Topics to Discuss with Atheists4 min read

Natural theology, i.e. based in observation and reason only (to which deism and basic theism belong) have converged on the idea that the best archetypes for thinking of a potential god are (1) creator, and (2) maximally great being. This leads to a nice list of attributes for God that nicely match the Biblical God, but not entirely perhaps.¹

Personal atheismThe psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. For more see Atheism and Agnosticism. (lack of belief in God) is a subjective personal state, not a claim about external reality. Philosophical atheismThe proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). For more see Atheism and Agnosticism. is the claim that God objectively does not exist.²

Atheists often defend a lack of integration of atheism into their world view by claiming that atheism has no logical or necessary corollaries that demand intellectual integration with reality. But that seems wrong to me. Atheism seems strongly logically related to moral subjectivism, a vacuum of meaning and nihilism, utilitarianism, and statism.³

I am a young earth sympathizer. I think the Bible fairly clearly teaches literal 24 hour days (debatable) and that YEC views are not incompatible with modern science or data. In fact, our modern cosmological sciences are so immature and nascent that we still have many proposed but not yet observed entities that are required for our model to work – dark energy, Oort clouds, and the multiverse come to mind. Occam might criticize us. And lets not forget mature distant galaxies and intact DNA in supposedly ancient fossils.⁴

Both Christians and atheists fail to recognize the difference between moral ontology and epistemology. That is, some Christians errantly think that an atheist cannot be moral or virtuous, or recognize such things (epistemology). Christians also miss the point that even if objective morals do exist, hearing God’s confirmation of them is a subjective exercise itself. So in the end, we have a logical ground for objective morals, but the praxis does seem subjective in nature. In the end, I think Christians need to presuppose some things here as givens. As the American founders brilliantly summarized, “We hold these truths (objective morals grounded in God) to be self-evident (to the properly functioning intuitionn. • direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
• a function of the spirit rather than the mind
and conscience and reason).

The problem with atheism in this arena is that they can’t intellectually ground objective moral truths (ontology). Atheists sometimes suppose that they can claim subjective morality while practicing morals objectively.

I did not realize until I read his book There is a God that Anthony Flew was a major contemporary atheist philosopher, greater than the more known polemicists like Bertrand Russel, Robert G. Ingersol, or the so-called four horsemen of the new atheism. I already know of and respect Graham Oppy, and have yet to read Hume, Ruse, Grayling, Baggini, or Goldstein.

I enjoy studying Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Boethius, Descartes, and Kant. I have yet to get to Anselm, Bonadventure, Spinoza, etc.

I really enjoy Copan’s books, and Wm. Craig also addresses this topic some. Plantinga has dispensed with the logical problem of evil, but the evidential problem is still well argued, and I am reading up on that. Needless to say, this is a challenge for any world view, but especially Christianity.

I think his wager is brilliant but needs modernizing. I think it is greatly under-appreciated (as is Anselm’s Ontological argument) and worth discussing.

I think atheism leads to Machiavellian political philosophy, which justifies the overriding of individual liberties for the sake of the community/state. Worth discussing.