Atheism

Question 1

History

Answer 1

• The term ‘atheistos’ emerged in 444BC in Ancient Greece and roughly translates to ‘one who denies the traditional religion of the Athenian establishment’
• This is quite different from the atheist recognised today making the beliefs foundations faulty as the belief originates from objection to controversial ideologies that the Gods represented rather than scepticism on the probability of a Gods existence

Question 2

KU

Answer 2

• Atheism is the position that God does not exist in any form therefore they do not believe in a supernatural entity creator
• Atheism can be further categorised in accordance with Antony Flew into positive atheists, those who assert the non-existence of God and negative atheists, those who due to lack of evidence are simply not theist.
• Agnosticism is a moderation between this and theism as an agnostic believes that it is impossible to discern whether God exists so sustain a neutral position to avoid irrationality
• Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy clearly displays these distinctions by proposing there is a china teapot orbiting the sun that is too small to be disproved
• This can be responded to in four ways:
  1. Assume it exists
  2. Reserve judgement
  3. Presume it doesn’t exist at this time
  4. Investigate concept to prove non-existence
• Each answer represents a different standpoint from theism, agnosticism, negative, to positive atheism

Question 3

Introduction

Answer 3

• Antony Flew claimed that “the onus of proof lies on the man who affirms, not on the man who denies”
• This is the concept that atheists should presume that God does not exist until theists can provide evidence backing their claims that atheists can then respond to
• This can be pictured as a court case where the defendant (God) is assumed innocent (non-existent) until proven guilty by the prosecution (theists)
• I believe this to be a valid claim as theists have found minimal amounts of substantial evidence making God less probable and furthermore it should not be in the disbelievers hands to uncover something they are certain they will not find therefore incredulity is only rational until provided undeniable proof by those who preach

Question 4

Induction

Answer 4

• Atheists use a variety of methods to determine Gods existence such as induction
• This is using past experience inferences about the future
• By using this inductive knowledge it is reasonable to suggest that the explanation for life and the universe will be naturalistic
• This can be seen from past events that were believed to be caused by supernatural for example the creation of the universe however experience has shown that this isn’t the only explanation such as evidence for the Big Bang
• It would therefore be unreasonable to presume that this would not continue to be the case
• I however find that using inductive knowledge can be limiting as it does not provide philosophical truths but rather probable conclusions as we cannot guarantee things will always remain the same

Question 5

Abduction

Answer 5

• Abduction is where a phenomenon that has more than one possible explanation is studied to determine which is best
• I think this can be useful in the case of God due to the many explanations for the way the world appears, and their conflicting natures as abduction focuses on finding the simplest and most coherent ideas
• The first of the 3 adductive arguments is deism which is the idea that God did or still exists as the creator of the universe but has subsequently left or shows no interest in interacting with it
• I believe this to be a rational response however it is improbable to gain proof and therefore confirm leading to unsatisfaction and uncertainty
• This also risks becoming poor theology and science by imagining a form of “God of the gaps” to explain the unknown eliminating this explanation
• The second argument is atheism and lastly classical theism
• This is where one believes in a God that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent and traditionally both immanent, within the world and transcendent, beyond the universe
• I think this belief hold great impact as it is followed by 45% of the worlds population across numerous religions making it hard to dismiss due to its widespread popularity

Question 6

Internal Coherence: Omnipotence

Answer 6

• Atheists argue that God is not compatible with itself and that if the attributes of God can be found to be self contradictory then it would be logical to say that such a God does not exist
• This is referred to as internal coherence
• It starts with omnipotence which translates to all powerful meaning that possessing this attribute can allow one to do anything
• However God is unable to do everything which can be illustrated in the paradox “can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?”
• Either way the question is answered reveals a limitation of God power- if yes then there exists an action that he cannot do and if not then there exists an item he cannot create
• As this is a defining characteristic of God and the concept has been proven to be self contradictory God cannot exist
• A theist may say this question does not pose a problem if God does not ever attempt these actions as by avoiding these 2 scenarios, he will remain forever omnipotent
• I however find this not to be an ideal solution as it results in the idea that God can destroy his own divinity thus reducing his sanctity
• Others may approach by saying that God can freely choose to alter any laws that may hinder his omnipotence which is beyond our comprehension as humans have restricted worldview
• I think this view is weak as it appears theists are avoiding the problem by creating a God that is impossible for humans to understand and connect with causing them to rely on blind faith
• An alternative solution is to shift our understanding of the term omnipotence from a being who can do anything to a being who can do everything logically possible
• C.S Lewis summarises this when stating that referencing a rock so heavy that God can not lift it is as nonsensical as asking “can God draw a square circle?” Consequently rendering the paradox meaningless due to the varying understanding of the word

Question 7

Internal Coherence: Omniscience and Freewill

Answer 7

• Internal coherence then targets omniscience
• Freewill is the belief that humanity was gifted with the ability to choose how we behave
• This means that no action or outcome is destined therefore we make our own paths through virtue of our own decisions
• Theological Fatalism contends that omniscience and Freewill and incompatible with the conception of God which incorporates both properties as if God knows all of our future actions then our futures are fixed and there is nothing we can do to alter them
• This means we either do not possess Freewill or God is not omniscient
• As many of our decisions in life are naturally determined by events that proceed them as well as the fact determinism exists out with theism it is not ridiculous to say God is a determining factor of many
• For example someone may think they chose to go to university however the decision was made by numerous chance occurrences that led up to it such as parental expectation
• I find this argument flawed as if humans do not possess Freewill it would follow that God chose only some to have a relationship with him and left other damned before they began calling into question his omnibenevolence
• Another possible away around this issue is to suggest that a gods perception of time is different from our own
• This means that God exists outside and above our timeline so can view tomorrow how we view today
• Once again I find this argument ineffective as it makes God unable to experience all the knowledge he has such as the passage of time thus not making him truly omniscient
• This is explained by Austin Cline “this, however seems to reduce God to a type of computer storage bank: God contains all facts that exist but nothing more interesting”

Question 8

External Coherence: The Problem of Evil

Answer 8

• External Coherence targets the problem of evil by suggesting that traditional theism is incoherent with suffering
• There are two types of suffering:
  Moral- evil acts perpetrated by man such as rape, murder and stealing
  Natural- the operation of the laws of nature such as disease, drought and natural disasters
• An all powerful God could prevent evil from existing, an all knowing God would be aware of its existence and an all loving God would wish to prevent suffering on its creations however it still exists thus God cannot
• Irenaeus argued against this by saying that evil exists necessarily in order to develop moral virtue also known as higher qualities like compassion
• I think this efficiently combats the problem of evil by showing suffering as an opportunity for good and to become like God rather than existing at our detriment protecting Gods loving nature
• if evil resulted in happiness we would be unable to acquire knowledge and learn from it
  eg. Hunger leads to pain so we eat to avoid it