It is common to hear Christians argue against atheism on the grounds that it is impossible to prove a negative such as “God does not exist.” Only an omniscient being could do so, but an omniscient being would be God by definition! This sounds convincing, and has great rhetorical value, but it is a bad argument nonetheless.
There are a couple of glaring shortcomings. First, it is a straw-man. Most atheists do not claim to know with certainty that God does not exist. They only claim that His existence is very unlikely, or vastly improbable.
Secondly, the atheist could offer a similar argument against theism. One cannot know God exists with absolute certainty. While there may be very good grounds for thinking God exists, such knowledge is not certain. We could be mistaken (meaning it is not logically impossible for us to be wrong in this belief). In fact, virtually everything we claim to know, we know on probabilistic grounds, and yet we are justified in claiming to know it. If it would be unfair for the atheist to claim theists cannot claim to know God exists unless they have proven it impossible for God not to exist, then it is also unfair for the theist to discount atheism on the grounds that no one can be certain God does not exist. If there are good reasons for thinking His existence is unlikely, then one is justified in claiming to know God does not exist, even if they cannot be certain of this knowledge.
When you think about it, all of us claim to know certain things do not exist (unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Clause, the Greek gods, etc.) without being omniscient, and without proving their existence logically impossible. But are we certain of this? After all, we are making a claim about a negative, and it is impossible to prove a negative. The fact of the matter is that we cannot be certain that unicorns do not exist. They may exist on another planet or in another dimension that we are not aware of, and yet, given the lack of evidence for their existence we are justified in claiming to know they do not exist, even if we could be mistaken. Likewise, atheists are justified in claiming to know God does not exist, even if they cannot be certain of His non-existence. That’s not to say I think they are right, but it is to say their knowledge claim is not an illegitimate one simply because it lacks certitude. If certitude is the criterion for knowledge claims, it would make skeptics of us all.
Thinking to Believe 
July 7, 2008 at 8:29 pm
to me, the most staggering evidence to discredit atheism, particularly christian atheism (that is, the atheists that are more venomously bound to attack the credibility of christianity over all other religious traditions), is the utter arrogance of the argument.
undoubtedly, and inarguably, the study of western civilization from around 300 AD to around 1800 AD is a study of how christianity affected world culture. to argue that the entire thing is based on the drunken ramblings of a few confused fishermen is laughable and pitiful all at the same time.
LikeLike
July 7, 2008 at 9:20 pm
b,
I’ll agree with you that many atheists are arrogant in their atheism, but is atheism–the claim that God does not exist–arrogant in itself? I don’t think so. I would be stupid for an atheist to ignore the great achievements made in the name of Christianity, but the utility of a view, in itself, does not demonstrate its truth. Indeed, Islam has had a big cultural influence in the past, including a rich intellectual heritage, and yet I don’t think either of us would count this as evidence of its veracity.
Jason
LikeLike
July 7, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Don’t forget confucism. I mean, think about it- able to hold together a society as large as China- pretty impressive for an ideology.
As for arrogance… you don’t believe you are arrogant when you state that Zeus is nonexistant? Or Shiva? Or Wodan?
Than neither am I. Unless you do believe it, in which case I am also arrogant.
Most atheists are “lack belief”. I am the “does not exist” variety. If God existed, I wouldn’t. I exist so God doesn’t. Or more simply, the existance of God is precluded by the reality we exist in.
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 12:24 am
What can you possibly mean by “If God existed, I wouldn’t. I exist so God doesn’t”?
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this argument before, but he might mean that if God possesses all the attributes he’s supposed to it would not be possible to be an atheist. He is an atheist, thus God (at least how he understands him) does not exist. Just a guess. Goodness knows there are plenty of theists who seem to believe that atheists can’t exist, so it’s not unfathomable that there are atheists who accept some version of the reverse argument. Not that either one is particularly good.
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Nevyn,
That is possible. If true, it is an interesting argument. That’s the most I can say for it.
When you say there are theists who seem to believe atheists can’t exist, what precisely do you mean?
Jason
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Here’s just one example of this misconception: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/06/09/no-such-thing-as-an-atheist.htm
I’ve seen it dozens of times in op ed pieces, blog comments/posts, etc. The claim that “atheists are mad at God” is a simplistic version of the same claim that I’m sure you’ve heard before.
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Here’s another example. They’re not too hard to find. http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/22/no-such-thing-as-atheism.htm
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I skimmed both blog posts. I actually agree with a lot of what the atheist said, particularly in the last one.
I would point out, however, that Christian theology does teach that the knowledge of God belongs to all men, but men can suppress that knowledge. Atheists, according to Christianity, are not ignorant of God’s existence. God has revealed Himself through creation and conscience. What they have done, however, is suppress that knowledge. It is no surprise that atheists are largely responsible for advancing evolution and moral relativism, two ideas that serve to undermine the very ways God has chosen to reveal Himself to all men. I don’t think it takes Sigmund Freud to figure out why so much intellectual energy has been spent trying to bolster evolution and moral relativism.
And while I am skeptical of psychoanalyzing any large group of people as a group, if you listen to the testimony of ex-atheists (and even some professing atheists), the vast majority will confess that their atheism was largely motivated out of a desire to rid themselves of a cosmic moral law-giver and judge, or due to anger toward God because of some evil thing that happened to them or their loved ones. It isn’t just religious believers who have emotional motivations for what they believe.
Jason
LikeLike
July 8, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The atheist? Not the author?
Christian theology rarely agrees on one thing and knowledge of God certainly is not one of them. Aquinas, for one, would disagree that knowledge of God is belongs to all men. Also, there are very few, if any, ways to finish the sentence, “Christianity teaches…” Some Christians may agree with you, but not all, and many of the church fathers would disagree with you, let alone modern theologians and religious philosophers.
Plenty of religious folks accept evolution as well. But either way, science doesn’t have anything to do with who presents it. It stands or falls on its own merit and its truth value is not effected by its relationship to scripture. As for relativism, very few, if any, people are relativists, not that I can see what that has to do with undermining your view of Christian ethics. Can you find anybody advancing relativism? Remember, not all nonreligious moral thought is relativistic.
Of the straw men you present, I’ll address only one more. Atheists are profligate on the web. I challenge you to find one whose atheism “was largely motivated by a desire to rid themselves of a cosmic moral law giver and judge.” This should be easy if it’s a vast majority. I’ve read quite a bit out there and have never come across this claim by an atheist, though I could be mistaken.
And an atheist can’t be mad at a God he doesn’t think exists as I mentioned earlier. This last post of yours leaves me wondering how you could be the same author of the original post which seemed rather well thought out and lucidly written. You should be aware of these types of straw man and ad hominem arguments when writing about such subjects. Best of luck.
Yours In Reason,
Nevyn
LikeLike
July 9, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Nevyn,
Yes, there are on many issues on which Christians disagree, but the same goes for any religious tradition. But what of it?
I haven’t read much of Aquinas, but even if you are right about his view, it does not detract from the fact that Romans 1-2 is clear: the knowledge of God belongs to all men.
Moral relativism is quite prevalent in our society. In the academy it is prevalent in areas of study such as anthropology and literature, but not in the philosophy departments. Materialists, and hence many scientists, also embrace moral relativism.
I will say, however, that most who confess moral relativism (moral anti-realism) do not live it out. Often they use the idea to dispense with traditional morality, and construct a new moral ethic in its place.
The only natural moral view for atheism is moral anti-realism (moral relativism). It makes no sense to think morality is objective unless there is something transcendent to man in which to ground it.
As I noted in my comments, this admission is usually heard from ex-atheists, but I have read some atheists who admit it as well. In his book, The Last Word, Thomas Nagel defended philosophical rationalism against subjectivism. At one point he admits that rationalism has theistic implications that he does not like. He suggests that subjectivism is due in part to a fear of religion, citing his own fear as a case in point:
“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.”
Aldous Huxley wrote, “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed 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 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 contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
The question of God’s existence is not like the question of whether quarks exist. Many existential questions hang in the balance in regards to the former, unlike the latter (and most questions of reality). Existential questions involve the emotions. Just as emotions play a part in belief in God, emotions play a part in disbelief in God. Whether emotional reasons are the primary reason one accepts or rejects God’s existence is a different story. For some emotion is a bigger factor than others, but I don’t think anyone who is honest with themselves can say emotion has nothing to do with their view of the matter. It is not a dispassionate issue.
Jason
LikeLike
March 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm
[…] does not exist, and if one is not 100% sure then they are agnostic (Christians often make this same mistake in reasoning). But since when has atheism described the level of certainty one has regarding the […]
LikeLike
March 10, 2012 at 11:22 am
[…] (and although I’ve used the argument in the past, some believe it is a bad argument. See here and here […]
LikeLike