is used by some people in reference to a belief in some things or someone other than the infinite God who is revealed upon the pages of the Bible. When I use the term theism in this lecture, I will be referring to biblical theism. This means that I will be referring to faith in and obedience to the God described in the Bible. This entails the view that God is the infinite, self-existent, uncreated, eternal, personal being, the creator of all that exists other than Himself. Further, He has revealed Himself in His human creatures as holy and loving. God is infinite—that is, He is without limit as to any of His attributes. This view entails the claim that God is personal—which means that He thinks, loves, hates, makes decisions, can hear and respond to the prayers of His creature—man. With reference to the world, the view entails the further claim that God is both immanent in the world and yet transcends the world—which means that He cannot be identified with the world and yet He is concerned with the world. It entails the view that God is the ultimate source of all reality other than Himself. Although we do have the Bible description of God, it may be the case that no man can set out an absolutely perfect, fully comprehensive definition of God. However, no theist should be willing to be recklessly, or even deliberately vague. Lack of time in this lecture precludes that I should give very much attention to the details of the various attributes of God. However, I do wish to set out some things which are not meant when I use the term God.
When I say theism I will be referring to a view which is in conflict with that of the theologians and philosophers who espouse a naturalistic theory of religion and who view God not as conscious (and thus personal), but as the dynamic, internal structuring principle in the universe. To espouse naturalism is to deny the existence of the God described on the pages of the Bible. The term God, as used here, is also in conflict with the so-called finitism—the view that God is definitely limited in some attributes such as: power, goodness, knowledge, etc. But, the God of the Bible is not a finite being.
Further, God is to be identified neither with the world nor the world with God—as is done by pantheism. Pantheism obviously is in conflict with the view that God is the source of the world and thus transcends the world.
II. How Atheists Use the Existence of “Evil” in Their Effort to Prove There Is No God.
It is likely the case that no charge has been made with greater frequency or with more telling force (that is, in misleading the minds of men) against the God of the Bible, against the theism of the Bible, than that such theism is unable to explain adequately the occurrence or the existence of evil. Some men claim that the idea of the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God is simply ruled out by the enormous depth and far-reaching extent of human suffering and moral evil which these men at least think they see in the world. Having been thus affected by what they conceive to be evil, such men are disposed toward either atheism or, perhaps, agnosticism, toward some naturalistic theory of religion.
Lack of time precludes discussion of the details of what these men think they see by way of evil. It must suffice at this point to indicate that they hold that it is clear that evil does exist and that man suffers from: inanimate nature, animate nature, and from sins (that of other human beings as well as of their own). Much property and human life is destroyed annually around the world by such physical phenomena as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, heat waves, blizzards, and falling stones and trees, etc.
Further, much pain and suffering have been inflicted upon human beings by animal life. Even innocent children have been terribly maimed or destroyed by ferocious wild beasts.
Men also suffer at the hand of other men. Men lie about, steal from, and hurt other men in various ways. Women and even young and innocent girls are raped and murdered by lustful and/or perverted men. There is much callous indifference on the part of some men to the fact that some of their fellowmen stand in need of even the necessities of life.
Further, much misery is brought upon mankind with the actions of entire nations. One nation wages indescribably destructive war upon another nation. By such wars, women are left widows and children are left orphans. In some wars, not only do millions of soldiers die, but millions of civilians also.
Men suffer also because of their own weaknesses and failures. Men live in violation of the moral code which they themselves are convinced that they ought to obey. They thus bring upon themselves much suffering and anguish. Another perplexing factor in this whole affair is the seemingly chaotic nature of the distribution of suffering. It is not only the guilty who suffer, innocent children suffer at times even worse than do those who are the most degenerate. As a sort of a corollary to this fact, there is the perplexing factor that much of the suffering in the world seems entirely meaningless. Some people hold that, even if on some grounds it might be granted that God would be justified in allowing some evil, there is such an over plus of suffering as to make the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God simply incredible.
These, and other elements of the problem which seem to confound men, all combine to produce such a mass of human perplexity as to cause some men to conclude that the existence of such evil warrants the conclusion that one can be certain that such a God does not exist. This claim is made because of the conviction (held by some men) that the affirmation of three propositions which are basic to Christian faith (“God is omnipotent,” “God is omnibenevolent,” and “evil exists”) involve a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when it is logically impossible for both of two statements to be true. So, to say that two propositions, “God exists” and “evil exists” involved a logical contradiction, is to say that it is logically impossible for them both to be true. It is obvious to all of us that evil really does exist. So, if it is the case that both propositions (“evil exists” and “God exists”) cannot be true, then, since the proposition “evil exists” is true, then the proposition of “God exists” cannot be true. So atheists argue.
III. How the Bible Can Be Used To Teach Atheists the Falsity of This Contention.
From the standpoint of the fact that there are so many elements which the atheist can interject into the problem, this is indeed a most complex question. Yet, from the standpoint of the fact that the truth of the matter can be seen easily, the question is not so complex. There are very complicated ways of setting out this basic argument of the atheist. It can be set out in such fashion as to involve a number of basic propositions as well as a number of quasi logical rules. However, when all is said and done, the argument can be set out in a simple, hypothetical type of syllogism as follows:
(1) If evil exists, then God does not exist, (2) Evil exists, (3) Therefore, God does not exist. In the course of what follows I will show this to be an unsound argument by showing that the major premise is false. For the present, we note that, since this argument is stated in a valid form, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. (But the major premise is false!) It must be borne in mind that in making this argument atheists are not claiming merely to have undermined the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Rather, they are claiming that, for one presently to be a biblical theist, he must be prepared to believe not only what he, the theist, cannot prove, but what they, atheists, have actually disproved.
It would be difficult, if indeed not impossible, to imagine a stronger challenge to Christian theism. How might Christians respond to such an imposing challenge? Let us look at some of the ways they might respond: (1) a Christian might just avoid the problem by contending that there is no problem and simply ignore it, (2) he might attempt to dissolve the problem by denying that any empirical fact can count either for or against the view that God exists and resort solely to the ontological argument to settle the problem of the existence of God, (3) he could simply admit defeat as a biblical theist—that is, he could admit that atheists have really proved that God does not exist, (4) he might accept a weakened version of theism by making some concession on at least one attribute of God, (5) he might respond by attempting philosophic proof of the existence of God, (6) he might claim some kind of direct experience with God—that is, he could claim that he had actually seen or heard God, and (7) he could set out to refute the atheistic claim and solve the problem. Quite obviously, this seventh way is the way the Lord would have us to respond (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3; Philippians 1:15-17). The fifth way can also be involved.
It must be borne in mind that atheists present this problem as a logical one. In doing so, atheists hold that there are two means by which their argument can be met or avoided. One of these ways (that is, rejecting or denying at least one of the three basic propositions) I have already rejected. The other way (so explicating the basic propositions of theism as to show that the conjunction of such propositions does not necessarily involve a logical contradiction) I accept and plan to utilize in setting out my own basic affirmation.
My basic affirmation set out. It is erroneous to conclude (as do atheists) that the existence of evil in this world proves that the infinite God affirmed by the Bible does not exist; the concepts involved in the basic propositions of such theism can be so interpreted and so explicated as to avoid having to accept either a weakened version of theism or the view that the conjunction of the basic propositions of theism necessarily involves a logical contradiction. This means that, since God has a morally justifiable reason for having created the world (that is, to be the ideal environment for the salvation of the souls of men) in which evil can (and does) occur, the existence of evil in the world is not inconsistent with the existence of the infinite God of biblical theism.
Lack of time precludes our taking up all the basic elements that are involved in biblical theism. But the point that I am making is this: that the Bible can be used in order to set out all of these elements and thus show that the major premise of the one argument which atheists have is false. (For a fuller treatment see my book: Have Atheists Proved There Is No God?) When these matters are properly understood and properly explicated, there is nothing the atheist can do to undermine them. Thus, the Bible can be used to show that atheists are wrong in the single argument which they have.
The positive element of my basic affirmation set out. The positive element of my basic affirmation is this: the concepts involved in the basic propositions of biblical theism can be so interpreted and so explicated as to avoid having to accept the view that the conjunction of the basic proposition of that theism necessarily involves a logical contradiction. To establish this is to refute the atheistic contention. I have done this in my book mentioned a moment ago.
The negative element of my basic proposition. The negative element of my basic proposition is this: atheists have not established their claim (to have proved that the infinite God of biblical theism does not exist) by their affirmation that the conjunction of the basic propositions of Christian theism necessarily involve a logical contradiction. In my book (to which I referred earlier) I establish this element in considerable detail by showing that at least some of the propositions which are crucial to the atheists’ case are false. I show them to be false in the course of establishing the positive element of my basic affirmation. Actually, all that is necessary to refute the atheists’ claim is to show that they have not established the propositions which are crucial to their case. If they have not established the premises from which they draw their conclusion (that God does not exist), then, as their argument now stands, it is unsound. It is unsound because it involves a false premise, namely, the major premise. Showing that even one of the propositions upon which atheists build their case is false is sufficient to show that their argument is unsound. As a matter of fact, the Bible is the only thing which can be used to answer (in a fully adequate way) this argument by the atheists. Please study carefully the details of this matter in my book, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God?
Of course, the theist can show the atheist that, given his (the atheist’s) naturalistic view of things—that nothing exists except matter—the atheist can have no right to even claim that evil exists. This is the case because to claim that real (objective) evil exists is to imply that the Ultimate Good (God) exists. Otherwise, evil is nothing but mere taste (sheer subjectivism).
IV. Some Further Remarks on This General Problem.
Because of a lack of time for the lecture, I have not been able to present the positive case for the existence of God. The Bible itself recognizes the soundness of the claim that the existence of God can be proved by the evidence available to man in nature (which includes man himself). A proper consideration of such passages as Psalms 19:1-5; 139:14-15; Acts 14:12-17; Romans 1:18-21 should convince any reader of the soundness of the claim that the existence of God can be proved. We can know that God (not merely some vague “force”—but the God of the Bible) exists. Further, the Bible itself can be used as objective evidence to prove that God exists. And, the revelation (description) of Jesus Christ in the Bible (because He is simply beyond mere human invention) can also be used to prove the existence of God. I am sorry that lack of time prevents the discussion of these matters here.
Also, we have not had time to discuss the fact that atheism—not theism—is the view which involves self-contradiction, as I showed in detail in my recent discussion with Dr. Antony Flew. Other crucial matters were also discussed in that debate [The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God].
May God help us all (1) to recognize that skepticism presents an enormous obstacle to the advancement of the cause of Christ in the world in which we live and (2) to recognize that we can use the evidence of both nature and the Bible to refute the strongest arguments which atheists and skeptics can offer.
May God help us all to use His sacred word (the Bible) in the way He would have us to use it (Psalms 119:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 4:1-8; Mark 16:15-16; Galatians 1:6-9). May no member of the Lord’s church ever be guilty of falling into the old trap set by skeptical philosophers who claim that we cannot prove the existence of God. The Bible makes clear that we can.