Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? sample essay

There are many types and subgroups of atheists, and each of these groups has a particular worldview pertaining to how all things came to be. Members of one group (non-theists) neither believe in God, nor in His non-existence, other people (agnostics) claim that the truth values and the existence of God are unknown, still others believe that there is no God. What unites all these groups is that none of the members believes in God, our universal creator. Thus, all groups can be identified with a single group, atheists. They base their assumptions and assertions on scientific research, logic, and philosophical deliberations, and think that atheism can be and is rationally and logically justified. However, I disagree with all kinds of these claims; although some of them may sound very rational and reasonable (and some ideas are indeed worth attention), but in reality all these claims are groundless. My position is that atheism is immoral, unethical, and inhumane; atheism is not rationally or logically justifiable.

First, let us look at the issue of concern this way. God and theology are the concepts that are not material, or at least not material in our perception of material objects. Unlike a car, which we can see parked by the road, or a coin that one can take out of a pocket, God and theology cannot be literally shown or demonstrated. Therefore, when arguing about whether God exists or not, one has to turn to supernatural phenomena and complex philosophical notions to reject (or fail to reject) claims.

Many atheists rely on materialism, a philosophical doctrine that states that the only things that actually exist are material objects. In other words, everything revolves around matter, and matter is the only thing that exists. This way, all things must be tangible. Surprisingly, but such abstract concepts as love, hope, and beauty also exist, but they exist within our brains and our perceptions. What is questionable in this approach is, taking into account the limited nature of human beings, and our imperfect mind, how do we characterize matter and existence? Or in simple terms, where is that origin (point of intersection of axes)? Is what we think is material the one and only matter? How can we know, or prove, or fail to prove that matter is something that we necessarily feel, hear, see, smell, or taste? The answer is, “we cannot!” We only can perceive a portion of material things, such us our favorite remote control, or a keyboard, but such things as electromagnetic waves (not music on the radio), ghosts, and soul are beyond our perception. All of the listed things do exist, and have been proven by science (atheists’ greatest supporter). Thus, from this perspective, materialism only supports the idea that humans perceive only a part of all material objects, and the rest may be also material, but is beyond our perception due to our imperfect nature.

On the other hand, materialism is so imperfect and insufficient that it simply cannot be accepted as a worldview. By such simple things as dreams, intuition, and mystical experiences we can reject the theory of materialism. Therefore, there is really something beyond this reality. This very something that is either material (though not in the sense as we know it) or immaterial can show us future (dreams) and lead us (intuition) by means that are not explained by scientists. The processes and the chemistry of these extraordinary phenomena have been identified and studied, but their origin remains a mystery, which proves the existence of something beyond matter.

In search for proofs of their beliefs, atheists tend to base their theories on the following concept. “God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27); thus, humans are like God. When a person wants to eat, he or she eats (provided the supply of food is sufficient). When a person really wants something, for example to help homeless animals, this person goes and helps them (provided that he or she has everything necessary for it). Now, if people behave in such a manner, i.e. do what they intend to do, this means that God should also do what He intends to do. “Neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God” (Rom. 8:39), which means that God loves us. Atheists think that if God loves people, then He wishes us good, and He does not want us to suffer. Since people are like God, and people usually do what they intend to do, God should also watch and prevent people from suffering. Therefore, if God does not want us to suffer, and by definition God is omnipotent, then “why does He not stop all sufferings?” atheists ask. They claim that if God did exist, He would have stopped all sufferings, helped those in need, gave those asking, and poured the never-ending source of love to everyone. Since they cannot see all this, they claim that there is not God. But this is something so primitive that a single example can reject this theory. God gave us all choice, which differentiates us from other beings. He wants everyone to enter His Kingdom, however, he wants us to believe and desire to join Him. Anybody who sees a miracle would believe in God and obey commandments. But He wants us to believe without the obvious proof. He has prepared a unique path to every one of us. If a doctor cuts a patient, he or she actually hurts and harms the patient. Is the doctor doing evil? No! The doctor does this little harm to operate the patient, and he or she only has best intentions. The same way God; He put us into difficult situations, so that we could call Him and turn to Him. A loving father can also punish his child, but he does this with best intentions so that the child becomes disciplined and does not do what is wrong again.

Traditional atheists claim that God had never existed, and certainly would never exist. But who are they, simple mortal people, to make such an assertion? Do they know everything about this world? Certainly not. Surely they can claim that science knows everything, but there are many aspects in natural processes that science cannot explain; there are many questions that science cannot answer. Thus, humans cannot know the origin of all things, or know everything about this world. To be able to make such a statement for sure, one must become omniscient and omnipresent, which means to be everywhere and to know everything. In other words, in order to know the origin of all, and to know how everything works, a person must acquire godlike attributes (omnipresence and omniscience). This fact, again, proves the theory to be groundless, because the only rational way to reject the existence of God is to become like God.

If atheist claim that there is no God, how do they know it? What makes them know it? Is there a single evidence that proves the non-existence of God? Surely not. Contrarily, there are numeral evidences that prove God’s existence, but atheist simply reject them, bolstering their assertions with logical fallacies. Atheism is illogical, irrational, and immoral. The proofs of God’s existence are there, but atheists pretend they are fake. Moreover, when an atheists is provided with sufficient evidence, he or she would likely to continue opposing because atheism is about morality and opposing worldview. The rejection of God and religion cannot be based on evidence, but rather on the desire to oppose God. It is a rebellion against our Creator, which is not at all justifiable, rational, or reasonable.

There is book written thousands of years ago that tells us about God. There is also historical proof that God the Son, Jesus Christ, has risen from the dead. If Bible was not written by God through men, then by whom? By men? If men tried to write a book and convince everybody that God had written it, they would have made it flawless. All stories in the Bible would match each other, and there would be no discrepancy in the scriptures. “Otherwise,” these human authors would have thought, “people would not believe that God had written it.” But there are many disagreements and discrepancies in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. The foremost examples are the two scenarios of creation in the first chapters of Genesis, or the flaws of the synoptic gospels. These discrepancies mean that the authors were writing down the exact same stories, but from different witnesses, sources, or tellers. And this, in turn, means that there was no purpose of faking the Bible, which proves its Heavenly nature. Thus, if atheists think rationally, they would understand that Bible is real and genuine, but the theory described above only proves once more that atheism is not logically or rationally justifiable.

The idea of God proves His existence. If God did not exist we would not even have to think about Him or question His existence. What a human knows he does not have to argue about; for example, I know my father is not George W. Bush. Do I have to defend my thesis? Do I even question myself about it? Not, because I know for sure. Atheists, therefore, subconsciously understand that they make a huge mistake by denying God, but they would not have to deny Him if He did not exist.

Atheists rely very much on science, but there is no computer in the world that has such characteristics as human brain, and there is not a single data medium that can contain that much information as the DNA. These two objects have not been studied fully, and their nature remains a mystery. Thus, atheists cannot fully know who they are, but they claim that there is no universal designer or creator. Darwin’s theory has long been rejected (even by himself), when no interim species has not been found. In addition, no terrestrial phenomenon could have assembled accidentally a live cell, which is what most skeptical atheists think was the beginning of life on Earth. The probability of this accident is much less than the probability of a hurricane assembling an aircraft out of a dump by accident. Thus, if atheists think logically, they would understand how groundless and irrational and illogical their beliefs are.

Moreover, a group of prominent scholars from humanities and sciences have founded a special Society for Physical Research, aimed at examining extraterrestrial and paranormal phenomena through science, in a scientific manner. This society was founded in the year of Charles Darwin’s death, and its purpose was to reject Darwin’s theory, and prove its nonsense. These scholars, among which was Henry Sidgwick, soon concluded that atheists could not possibly base their beliefs on the evidence that proves the non-existence of God and some spiritual element that is present in all that is. Sidgwick and his colleagues claimed that paranormal phenomena at that time were not studied or examined at all, and that contemporary science might have experienced a scandal in the nearest future if a thorough investigation had not taken place. The problem then was that atheist scientists usually viewed insufficient findings as proofs of the non-existence of God. However, the purpose of Society for Physical Research was to prove that there are no such evidence, and that from a scientific point of view, there are only the evidence that prove that there really is something behind the matter we have so gotten used to. The problem is that science only detected and proved the fact of presence of something behind the matter, but it could not identify it or explain its nature. Thus, atheists rely not on the evidence that disproves the existence of God and spiritual world, but on the lack of evidence and research that can identify and explain the nature of these supernatural entities. Interestingly, such characteristics are not attributable to science in its pure and genuine form, and thus scientists who are skeptical atheists and behave in the manner described above are not worth the title they possess. They then are more likely to be associated with idealists, rather than scientists, which again proves their approach to be wrong. Thus, even those atheists who are scholars and scientists cannot rationally and logically justify atheism.

Many atheists consider atheism the engine of science and progress. They think that atheism is this propelling power that moves science towards progress. There are scientists who think that way, and one of the groups of such scholars is described above. Another group, however, are more profound atheists and they consider it a waste f time and effort to attempt to disprove the existence of something supernatural or paranormal, “what is the sense of disproving it if it does not exist?” Another group of atheist scientists believes that the fact that there is no supernatural power ruling over natural processes provides more perspectives for science. If there is no supernatural power that controls and rules over natural processes, than all that is can be explained by science. Although this approach does propel progress, it is not true at all because the more discoveries science make, the more discoveries expect it along the way; the more answers the science answers, the more unanswered questions appear.

However, atheism is not at all the only possible engine of science. Another approach that scientists can take is to find out “how God created all this.” With such an approach, many things become understandable; or to be precise, one understands that there are many things and processes that we cannot understand simply because we are humans. Isaac Newton one of scientists who thought this way; in his Principia Mathematica he wrote, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being” (Heerden 2004).

A creator of an automobile knows how everything works in it, but a tiny little bolt in it does not (let us assume for a second that bolts can think). The same way people; they are only a very little part of God’s creation (though an important and most dear part). This way we cannot know how the world had been created, neither atheists nor theists.

Ultimately, atheism refers more to the rebellion rather than scientific approach. Atheists are people who do not want to be accountable for, and thankful to their creator. All facts and evidences are there for atheists, but they simply do not want to look and do not want to hear. Those who have ears should hear, but those who do not want to listen to what they hear are sinning much more than those who simply do not hear. I think atheists deep down understand that they are wrong, but cannot stand back for certain reasons. It is easier for them to pretend that God does not exist and no punishment is waiting for them after death, than to take responsibility, repent, and follow God’ word.

The arguments and the rejection of counter-arguments above prove that atheism is not logically, rationally, or morally justifiable. It contradicts natural universal laws, and science does not have enough evidence to support atheistic claims. If atheists were logical, rational and moral, they would have understood the nonsense they are promoting. Thus, what drives them is the immorality, and fear before their Heavenly God.

Bibliography

1. Edward, P. (1973) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. MacMillan Publishing company.

2. Abel, D. (2004) Fifty Readings Plus : An Introduction to Philosophy with PowerWeb: Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Humanities.

3. Hanegraaff, H. Is Atheism Logical? Accessed December 6, 2005. Electronic Copy at http://www.equip.org/free/CP0110.pdf

4. Heerden Van, A. (2004). Why Atheism is Unscientific. From Find Articles at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m2242/is_1661_284/ai_n6140464
Order custom essay now!