#Atheists say they merely acknowledge one less #God than #theists. But there’s infinitely more to an atheist’s disavowal.This was the tweet that started a discussion between several atheists and me. It’s a true statement. After all, disavowing God is a denial of the infinite in preference for explaining everything from the finite—an impossible job if you’re trying to make sense of the human condition.
But the tweet fostered a 144-character-at-a-time conversation that illustrates something we would do well to remember whenever we find ourselves living out 1 Peter 3:15 in our culture. Read the conversation and see if you agree with my conclusions (“He” is actually more than 1 atheist):
He – You’re just gullible. You accept ancient middle eastern cults’ superstitions as reality.
Me – I critically examine worldviews before I buy in: coherence, correspondence, underlying presuppositions. Hope you do too.
He – How did you critically examine your religion?
Me – Are beliefs internally coherent (with their logic) and do they correspond to reality, including their answer to the human condition.
He – It [atheism] is consistent with all empirical evidence of our universe, too.
Me – The thing I’d be concerned with, as an atheist, is not trying to skate free. That’s
intellectually dishonest.
He – What’s dishonest about not believing in superstitions that don’t have a shred of empirical
evidence that back them?
Me – The intellectual dishonesty I referenced arises when one won’t evaluate their worldview,
e.g. an atheist won’t defend their worldview.
He – I always give people the opportunity to empirically back their claims of deities and other
superstitions.
Me – But that’s not you defending the foundation of your worldview, or even evaluating it as a
comprehensive worldview.
He – Atheism is not a worldview. Rational skepticism is. Atheism is a conclusion.
Me – They’re both isms.If you won’t defend it with me, please defend it to yourself, as a
worldview. I wish you the best.
He – Why do you think atheism needs to be defended? What claim is it making?
Me – That’s a cop out. We all have worldviews. Either you have one, or you have uncritically or
unknowingly assimilated one.
He – Ok. I have surmised that there is no intelligent agency in nature. Is that a world view?…
Me – Is that the only thing you base your life on and find meaning in?
He – No. In fact I rarely think about that.
Me – I critically examine worldviews before I buy in: coherence, correspondence, underlying presuppositions. Hope you do too.
He – How did you critically examine your religion?
Me – Are beliefs internally coherent (with their logic) and do they correspond to reality, including their answer to the human condition.
He – It [atheism] is consistent with all empirical evidence of our universe, too.
Me – The thing I’d be concerned with, as an atheist, is not trying to skate free. That’s
intellectually dishonest.
He – What’s dishonest about not believing in superstitions that don’t have a shred of empirical
evidence that back them?
Me – The intellectual dishonesty I referenced arises when one won’t evaluate their worldview,
e.g. an atheist won’t defend their worldview.
He – I always give people the opportunity to empirically back their claims of deities and other
superstitions.
Me – But that’s not you defending the foundation of your worldview, or even evaluating it as a
comprehensive worldview.
He – Atheism is not a worldview. Rational skepticism is. Atheism is a conclusion.
Me – They’re both isms.If you won’t defend it with me, please defend it to yourself, as a
worldview. I wish you the best.
He – Why do you think atheism needs to be defended? What claim is it making?
Me – That’s a cop out. We all have worldviews. Either you have one, or you have uncritically or
unknowingly assimilated one.
He – Ok. I have surmised that there is no intelligent agency in nature. Is that a world view?…
Me – Is that the only thing you base your life on and find meaning in?
He – No. In fact I rarely think about that.
At last, the truth comes out—either he’s trying to skate free or he has no critically evaluated answers to the basic questions of life, only a blanket disavowal of the need to answer these questions. Deep inside, I think he wants these questions answered in an intellectually satisfying way and, with his materialistic worldview, he’s probably living with many points of tension.
Regardless, such people have nothing to offer others. But we do. So, offer it.
But, if you get into a worldview discussion, don’t let anyone skate free. Require them to defend whatever they profess to believe. Saying they simply disbelieve is not a defense. It’s worse than a punt. It’s walking off the field and declaring victory without ever having run a play.
In case you haven’t memorized it, or don’t have a Bible handy, here’s 1 Peter 3:15 from the ESV:
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…
H L Wegley