This article takes a look at the rationale and justification of atheism.

Defining Atheism:
This article takes a look at the rationale and justification of atheism. There are two common versions of atheism. They can be called positive atheism and negative atheism.

Positive atheism:
Under this view, atheism “is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”[1] In other words, the atheist actually believes something, namely, that God does not exist. This is the most commonly understood definition of atheism.

Negative atheism or a-theism:
Under this view, atheism is, “simply non-belief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God.”[2] In other words, the atheist has no belief in/about God. Belief pertaining to God is absent, though the atheist has not consciously rejected belief in God.[3]

Analysis of positive atheism:
Positive atheism, the belief that God does not exist, is the normal view. As the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy notes, “a stricter sense [of atheism] denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.”[4] [Italics mine] However, as will be seen, atheists have had a very difficult time providing support for the belief that God does not exist. Due to the difficulty of bearing this burden of proof, some atheists switch to negative atheism (also known as a-theism), which is a lack of belief in God. Since the negative atheist lacks a belief in God, she has no burden of proof. Therefore, the atheist need only show that theism [the belief that God does exist] is wrong. Once this task is done, atheism triumphs…so we are led to believe.[5]

Analysis of negative atheism (a-theism):
There are a number of problems with negative atheism.

First, negative atheism is not atheism but basically agnosticism. This, “widely used sense [of atheism] denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism.”[6] Agnosticism is simply suspending belief about God while atheism is the direct denial of God’s existence.

While it does not seem warranted, some atheists attempt to draw a distinction between positive atheism, negative atheism and agnosticism. However, even if such a distinction ought to be made, it does not follow that the one who has studied and rejected arguments for God’s existence can claim to have no belief at all about God and His existence. Such a person does have a belief. Either she believes that God does not exist (positive atheism) or she believes that the arguments are not strong enough to prove or disprove the existence of God (agnosticism). Only those who have never thought about God’s existence (an infant, dogs, cats, gnats, etc.) could be placed in the negative atheist category. Therefore, even if there is a negative atheist (as distinguished from an agnostic), this could only be one who knows nothing (or nearly nothing) about such issues.

Those who have studied atheism/theism and related issues and claim to be a negative atheist are simply avoiding their burden of proof. Rest assured, if this burden of proof could be met, the atheist would gladly provide it. However, since the atheist is unable to provide the burden of proof showing that God does not exist (as will be discussed) atheism would seem to lack strong positive support. The result is that atheism falls into the dreaded category of being blind faith. That is, the atheist believes that God does not exist yet is unable to show this belief to be true.

Finally, some atheists may reject the previous arguments on the ground that there is no distinction between negative atheism and agnosticism. If this claim is right, then for the negative atheist the topic is actually agnosticism, suspending belief, and the proponent should not claim to be an atheist. If the negative atheist is simply suspending belief (claiming that the evidence for and against God is not enough to draw a conclusion one way or another), then theism cannot be said to be wrong but merely lacking support…just as positive atheism would lack support according to the negative atheist (agnostic). Therefore, God is not dead but unknown and the negative atheist ought not to claim more than this. If the negative atheist does claim more than this, the issue is positive atheism and not agnosticism.

This is why it is very important to make sure the atheist defines her position and distinguishes it properly from other possible positions. Otherwise, what often happens is that the atheist will claim to be a negative atheist while, at the same time, talk like a positive atheist. This inconsistency is important to see and point out.

Comparison – Theism, Atheism, A-theism, Agnosticism:
It is important to clearly distinguish between theism, atheism, a-theism, and agnosticism (note the two different forms of agnosticism). The following synopsis of each view will help clarify the different positions (a distinction between atheism, a-theism and agnosticism is assumed for this chart).

View:             Position:                  Claim:                                                  Response:
Theism:          I know/believe           that God does exist.                       Prove it!
Pos. Atheism:  I know/believe           that God does not exist.                 Prove it!
Neg. Atheism:  I know/believe          [nothing, absence of belief]             Be open!
Hard Agnost:   I know/believe          that we cannot know if God exists   Prove it!
Soft Agnost:    I don't know/believe  if God exists or does not exist.         Be open!

View: this is the stance a person takes (knowingly or unknowingly).
I spoke with a man who said he was an atheist but turned out to be an agnostic, saying he was uncertain if God existed or not. Only after he understood his position did we have a quality discussion about God’s existence.

Position: this shows the position that the different views have.
Notice that theism, atheism, and hard agnosticism each made a knowledge claim. It is important to note that each knowledge claim bears its own burden of proof. This includes atheism!

Claim: this is the actual knowledge claim that the view maintains.
Notice that atheism does make a claim to knowledge that must be supported (justified). When atheists state that they have no burden of proof, for whatever reason, they are either misinformed about atheism or simply in denial. The a-theism view that some atheists espouse is not the sanctuary they believe it to be. A-theism is the lack of belief but, as previously noted, this can only be true of the one who has never thought about God’s existence (hardly true of an outspoken atheist) or of those who simply cannot form beliefs (infants, gnats, guppies, dry camel spit, etc.). The adamant atheist is not in this kind of position.

Response: this presents the proper response to each claim.
Atheism and theism both make a claim to knowledge. Even hard agnosticism makes a claim to knowing something. That is why these three views have a burden of proof. Soft agnosticism is the position of not knowing one way or another, that is, simple ignorance. The soft-agnostic should be encouraged to keep looking into the issues pertaining to God. There is no shame is being unsure of God’s existence as long as the goal is to seek out the truth of the matter. An a-theist lacks belief due to the absence of thinking on this issue, which is why no one can really claim “I have no belief about God” unless she has recently heard the term and, basically, left it at that (this is rare). Thus, the a-theist is not in a position to state anything on the existence/non-existence of God.

Note: For the remainder of this article, the terms “atheism” and "atheist" will be used to designate those who believe that God does not exist (positive atheism).

Justifying Atheism:
Some atheists claim, “It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa.”[7] Such misguided claims are designed simply to gloss over two important facts. First, atheists have a difficult if not impossible task in proving that God does not exist (if they could you can be sure that they would). Second, atheists often use a double standard in holding theistic claims to the scrutiny of logic and support (which is acceptable) but fail to do so with atheism (which is unacceptable). Basically, since many atheists are unable to be logically consistent they often put up a smoke-screen with the hopes that others will not see through it and realize that atheism falls short of being a well-supported worldview.

   The need to justify atheism:
   There are several reasons why it is necessary for the atheist to provide
   justification (support) for atheism:

1. Stand alone: Like theism, atheism must rise or fall on its own. Contrary to what many atheists seem to think, atheism is not right if the arguments for theism are proven wrong. Some atheists hold that if theistic arguments fail, atheism should be presumed true. This was espoused by former atheist Antony Flew.[8] In Flew’s words, “…the presumption of atheism stipulates that it is up to believers in the existence and activities of the gods or of God to provide good reason for believing rather than to unbelievers to provide positive reasons for not believing.”[9] This view flies in the face of the normal atheistic claim that a belief needs to have its own support. Most importantly, a view (such as atheism) is not right simply because the arguments for the opposite view fail.
   
   For example, if Harry claimed that George W. Bush is the president of the United States because the moon is made of cheese, another person would not be justified in concluding the Bush was not the president of the US. This would only mean that Harry gave a false reason in support of the conclusion that George W. Bush is the President. The reason (support) can be wrong and the conclusion can be correct. Many atheists ignore this valid point, placing their hopes on faulty logic.

As philosopher William Rowe says, “…one must give reasons that would be sufficient to justify disbelief in God if they constituted the only reasons we have that bear on the question of God’s existence.”[10] Atheism is not right by default. Atheism cannot be presumed true.

2. Rejection of theistic arguments: As previously mentioned, simply rejecting or even refuting theistic arguments does not prove atheism (or disprove theism). Such a suggestion is simply absurd. Even if every argument for God’s existence is logically invalid, it does not follow that theism is false (or that atheism is then true). What would follow would be an unsupported theism and not a disproved theism. The distinction between a belief being unsupported versus disproved is significant. For instance, years ago, prior to the development of human flight, many people believed that it was possible for people to fly. Yet there was no support for this belief (those who set out to prove it scientifically believed it was possible before their conclusion enjoyed support). Thus, their conclusion was unsupported, though correct. A wrong conclusion is one that has been shown to be contrary to fact. Theism has not been shown to be contrary to fact. Simply lacking support would be insufficient to show theism is wrong.
    

3. Other alternatives: A third reason atheism needs to have positive support is because even if theistic arguments are rejected or even demonstrated to be invalid, atheism is not the only alterative. Agnosticism is a legitimate option to theism. Thus, one must be justified in becoming an atheist instead of an agnostic.

Due to the three previous reasons, atheism has a burden of proof. If the atheist fails to provide a valid reason(s) supporting atheism, then atheism falls into the category of blind faith and agnosticism remains a legitimate option (assuming, for the time being, that there is no support for theism).

Arguments Justifying Atheism:
As previously noted, simply rejecting theistic arguments is not “support” for atheism. Atheists need to give valid reasons for the belief that God does not exist. While atheists are hard-pressed to show that God does not exist, three main arguments are often given in support of atheism. These arguments are the coherence of theism, the problem of evil, and, most recently, the hiddenness of God.

   I        Coherence of theism:

This argument states that most or all terms used in reference to God are incoherent. When theists speak of God having such attributes as omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (all-present) these terms, and many others, are either incoherent or so vague as to be useless. Even the term “God” is rendered incoherent because there are so many different ideas of what this term means from the various religions that one is unable to draw any basic or even general conclusion as to what this term means. Since no one is able to state exactly what such terms mean it is essentially impossible to discuss anything pertaining to God in a coherent fashion. Thus, theism suffers from incoherence.

Several responses are in order. First, even if it is granted that all God-talk is incoherent, it does not follow that God does not exist. What follows is that our knowledge about God, and understanding of Him/Her/It, is incoherent. Note that coherence, in this setting, is a knowledge (epistemological) issue. The existence of God is an ontological (metaphysical) issue. These are entirely different from one another. Thus, the coherence of theism argument, at best, renders all God-talk meaningless but provides 1) nothing to show that God does not exist and 2) nothing to support atheism. In other words, the existence of God is not even addressed.

Second, while there is great difficulty in being able to fully understand such issues as God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, much advance has been made over the years in clarifying such terms. This brings up another innocuous aspect of the coherence argument. It seems that the atheist is assuming that concepts such as these must be almost fully understood in order to be accepted. But this is hardly a proper stance. Note that atheists do not fully understand love, mercy, or gravity. There are many abstracts (like beauty, good, evil, etc.) that fail to be fully understood or appreciated/appalled by everyone, including atheists. But this does not mean that these things do not exist. What follows is simply that there is a limited understanding of these issues. This is a far cry from their lacking existence or adequate coherence for a general, workable understanding of the issues.

Third, it seems a bit presumptuous of the atheist to say that no one has ever had any relevant understanding of the terms relating to God. It is quite possible that some theists are correct in what they are saying even if many others are wrong. The only way to know for sure that every use of, let’s say, the term “God” is incoherent is if the atheist was able to analyze every distinct use of the term and show that every use is incoherent. Such a monumental task does not seem to have been accomplished.

Conclusion to Coherence of theism:
The coherence of theism is a challenge to our understanding (epistemology) of God but does not address His existence (ontology). While the challenge of understanding such terms as omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (all-present) is legitimate, it is important not to over-state the challenge. This argument does not leave atheism with any strong support. Atheism is not justified by the coherence of theism argument.

   II      The problem of evil:

The problem of evil refers to the pain and suffering abundantly evident in our world. From the murder of the innocent child to natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis, the problem of evil addresses how viable it is to conclude that God exists with such horrid acts of pain and suffering.

In order to address this issue properly, an important distinction is in order. There are two general issues to the problem of evil: the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The emotional problem of evil is concerned with how we and others deal with the painful results of evil in this world. While great care needs to be given in times of need, we also need to learn how to think through this issue while being compassionate to those who struggle with the pains of life. We want to think through this issue without coming across as cold or uncaring. That is why some call this the pastoral problem of evil.[11]

The intellectual problem of evil has to do with the compatibility between God and evil. Specifically, the claim is that God and evil cannot logically coexist. As figure one indicates, there are two main areas to the intellectual problem of evil: the internal problem of evil (IPE) and the external problem of evil (EPE).

 Figure 1[12]

The internal problem of evil.
The internal problem of evil brings the challenge that God and evil cannot logically coexist. In other words, there is a logical incompatibility in saying that both God and evil exist. This can be further broken down into two areas: the logical problem of evil and the probabilistic problem of evil. The logical problem of evil targets the logic of saying that both God and evil exist. The probabilistic problem of evil claims that, on the whole, the evidence from evil would lead one to believe that God probably does not exist. Let us look at each of these in order.

The logical problem of evil:
The logical problem of evil is based on the claim that God and evil cannot both exist. Either God exists or evil exists but it is illogical to claim that both God and evil exist. It can be stated as follows: 

1         If evil exists, then God does not exist.

2         Evil exists.

3         Therefore, God does not exist. 

There is an assumption being made by the atheist within such argument. Namely, that both evil and God cannot coexist. Theist Alvin Plantinga points out that this assumption does not seem valid. What makes the existence of evil and the existence of God incompatible? There is no logical contradiction to say that God exists and evil exists. Thus, the atheist must add a premise to her argument.   

One common attempt to show that God and evil cannot both exist, and therefore amount to a logical contradiction, is to provide an argument similar to the following one.  

1. If an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God exists, then evil would not exist.

   1. If God is omniscient, he would know that evil would come about and refrain from creating such a world.

   2. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to keep evil from existing.

   3. If God is benevolent, He would want to keep evil out of the world.

2. Evil does exist.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

If God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent (all-loving), then evil would not exist. The reasons would be as follows: If God is omniscient, He would know that evil would come about and refrain from creating such a world. If God is omnipotent, He would be able to keep evil from coming about. If God is benevolent, He would want to keep evil from coming about and therefore prevent it. Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God does not exist. 

Premise 1 is not as intuitively true as the atheists would like us to think. According to 1a, an omniscient God would know that evil would come about and therefore not create the world. But is this necessarily true? Why would God necessarily not create a world without evil? The answer would have to be tied to something else not found in premise 1a. Usually something along the lines of premise 1c is given, because He is loving (or good). Certainly a loving God would want to prevent evil, especially if He knows about evil (1a) and has the ability to prevent it (1b). This sounds very good, at first. However, a rather one-sided understanding of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence is being assumed. For instance, is it possible that God has some good reason(s) as to why He would allow evil to exist that are unknown to us at this time? This does seem like a logical possibility. Hence, if it is logically possible for God to have a reason(s), albeit unknown to us, for allowing evil, then it follows that God and evil are not logically inconsistent. Therefore, the charge that the existence of God and evil are logically incompatible fails. 

One possible reason theists can give to show why God would allow evil is called the free-will defense. It is logically possible for God to create a perfect universe in which He allows His creation to choose to follow Him. If, however, people choose to not follow Him, then evil could result from this poor choice. The reason God would allow a free choice is because He would not have created robots but beings that would be able to have a relationship with Him.              

Now this option does bring up a variety of other issues (why such harsh results to choosing poorly, why not refrain from creating the universe, etc.) but these only miss the point. That is, that it is logically possible for God and evil to exist. The challenge was that God and evil cannot logically coexist. However, this challenge is dismantled with a free-will response.

The probabilistic problem of evil:
Even if the logical problem of evil is rendered ineffective, the amount of evil in the world must still be addressed. The probabilistic problem of evil states roughly that the amount of evil in the world renders the probability of a loving, powerful, all-knowing God unlikely. Since there is so much pain and suffering, certainly a loving, powerful, all-knowing God would do more about the evil in the world. Since He has not done much, or enough (if anything at all), about all of the pain and suffering in the world, then it follows that He probably does not exist.

One of the problems with establishing the amount of evil is how to measure it. How do we go about measuring the amount of evil in the world? And, if we do come up with a measure for the amount of evil in the world, then it seems that we need to be able to say how much evil should be in the world. But what is our basis for saying that “such and such” amount of evil is acceptable? And why is this amount acceptable? Why, then it follows, would any amount of evil be acceptable? The idea of God being justified to allow any evil at all was dealt with in the previous argument.

An atheist may claim that it is not necessary to quantify (measure) the amount of evil for this argument to succeed. Rather, the atheist need only show that God should have prevented some evil (even 1%). Certainly He could have lowered the amount of evil in the world and since He has not prevented even 1% of the evil that we see in the world, it follows that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God probably does not exist. 

Such a claim is not as easily maintained as it may first appear. For instance, if God were to prevent 1% of the evil in the world, how would we know it? What would that look like? It seems that such a world would look a lot like the present one and the atheist would not be able to realize that 1% of such evil had been prevented and would likely not be satisfied with such a world. Therefore, the atheist would still be making this claim even though God had prevented the 1% of evil that was required.

Additionally, who is to say that God (assuming He does exist) hasn’t already prevented 1% of the evil in the world. Who is to say that God has not prevented 50% more evil than we already do see and thereby shown that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent as the atheist demands. In other words, maybe the atheist’s demand has already been met and she does not even know it!  

The probabilistic problem of evil is not easily sustained by the atheist. Nor does this argument prove that God does not exist. More than anything the amount of evil in the world shows that we do not understand the presence of evil but this is more of a reflection of our ignorance than anything else. It is important to remember that our lack of understanding is not proof that God does not exist; our lack of understanding simply shows that we are uninformed. Thus, our lack of understanding does not disprove God’s existence. Rather, our lack of understanding reveals our limited knowledge. Such a humbling distinction is important to keep in mind to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions based upon insufficient data.  

External Problem of Evil:
If neither the logical problem of evil nor the probabilistic problem of evil can be effectively used to disprove the existence of God, then certainly gratuitous evil counts against God existing. Gratuitous evil refers to what appears to be useless acts of pain and suffering. There are many evil acts in the world that do not seem to play any positive role at all. Even if it is granted that God is able to bring good out of such acts as mass murder, the torture of the innocent, terrorism, etc. certainly there is no accounting for such meaningless acts of evil such as the little girl who is innocently playing dolls at the top of the stairs and loses her balance, falls down and breaks her neck. Or the little boy who is walking along a hillside that gives away and crushes him to death. Such useless acts of evil seem directly contradictory to a loving, knowledgeable, powerful God.  

This argument can be summarized as follows: 

1. If God exists then gratuitous evil does not exist.

2. Gratuitous evil exists.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

As Dr. William Lane Craig points out, premise two is not necessarily true.[13] While it is true is that there is evil in the world that seems to be pointless, this does not mean that it is pointless. For instance, it is possible that the cases considered gratuitous could be allowed for some morally acceptable reasons that are unknown to us. Given this, gratuitous evil does not disprove theism. Rather, what is revealed is our limited understanding of the issues surrounding the events.

If this is true then we are not in a position to say that evil is gratuitous because we would have to know every possible reason for evil to exist and eliminate them all. But in order to do this we would have to be omniscient, or nearly so.

Thus the theist can reason, 

    1.   If God exists then gratuitous evil does not exist.
    2'.  Gratuitous evil exists.
    3'.  Therefore God does not exist.

Since the Christian is not committed to life being limited to this physical world, the answer to what appears to be gratuitous evil may be found in relation to God and the afterlife (or, at minimum, the answer would be discovered there). As Craig points out, it must be remembered that the Christian worldview includes an account of life after and beyond this world. There are at least four such doctrines within the Christian worldview that need to be kept in mind. Here are three similar to those he points out.

First, the chief purpose of humankind is not happiness but to glorify God through a loving relationship. It is this loving relationship, which brings God glory. The focus is His glory and not simply our temporary happiness.

Second, humankind is in rebellion to God. Therefore, evil is a natural result.

And third, God’s purposes for our existence include but are not limited to this world. Therefore, it is easily conceivable, on this account, that He has a purpose for things in this world that will only make sense later.

Thus the debate over gratuitous evil ends up being determined by the existence of God, and not vice versa.

   III      The Hiddenness of God:

In short, the argument known as the hiddenness of God is the claim that if God exists, we should expect more evidence for His existence. That is, if God exists, then His existence seems to be hidden. Therefore, we are justified in being practical atheists (live as an atheist) and not practicing theists (live as a theist).  

First, this argument, once again, does not directly address God’s existence (ontology) but our knowledge (epistemology) of God’s existence. At best, one can only claim that there is no support in holding to the existence of God but still cannot claim, based on this argument, that God does not exist. 

Second, claiming that God is hidden with little evidence to support His existence is a bit odd given that most people in the world find there to be more than enough evidence to support belief in God. We would need to ask, “How much evidence would be ‘enough evidence’ to prove that God exists?” Some have said that it would be helpful if God wrote “Made by God” on every atom. However, this does not seem to be a sound conclusion. First, for centuries no one even knew that things called atoms existed. What good would it have done for them if God had written such a thing on each atom? Second, even if He had done so, it would not do us any good. No one can read an atom today, even with the most powerful microscope. So this could not be considered valid evidence. “But”, they may say, “You miss the point. God could have made it much more obvious that He exists.” That brings us to the next response. 

Third, what if God came to earth Himself and spent a life-time with us. Would this be considered “enough evidence?”  If not, why not? Jesus Christ did just this with many witnesses to His life. Yet people still reject the idea of God existing. The problem does not seem to be the lack of evidence for God’s existence. Rather, the problem seems to be the desire to reject Him.

Fourth, two questions need to be asked, “What would evidence for God’s existence look like?” and “What criteria would be used to determine such evidence as valid?” Would the existence of a life-giving universe full of incredibly complex living creatures be a step in the right direction to support the view of a Creator? Would the conviction of sin, regardless of religion or non-religion, be considered personally relevant “evidence?” How about objective morality? Or the outworking of an incredible plan to save the human race and restore anyone willing to a quality relationship with Him be considered acceptable?

By far, most people hold to the belief that God exists. This includes those who are well educated and those who are not as well educated. In fact, with the education on the rise in the last century (the literacy rate in the US alone has jumped dramatically since the turn of the 20^th century), one would think that if belief in God’s existence was simply based on education, then atheism would be able to rise above and defeat theism. But this has hardly been the case.

At this point, atheism still falls short of having proper support for one to believe that God does not exist.

Conclusion:
Like other views, atheism must enjoy its own justification. We have looked at the three main arguments often used to justify atheism and found that none support the belief that God does not exist. In other words, atheism does not seem to be a view that enjoys successful justification. Lacking justification, atheism falls into the category of blind faith. One wonders if atheists will abandon such a position for a more rationally support view…like theism.

[Note: an article on the merits of theism will be presented in the near future]