I recently came across a post on a conservative, Evangelical website called Inspired Walk, called “5 Reasons Why Atheism is Foolish.” I saw the link via Twitter, and being the glutton for punishment that I am, I clicked on it. The post reads like every other apologetic argument I’ve read – presuppositionalism mixed with a healthy dose of logical fallacies. So, I decided I should write a response to the reasons listed. Not because the author lays out a good, reasonable argument; just the opposite, in fact. But because the points that are brought up are ones that atheists hear all… the… time!
You can read the full post in the link above. I’ll be using the main bullet points here and quoting the article when needed.
At the very start of the article, the presuppositional theology comes out – “Below are various reasons why the word of God is 100% true and correct according to Psalms 14:1 when it states that atheism is foolish.” This is a great example of the Begging the Question fallacy – The author concludes that atheism is foolish by assuming (presupposes) that the Bible is the literal word of God, and therefore “100% true” and universal. Logical fallacy #1. You’ll notice that he continues to use verses from the Bible as “evidence” of his claims throughout the article as a means of bolstering his arguments. Let’s look dig into some of these arguments.
1. Atheist Don’t Appreciate That Every Design Has A Designer
The author spends the first half of this point talking about complex machines, such as jet liners and the Large Hadron Collider, how long they took to build, how many people were involved, etc. It is then stated that, “if we were to use the same thought process or the same thought pattern that the atheist uses in relation to creation, it would be very easy to understand why atheism is extremely foolish and why atheists are regarded as being fools by God. Somehow, the atheist cannot appreciate the complexity but yet harmonious aspects of nature or the universe and come to the conclusion that there is a vastly superior Being behind creation.”
Let’s start by pointing out logical fallacy #2 – a False Analogy: when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn. In this case, the author is comparing man-made machines build over the course of several years, to nature which has evolved over millions of years. It’s apples and oranges, but let’s address the point.
This is what’s commonly known as the Watchmaker Analogy or Teleological argument. This argument relies on a complete misunderstanding of evolution and how it works. First, it fails to understand that seemingly complex systems in nature did not suddenly appear in their natural form, but are the product of millions of years of natural selection from much simpler organisms. Second, it assumes that nature has an end-goal in mind and that what we currently see is what we get. In fact, nature is continuing to evolve and most species on earth will continue to change over time. Lastly, it’s very easy for scientifically-illiterate people to look at certain aspects of nature and gasp in wonder over how “complex” it is, but are either unaware or don’t acknowledge the endless examples in nature of things that aren’t “properly designed”. For example, sea turtles having to come to shore and dig a hole in the sand for their nest, a long and difficult process with flippers. The turtle needs to lay 50-200 eggs at a time to assure that some of them, when hatched, actually make it through the gauntlet of predators trying to eat them. Also, the fact that human babies have heads that are generally too big to fit through the birth canal, not only resulting in a long and painful delivery, but a dangerous one as well. Prior to modern medicine, childbirth was dangerous business.
The argument from design takes place in another form known as the irreducible complexity argument. From The Logic of Science blog: The basic idea is that some systems are too complex to evolve because they aren’t functional until all of the parts are in place. For example, an eye that is missing a single piece no longer sees, and a bacterial flagellum that is missing a single protein can no longer act as a flagellum. So the argument claims that these systems could not have evolved because there would have been steps that served no useful function, and nature could not have selected for those steps. The problem is that this argument ignores the fact that evolution is blind. Traits don’t need to function for some ultimate final product in order to be selected for. Rather, if they provide any useful function at all, nature will select them. Indeed, no one has ever been able to find a truly irreducible system, and we have evolutionary pathways that explain how complex systems evolve. For example, an early precursor of the eye would have simply involved a few light sensitive cells (much like some flatworms have). They don’t function as an eye, but they still function, so nature will select for them. Similarly, the proteins that make up a flagellum all serve other functions in the cell, and we have even figured out a step-wise series of events that would form a flagellum with each step serving a useful function for the cell, even though only the final step actually serves as a flagellum. So there is just no truth to the notion that some systems are too complex to evolve.
It’s unfortunate that this argument is still used today, as Darwin addressed it 150 years ago in Origin of the Species. Yet, theists with little or no understanding of how evolution works continue to regurgitate it. This is a common theme in apologetics – keep rehashing the same arguments in hopes that they will eventually stick.
2. Atheists Think Accidents Can Create Complex & Harmonious Systems & Life-forms
Again, a simplistic and inaccurate understanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not rely on chance, but on natural selection. These are two very different ideas. Evolution works through a process of non-random selection of random variation. Dale Thomas writes:
“One main criticism of evolution from creationists is that it is based on random chance. That’s kind of true, there is chance involved, but it is important to know where the chance is and how it is used. When organisms reproduce, the genetic duplication is not perfect, leading to some variation in the genes (mutations). That is where the randomness is. But then that individual grows up and interacts with the world. Those random changes in the genotype may or may lead to a small change in the body or behavior. If this change helps the individual in its goal of surviving to adulthood and finding a mate, then those genes will be reproduced in the next generation. The point here is that the environment (which encompasses everything, from the laws of physics, the terrain, weather, climate, predators, prey, vegetation, mates, etc) will do the ‘selecting’. If the organism dies or cannot find a mate, those genes have been deemed unworthy of reproduction, but if it can, they are worthy, and will persist in the species. It is such a beautifully simplistic, and easily understandable process.”
I also want to address a point the author brings up regarding word usage. The author states: “The atheist thinks he is clever but yet is foolish because he cannot understand that the fact that our solar system is called a ‘system‘ is because there is a methodology & a harmony to how our solar system works and exists.” This is similar to an argument I often hear regarding the “Laws of Nature”; Creationists will claim that if there is a law then there must be a lawgiver. This is another logical fallacy – false equivocation. In this case, misunderstanding the difference between a word that is prescriptive versus one that is descriptive.
Oh, and contrary to what the author asserts, the universe is not as harmonious as he thinks, but is in fact full of chaos and unpredictability.
3. The Atheist Foolishly Thinks Science Has The Answers To Everything
Here we have your classic Straw Man fallacy – when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. In this case making the claim that atheists think science has the answer to everything, when in fact you would be hard pressed to find an atheists (or scientist) that makes such a claim. Most atheists are scientifically-literate and understand the limitations of science, but also its accomplishments.
The author then claims that since science deals with the physical and natural world, and God resides the supernatural realm, that “science is NOT the best means by which a person can learn or observe the nature of God” nor can it disprove His existence. This argument presupposes that there is a supernatural realm and that his god is a part of it. The problem with this argument is that science can test supernatural claims and has been doing so for centuries. Most all claims of the supernatural involve forces acting upon the natural world, thus we are able to test these claims using scientific means. As Jerry Cohen puts it: “If you invoke a form of the supernatural that claims to have real-world consequences, then those consequences necessarily fall within the ambit of science. This means that any type of theistic faith involves hypotheses that are ‘scientific’. Dawkins was right to call the existence of God a ‘scientific hypothesis.'”
4. Atheists Don’t Know That Atheism is a Belief System
First, let’s address the authors claim that, “Neither evolution nor the big bang can be proved by experimentation or observation.
None of these 2 theories can scientifically explain nor give observable evidence of the origin of life.” Yes they can – and have. The evidence to support both is immeasurable. Creationists’ continuing insistence that there is no scientific evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, or the origins of life is willfully ignorant and empirically false. I’m not even going to waste my time putting links here, because the amount of information out there is overwhelming. The author’s ignorance of science is not a good argument against it.
The author claims that since there is no evidence to support evolution and the Big Bang theory, atheists have to accept them on faith. This is another example of false equivocation. There are two definitions of the word “faith”: (1) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; and (2) belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Atheists’ “faith” in science fits under definition 1, theists rely on faith as defined by 2. Atheists don’t have faith in a religious sense of the word – we have evidence-based trust.
5. The Atheist Cannot Disprove The Existence of God
This is perhaps the best example of an Argument from Ignorance – because something cannot be completely disproved, it must therefore be true. It’s a ridiculous argument, but it’s surprising how often it’s used. This same argument could be used for aliens, UFOs, unicorns, fairies, vampires, or a tea pot floating around the sun. It’s an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof always sits with the person making the claim, not the person refuting it. It’s not an atheist’s job to disprove God, it’s the theist’s job to provide evidence that he exists.
We also can’t skip past the well-worn anecdote used by theists that, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore just because a person has never seen a physical manifestation of God, it does not mean that God does not exist.” This is only partly true. Absence of evidence, when evidence should be present, is evidence of absence. Going back to the discussion on natural vs supernatural, theism makes claims of God interacting and intervening in this, the natural world, which would leave evidence. Therefore, such claims can be tested, and thus far no evidence for supernatural intervention in the natural world has been found. Carl Sagan brilliantly counters the “absence of evidence” argument in his story “The Dragon in My Garage”. After asking multiple questions regarding evidence for a dragon living in a garage and coming up empty handed, this is his response:
“Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of ‘not proved.'”
I’ve underlined the parts of this paragraph that I find most fitting the current discussion. Just replace “dragon” with “God” and you can see my point. The author is right in positing that because we don’t have evidence of theism, it does not prove empirically that god(s) do not exist. But it does mean that until such evidence is found, it is far from foolish to discount the idea.
Two things become apparent when reading through this article. The first is that the author has no idea what atheists actually believe. The entire article reads like one, big Straw Man argument. The author projects his own idea of what atheists believe (as opposed to what they actually believe) and then attempts to tear down those beliefs. His overall view of atheists can be found in the article itself where he states, “I would personally prefer the following definition of atheism that I once saw on one of the social media platforms: Atheism is the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs, birds, trees, fish and the like.”
Second, the author shows that he is completely ignorant of the most basic principles of evolution and how it works. This isn’t surprising as Creationism depends on a willful dismissal of science and all the evidence that it provides, as well as how the scientific method works. This makes the author unsuited for having any debate in which science is going to be one of the main topics.
It’s also worth noting the condescending nature that the author takes throughout the article. His contempt for atheists comes through loud and clear throughout the article, and he takes special care to use “fool” and “foolish” as often as he can. For all his use off scripture, he conveniently left out Matt 5:22 – “…whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
As I mentioned at the beginning – these are not strong, well-thought-out arguments. This is what Matt Dillahunty would refer to as “Kindergarten Theology”. Lest you accuse me of going after low-hanging fruit, it should be noted that these are very common arguments used by apologists, both amateur and professional. Hopefully this post will prove useful for anyone who comes across these types of arguments in future discussions. Thanks for reading.