The early Christians recognized that not all persons have religious conviction. Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 3:2, "not all have faith" (New
American Standard Version).
The reasons for atheism or agnosticism are
numerous and diverse:
1) First, there is the so-called logical problem of evil. Some atheists
argue that the existence of evil is a logical quandary. They ask why evil
exists, if there is an omnipotent (almighty) and omnibenevolent
(completely good) God. Why would God allow or permit evil? For a number
of atheists, the logical problem of evil is a strong argument against
belief in God. But in recent years, a number of theists have attempted
to refute the logical problem of evil by offering logically possible
reasons why a good and powerful God just might permit evil: examples include Alvin Plantinga and William L. Craig.
2) But assuming that the logical problem of evil can be answered
satisfactorily, some atheists then invoke the evidential problem of evil.
They suggest that even if logically possible reasons could be produced
for why God allows evil, these proofs still would not explain why
there's so much evil in the world. Why does God permit evil in
such great quantity? Why the Holocaust, why genocides in Africa or
Kosovo? Why do young children suffer and die from diseases in such great
numbers? Why COVID-19?
Atheists and agnostics may reason that theists can explain
some evils, but not the great number of evils that have occurred
throughout our history. However, a theist might argue that the greater
cosmic good is served by God allowing great quantities of evil over a
long period of time and it's possible that God's reasons for allow evil are morally sufficient. Ultimately, God is able to produce good from evil and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that evil will not have the final say.
Additionally, there could be more good in the world than evil on balance.
3) Richard Dawkins and other atheists contend that there is no empirical
evidence for God's existence: we cannot test, measure or quantify divine
existence. Dawkins also maintains that we have no evidence for the
existence of non-physical things. He reasons that Christians or theists
normally would not believe in fairies or invisible pink elephants since empirical data for such things evidently are not available. Neither
is there empirical evidence, Dawkins insists, for the existence of God.
If there is no evidence forthcoming that we can see, measure, touch or
sense, then it's difficult for the atheist to believe there's a God.
4) Peter van Inwagen believes in God, but in his book The Problem of
Evil, he sets forth an argument that atheists seem to use:
A) If God exists, he wants all finite rational beings to believe in his
existence.
B) If every finite rational being observed signs and wonders of the
right sort, every finite rational being would believe in God.
C) There is, therefore, something that God could do to ensure that every
finite rational being believed in his existence.
D) If God wants all finite rational beings to believe in his existence
and there is something he can do to bring this about, he will do
something to bring it about.
E) But not all finite rational beings believe in God.
F) Therefore, God does not exist.
Van Inwagen insists that this argument is not logically valid (the conclusion is not necessarily entailed by the premises), but it's
certainly a plausible argument; furthermore, van Inwagen suggests it probably could be made
valid by changing some of the premises. Yet he marshals an
argument which is made to defend theism against the atheistic contention found here. Van Inwagen's argument is long and complex, but the main
point is that atheists and agnostics think they have many and substantial reasons for withholding
belief in God. On the other hand, theists feel they can answer pretty much any
objection raised by unbelievers, so they're at a stalemate in terms of setting forth reasons for disbelief or belief. Yet other theists would argue that theism as a whole explains reality much better than atheism does. See the work of Hans Kung and William Lane Craig.
There are many reasons why disbelief will not go away. To the previous factors, one could maybe add that a superhuman malevolent personage doesn't want humans to believe in a transcendent and benevolent personage. See 2 Corinthians 4:4.
6 comments:
I recommend Charles Talor's 'a secular age' or 'modern social imaginaries' for a good genealogy of western secularism. It's been a while since I've read it so I don't want to try summarize it. But he argues that atheism is largely derived from, and contributes to the disenchantment of the world through the reformation, industrial capitalism, and enlightenment liberalism.
I think 2 Cor 4:4 explains why the phenomenon exists, but sociology can explain how it happens on a ground level.
That being said the problem of evil is a serious problem for theists, I think the bible has a clear and convincing answer, but given the horrific answers given by many churches and theologies I can't blame some who reject that kind of God (say, for example tbe God of Calvin).
I don't think that the problem of God's hiddeness isn't a big one, for billions, and most through history, that a spiritual realm with divine beings (or a most high God) was obvious, and not because of scientific ignorance.
It takes a lot of cultural work to get people to not be intuitive theists.
Heres a related essay I wrote on the subject: https://macrinamagazine.com/issue-6-general/guest/2021/01/23/love-beauty-and-the-demonic-as-saturated-phenomena/
I have Taylor's Secular Age but have not read it yet although I did use his Sources of the Self when I participated in a colleague's class discussion of the work. I'm familiar with his thinking about the development of western history and I've listened to Taylor's lectures on the subject. He is thorough and interesting, but I feel his history is selective. That is not a fatal flaw for reading Taylor, but in my opinion, he omits many things in his analysis of the western mind. Nevertheless, I do want to read the Secular Age and I'm glad you mentioned it. To be fair, most histories will be selective.
You probably remember that Weber is another name brought up when the disenchantment of the west is mentioned: he's another interesting and significant thinker.
I included 2 Cor. 4:4 because I'm chiefly looking at the problem theologically/scripturally while trying to use van Inwagen as a foil for the discussion. Yet I concur with you that sociology can supply helpful insights for this phenomenon and I would submit that psychology equally can be a source of trying to discern the sources of disbelief.
Dawkins and the other "new atheists" have influenced many not to believe in a supernatural/superhuman realm. I now encounter these attitudes quite often in the classroom but as Alister McGrath once wrote, belief in God just won't go away despite what the atheists say. You're right that it takes much work to drive people away from an intuitive sense of theism, and we know how many of the world's population still holds to some kind of religion despite the atheological diatribes.
Thanks also for the essay: I will check it out.
I read a good portion of your essay today and think it's well done: I will read more tomorrow but I like the use of Kant's third critique and the example you use of a flower is helpful. I also think you would possibly like Herman Dooyeweerd who proposed the divergent modal spheres that are not reducible one to the other. His New Critique of Theoretical Thought dovetails with the points you're making. Even in education, there is a tendency to focus on what's quantifiable, measurable and observable. Learning is assessed in these ways.
Going back to your essay, I like the point about love being the telos of creation. There was a time when I used to have entrepreneurial aspirations and I would read books about business, advertising, marketing and making profit. One writer said that in a capitalistic society, a merchant or business owner should always charge what the market will bear. That's the bottom line: profit and loss, not love and fairness, but you provide a good example to refute that kind of thinking.
I can remember if you've read any Thomas Hobbes but much of what you say reminds me of his Leviathan.
I have read a bit of Thomas Hobbes, but a long long time ago, and not deeply. I know his general theory of government and human nature.
I appreciate you reading my essay, and I'm glad that you found something that jived with your thinking there.
I've never heard of Herman Dooyeweerd, but he seems interesting (just looked him up on wikipedia to get an idea).
I've sometimes thought about how the 2 Cor 4:4 could apply, (1 John 5:19 and all the other related passages), i.e. Does Satan literally intervene in the way Jehovah does when he does a miraculous act? Do Demons inhabit people as we get in the gospel narratives?
Or is it something more subtle but more overarching? i.e. Satan, through manipulations of individual wicked desires and perhaps coordinating wills, develop ideologies, ways of thiking, cultures, and even social systems, that are designed to tear people away from god and drive people into selfish alienation, greed, hate, and egotistical narcisism? I'm more inclinde to this option. Not to deny that people do actually experience direct spiritual attack, I know from individuals close to me that this does happen, but more to say that Satan "rules" more indirectly.
You're welcome, Roman. I finished today and the whole essay is well done.
I guess you learned that Dooyeweerd was a Dutch Calvinist. I took a class where we analyzed volume 1 of his Work for a semester and had to write three long essays about it. His modal spheres concept impressed me the most.
Another thinker worth reading is Gabriel Marcel. He's known for writing about the mysterious nature of being.
I think you're on the right track with Satan. Just like he causes death indirectly, why not primarily deceive or mislead indirectly?
Post a Comment