tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Atheism's Circular Logic

One time atheist, C. S. Lewis, offered a classic response to Hume’s arguments against miracles:

Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.”1

While very slight tweaking we can utilize this same argument as a response to atheism in general:
Now of course we must agree that if there is absolutely ‘uniform experience’ against the existence of God, if in other words he does not exist, why then he simply does not exist. Unfortunately we know the experience against the existence of God to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of His existence are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that God does not exist. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.

The point here is that we could only really know that there are no miracles if we could investigate each and every claim and confidently affirm some sort of naturalistic explanation. Likewise, we could only really know that there is no God that communicated with people if we could investigate each and every claim and confidently affirm hallucination, deception or insanity as the only possible answer (see our essay Proving God’s Existence).

A sample conversation may be phrased thusly:

A-Are you an atheist?B-Yes, I am.A-Does this mean that you do not believe that God exists?B-Yes, it does.A-But you are aware, are you not, that many people have reported encounters with God? I.e., many people claim that God does exist.B-Yes, I am aware that many people have reported encounters with God but those people were either hallucinating, deceptive, imagining things or some such thing. They were all mistaken.A-Am I understanding you correctly? You do not believe in God and you believe that all of the people that have reported experiences with God are somehow mistaken. You think that all reports of such occurrences are erroneous.B-Yes, that is correct.

A-But you could only know that all of the people are mistaken and all reports are erroneous if you do not believe in God. Therefore, you do not believe in any evidence for God’s existence (of which personal experience is but one aspect) because you do not believe in God and you don’t believe in God because you do not believe in any evidence for God’s existence.

At this point the atheist will fall down fetal position on the floor utterly overcome by your razor sharp logic! Well, maybe not. In fact, they may turn the argument around on you (which we discuss below). But do not let yourself be spun or redirected because even if you yourself have fallen victim to circular logic in your theistic belief it would not let them off of the hook. In other words, even if you have committed the same fallacy it does not excuse them. So, before dealing with their objections, spin, or simple “you did it too,” make sure that they understand and admit (if possible) that they have engaged in circular logic.

The atheist may respond by asking you if you believe in fairies, gnomes, elves, UFOs, or even that Elvis is still alive. After all, people claim to have had experiences with fairies, gnomes, elves, UFOs, and Elvis. Someone once told me that people have “experiences” with God because they want to. But this raises a question, how do they know that all of these people did not actually have an experience with God but merely had an “experience” because they wanted to? Besides, that are people who claim to have had experiences with God who certainly did not want any such thing-Jonah for example (see the Biblical book that bears his name).

You may respond by stating that if they really want to have a serious discussion about fairies, gnomes, elves, UFOs, and Elvis they can bring it up at another time, for now we are discussing atheism’s circular logic. Don’t underestimate some people’s ability to get you to talk about whatever they want by means of spin, redirection or turning the argument around-stay focused on your point.

Perhaps it may be countered that this same argument proves belief in God to be circular logic. But it really is not so since, for one, it would presuppose that a personal experience with God is the only “proof” to which theists appeal. Secondly, many theists would see claims of experiences with God that produce theology that is different from their own to be somehow faulty and indeed based upon deceptions or delusions. Just because a person is a theist it does not mean that they believe that all such claims of experiences with God are true. While, on the other hand, just because a person is an atheist it certainly does mean that they believe that all such claims of experiences with God are false. Theists claim to have a failsafe within their theology that would allow them to discredit certain of these claims. Atheists claim to have a failsafe within their atheism that would allow them to discredit all of these claims. In order to be a true and honest atheist a person would have to know everything that there is to know about everything-every detail and contingency regarding everything in the universe and outside of it. In order to be a true and honest theist a person believes that according to everything we know, certain things have been revealed to us in a manner that is outside of human knowledge (at least at the time of the revelation, such as that the universe expands-Psalm 104:2). Please consult two other essays for more on atheism’s escapes from reality: In the Beginning_Cosmology, Part II Book, Chapter and Multi-Verse and Look Both Ways Two Atheistic Logical Fallacies.

Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote:

“If I saw a man levitating himself, before rejecting the whole of physics I would suspect that I was the victim of a hallucination or a conjuring trick.”2

Certainly, it could be a trick and one ought to investigate but it is fascinating that his reaction to being an eyewitness to something that violates his world-view, that violates absolute materialism, would be to prefer the explanation of it being a hallucination.

Simply believing that there is no God is no more proof that God does not exist than mere belief in God’s existence proves that He does.


Posted

in

by

Tags: