As a rhetorical tool, in the work place usually, in evangelistic scenarios, when I am talking to agnostics and/or atheists; I usually throw out the little anecdote, at least when they claim to be an atheist, of: “did you know that when you claim to be an atheist, that you first must presuppose what you seek to deny; that is, that you presuppose god before you negate his existence?” I usually use this little device to discuss the circular nature of their belief system.
I once had a friend, who is a Christian philosopher tell me that this does not represent an argument against atheism whatsoever. I said, “I know, but it has rhetorical force; and ultimately, it is true.” That friend never did tell me how this little anecdote was wrong. If you think about it, it presupposes something like an ontological argument for God. It also reminds me a bit of what Barth says here:
Theology is one among those human undertakings traditionally described as “sciences.” Not only the natural sciences are “sciences.” Humanistic sciences also seek to apprehend a specific object and its environment in the manner directed by the phenomenon itself; they seek
to understand it on its own terms and to speak of it along with all the implications of its existence. The word “theology” seems to signify a special science, a very special science, whose task is to apprehend, understand, and speak of “God.”
But many things can be meant by the word “God.” For this reason, there are many kinds of theologies. There is no man who does not have his own god or gods as the object of his highest desire and trust, or as the basis of his deepest loyalty and commitment. There is no one who is not to this extent also a theologian. There is, moreover, no religion, no philosophy, no world view that is not dedicated to some such divinity. Every world view, even that disclosed in the Swiss and American national anthems, presupposes a divinity interpreted in one way or another and worshiped to some degree, whether wholeheartedly or superficially. There is no philosophy that is not to some extent also theology. Not only does this fact apply to philosophers who desire to affirm — or who, at least, are ready to admit— that divinity, in a positive sense, is the essence of truth and power of some kind of highest principle; but the same truth is valid even for thinkers denying such a divinity, for such a denial would in practice merely consist in transferring an identical dignity and function to another object. Such an alternative object might be “nature,” creativity, or an unconscious and amorphous will to life. It might also be “reason,” progress, or even a redeeming nothingness into which man would be destined to disappear. Even such apparently “godless” theologies are theologies.
— Karl Barth, “Evangelical Theology: An Introduction,” 3-4
What do you think?
“did you know that when you claim to be an atheist, that you first must presuppose what you seek to deny”
No, I don’t have to do that.
I merely look at someone who is claiming the existence of something they believe in, and I don’t believe it.
I don’t buy the circular argument theory, either. From a Christian persepctive, yes, everyone has a God. Most often in this country, that God is Money, because that is what we as a people worship. Our lives revolve around it. There is nothing more important or central to our lives than money.
Most atheists I meet define themselves as atheists because they do not believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exists. It is an explicit rejection of that particular reality. Are they replacing God with another one? Yes, but that doesn’t mean they acknowledge God’s existence in order to reject it. I think.
@NotAScientist,
“I merely look at someone who is claiming the existence of something they believe in, and I donβt believe it.”
My point, has to do with the terminology of a-theist, or even non-theist. Both of these, terminologically, stand in a posture of negation; i.e. negating what they deny. In that sense, then, it is circular. It does not necessarily mean that an atheist must actually believe in what they are denying—that is the point—but it does mean, that in order for their position to function they need something positive that they can become negative about. Like the concept of ‘Evil’; there cannot be evil without there first being the concept of ‘Good’, of which evil is merely a privation or absence of; that’s how we know that there is evil in the first place—we come to this conclusion because we first understand that there is good which we use as the standard for discerning evil (the thinker could reason the other direction, from evil back to good and come to the same conclusion). This thinking applies to Theism and a-Theism, Truth and Lies, Light and Dark. There is an necessary asymmetrical relation between the two; one is positive and thus prior, and the other is a negation of that which is prior to it. In my case, the concepts are simply God V. not-God.
You are perfectly within your “personal rights” to not “believe it.” But, that isn’t a very intellectually honest position to be in.
@Ken,
See my response to NotAScientist.
The Christian perspective is the only True and Sound perspective; what other perspective do you think is viable. It is true that there plenty of perspectives available, but that does not diminish the reality that there is only one true perspective (the concept of truth itself argues for such an ‘absolute’ reality).
Most athesits I have ever come across, whether they be professional or garden variety, aren’t arguing against the Christian God (who is Triune, Love, and personal) at all! They are arguing against the Monadic god of classical theism who they wrongly assume is proximate with the Christian God (and for good measure, since this conception of God is the dominate one within the history of Western Christianity). So I don’t agree with you, Ken. They aren’t rejecting the Christian God who is revealed in Christ; they are rejecting the God that classical theodicies are aimed at combatting (i.e. the god of David Hume or someone). Like I said to NAS, it doesn’t matter if the atheist is actually affirming the existence of God, in order to deny him; the reality is, is that in order for their position to work they must start from a ‘negative’ or ‘negating’ premise; which in itself is circular.
“one is positive and thus prior, and the other is a negation of that which is prior to it. In my case, the concepts are simply God V. not-God.
You are perfectly within your βpersonal rightsβ to not βbelieve it.β But, that isnβt a very intellectually honest position to be in.”
One word clearly came prior to the other. But this doesn’t mean the concept existed prior to the other.
And which concept existed prior doesn’t particularly matter. I don’t question whether or not the concept of a deity existed. Clearly that concept exists. So what? My position is about the actual existence, not the concept.
I see nothing intellectually dishonest about my position.
@NAS,
How do you have “actual” existence w/o concepts of existence? Aren’t the concepts of existence the way we denote or describe actual existence; using metaphysics? I am a critical realist and thus see necessary correlation between concepts and their actualism; I guess, if you’re a non-realist, I could see your point.
“I am a critical realist and thus see necessary correlation between concepts and their actualism;”
So because I have a concept of a magic invisible dinosaur that does my yard work, it clearly actually exists?
@NAS,
No, that would be non-realist and a false parallel (and thus non sequitur); since magical invisible dinosaurs, by definition can’t do yard work. By definition, the Christian God can and does do the kind of work attributed to him. Categories need to be considered when engaging in intellectual discussion, NAS; and so in our discussion, you need to give an account of how things actually “are” based upon definitions. Otherwise you are only engaging in category mistakes. But I see your rhetorical point, it simply does not follow though; since again, this is a false parallel based upon definitions and material differences between non-existent invisible magical dinosaurs that do yard work and the Christian God who loves, and so creates and becomes incarnate to bring that creation to its intended telos.
@NAS,
No, it’s not the concept that makes it exist; it exists, and so the concept. There is an order to knowledge, which flows from an order of being; the two are inextricably linked and mutually informing, one of the other.
We aren’t going to get anywhere, NAS, I can already see that. If you want to make one more comment, go ahead, and then I think I’ll close down this thread. Since I don’t have the time or desire to go down this road any further (I’ve been down it way to many times before, and ultimately it is fruitless).
Pax Christi
PS. In fact, NAS, I have just closed the comments; I’m not sure why I posted this to begin with, not because its not true (my point π ), but because I don’t really feel like arguing ad nauseam about this on the internet; it is fruitless. Anyway, thank you for commenting, and trying to defend your position. I’ll pray that the love of Christ will be shed abroad in your heart, and that your heart of stone will be replaced with a heart of flesh (to borrow scripture language) so that you too might know and participate in the life of God in Christ. It is awesome! Taste and see that the Lord is good. Fides Quaerens Intellectum!