Responding to the atheists

By Laurence Gonzaga


Introduction

As a former atheist, it has become an area of interest for me to present simple presentations of some of the arguments which I fell in love with that brought me out of atheism. I don’t claim that these arguments have no responses or criticisms. They do, and they are good ones. I believe that those who are formally trained in philosophy would take more absolute positions on these arguments, but I look at it in more practical terms. Ultimately, for me, I approach my life with the goal of discerning its purpose and meaning. As an atheist I had taken moral stances and I behaved in certain ways, which had to be rooted in some kind of consistent moral framework, but I had none. That is not to say atheists cannot have one, but I have found that many of those whom I had encountered, never took the time to develop one. I heard much about “rights” and “freedom”, but when asked about what those words mean and who or what determines what they are and why individuals are obliged to abide by them, all I heard was crickets chirping. To be fair, many Christians can be the same way.

I have more respect for the atheist who takes a moral stance but can articulate why he believes it, than an atheist who takes a moral stance, ipso dixit, because he says it is so. Alright, but why should I agree with you? After all, anyone who says you ought to do such and such, and avoid doing such and such, ought to also be able to present a framework by which he is able to determine why he thinks such and such is right, or wrong. If not, he or she has no business discussing such matters with fellow atheists or agnostics, and certainly nothing to talk about with those who have a very specific traditional moral framework such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Judeo-Christian traditions.

I hope all who review the following will do so, at the very least, to try to understand the arguments which have been proposed to prove, or at least persuade reasonable folks to take a leap. Using reason alone, we come to the edge of the cliff, with what we know from what we can observe of nature, and reason by considering intellectual concepts, we make a choice: take the leap of faith towards God, in faith, where natural and sacred theology then picks up the ball towards things like Trinity, and Virgin Birth, etc., or do we take the leap of faith away from God? Only you can answer that. How you answer questions of where we come from and what is our purpose for being are the animating principles of our daily existence. It governs how we respond to the events which help to define who we are.

Arguments

              I.      What are apriori and aposteriori arguments?

1)      Apriori arguments (ex: ontological) - arguments for God which derive their premises independent of experience; one only need to clearly understand that proposition to see that it is true.

2)      Aposteriori arguments (ex: cosmological and teleological) - arguments for God which derive their premises only from experience of the world.

           II.      Cosmological arguments (Aquinas and Craig)

Aquinas’ First Way (from Motion)

1)      Things are moved.

2)      Whatever is moved, is moved by something else.

3)      Without a First Mover, no motions can exist.

4)      Therefore, a First Mover exists.

Aquinas’ Second Way (from Efficient Cause)

1)      There exist things that are caused.

§   You happen upon a sand-castle on the beach, and you presume that it was designed.

5)      Nothing can be the cause of itself (ex nihilio nihil fit, out of nothing proceeds).

§   The sand castle cannot bring itself into existence.

6)      There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

§   If you trace the line of causality back, there must be a first cause, which itself was not caused.

7)      Therefore, there exists an uncaused first cause.

8)      The word God means uncaused first cause.

9)      Therefore, God exists

Aquinas’ Third Way (from Necessity)

§         Contingent means it depends upon something else to explain its being (humans, animals, etc.). Necessary means that the being requires no other being to explain its existence.

1)      Not every being can be contingent.

§         Contingent beings need at least one necessary being.

2)      Therefore, there exists a being upon which the contingent beings depend.

3)      A necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by God.

4)      Therefore, God exists.

Aquinas’ Fourth Way (from Gradation)

1)      There exist degrees of goodness in different things.

2)      There exist degrees of being in different things.

3)      For degrees of being to exist, there must be something which has the highest degree of being.

4)      Therefore, a being with the highest degree of being exist.

Kalam Argument (William Lane Craig)

1)      Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2)      The universe began to exist.

§         You cannot have an infinite regress of causes. The concept of infinity is a mathematical concept that does not and cannot exist in reality since it would lead to absurdities. See Hilbert’s Hotel.

3)      Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

         III.      Teleological arguments (William Paley and St. Thomas Aquinas)

The Watchmaker Argument (William Paley)

1)      Complexity implies a designer.

2)      The universe is highly complex.

3)      Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

4)      God is a Being who is able to design a universe.

5)      Therefore, God does exist.

Aquinas’ Fifth Way (Design argument)

1)      All things have order, and have a goal/purpose.

2)      The order in the universe cannot be explained by chance, but by design and purpose.

3)      Design and purpose is the product of intelligence.

4)      Therefore, the universe is directed by a Divine Intelligence or Designer.

        IV.      Ontological argument (St. Anselm)

Argument 1, (Laurence Gonzaga, 04/20/2008)

1)      God is, by definition, the “greatest” (that than which nothing greater is possible).

2)      The notion of the “greatest” exists in the mind.

3)      The “greatest” may exist in reality.

4)      If the “greatest” only existed in the mind, and the “greatest” may have existed in reality, then the “greatest” [in reality] might have been greater than the “greatest” [in the mind].

5)      The “greatest” may be greater than it is.

6)      Therefore, the “greatest” is something that something greater is possible.

7)      This is not possible, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).

8)      Therefore, the “greatest” (God) exists in both the mind and in reality.

Argument 1, variation (Laurence Gonzaga, 03/14/2009)

1)      There is an understanding in the “believer” and the “unbeliever” of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, which can be summarized as “the greatest”.

2)      The greatest can exist in the understanding alone, or in the understanding and reality.

3)      Things that exist in reality, even those things which existed in the past, are greater than things which exist in the understanding alone.

4)      If the greatest does not exist in reality, then there exists an absurdity (reductio ad absurdum ), since any object that exists in reality, even those which existed in the past, would be greater than “the greatest”, which exists in the understanding alone. So, “the greatest” would not really be the greatest.

5)      Therefore, “the greatest” must exist in reality. The greatest, is He who we call God.

Argument 2

1)      God is defined as the “greatest” (aliquid, quo nihil majus cogitari posit, that than which nothing greater can be conceived).

2)      It is greater to be a necessary being than not.

3)      God must be necessary.

4)      God necessarily exists.

           V.      The Desire Argument (C.S. Lewis)

1)      All human desires correspond to a real thing which can satisfy that desire.

§         Thirst is satisfied by drink; hunger is satisfied by food; fatigue is satisfied by sleep/rest; sexual desire is satisfied by marital relations; etc.

2)      There is a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy (desire for God).

3)      This desire must be satisfied in another world.

4)      Therefore, God must exist.

        VI.      The Wager (Pascal) – This does a cross between two dimensions: (1) the truth of whether God exists, God exists and God does not exist; and (2) how one chooses to lead one’s life, live as if God does exist and live as if God does not exist. This gives us 4 possibilities:

§         God exists and one does not live as if God exists – Hell (- infinity)

§         God exists and one does live as if God existed – Heaven (+ infinity)

§         God does not exist and one does not live as if God exists – neutral

§         God does not exist and one does live as if God existed – neutral

§         Therefore, wager that God exists.

§         Would you not wager $1 for the 50/50 chance of winning a million?

      VII.      Ways in which we may see the atheist:

1)      the atheist as a victim

§         They have bought into the secular and relativistic philosophy. This is where the notion of absolutes was once presumed without question, and now the notion of universal non-absolutes (how ironic) is presumed without question.

2)      the atheist as an apologist

§         If you believed as they believe, wouldn’t you promote it too? Aggressively, even. So don’t be offended when they try to “evangelize” you with the “gospel” of un-belief or non-belief!

3)      the atheist as an intellectual

§         They don’t want to hear about mysticism and non-materialistic evidence; rational argumentation is the best bet; this is the high-form of atheism.

4)      the atheist as a revolutionary

§         There is a popular culture of anti-conformity. It is now cool to be a jerk; This is the low-form of atheism. Don’t be offended. Don’t get emotional. If you fight fire with fire, you will be burned. Fight fire with water.

Conclusion

I am confident in my present belief in the existence of God. Since I used reason to come to the point of rational belief in the existence of a singular God (monotheism), I then took further steps which brought me to the point of Christianity, and furthermore, Catholicism as the expression of what I believe to be the authentic and complete historical and theological expression of Christianity. From here, we may now debate points of natural and sacred theology.

Appendix:

Why am I a Catholic-Christian?: A response to an agnostic friend

Mr. Laurence I have a question for you. What brought you to your religion? What made you decide this was truth for you? I remember you in high school being quite skeptical of religion. It’s funny how the tables have turned. I am just curious to hear what brought you to Catholicism. I don’t want to debate or anything I just am curious. Anyhow, I hope you are well. Take care

~ Z.H.

Z, you can call me Laurence or Mr. Laurence (it's an insider thing among my friends, we really aren’t that formal). You can get a long or short story, but I will try to give you the short story. Yes, I was quite skeptical of religion and Christianity in particular. I was raised a Catholic-Christian, but didn’t really know the basis of such beliefs. So, it was easy to let it go when science seemed to explain the things that religion claimed to. But it goes deeper than that not just for me but I’m sure for many people. Life just seemed more enjoyable without religion. No need to go to Church or say prayers, or follow rules. But, on top of that, I had friends who claimed to be Christian, brought me to their churches, and read me Bible quotes and such, and I knew they weren’t exactly living up to the teachings. So, it seemed hypocritical to me. Anyway, even in my most atheistic days, I never really rebelled against the moral teachings. So, basically I had Christian morals, but no philosophical system to hang them on. I then took a class in introductory philosophy at CSUSB, and there were a few sections on the existence of God, for and against of course. I was really impressed with the logical proofs of Thomas Aquinas, known as his Five Ways. Then there were the arguments for moral absolutes from Immanuel Kant. So, I would say that the foundation for my current belief is as follows:

1) I believe in moral absolutes, otherwise I would have no basis to discuss "right" and "wrong" with anyone.

2) As a creature that could die at any moment, and the same is true for all other sentient beings, I have to wonder, where these absolutes must reside. Eternal truth can only be observed or believed by temporary beings, but it must reside outside of them [for them to be consistent always]. So, it is reasonable to imagine that it resides in the mind of an eternal being. 3) The anthropic principle shows that there are many universal constants like the universal gravitational constant, which if tweaked just a little, would have no life anywhere in the universe, because things like hydrogen would not exist or any other number of necessary elements for life to exist.

4) If there is a God, is he many or one. Aquinas' proofs argue for a singular God. I am convinced of his proofs. [So-called gods such as Zeus and Athena are not the kind of God that Aquinas argued for. So, the cheap shots that Richard Dawkins makes about “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” are not a concern for me]

5) What religions are monotheistic? Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Well, Judaism came first, and they prophesied a Messiah. Christianity came next and claimed that he came in the person of Yeshua bar Yousef (Jesus, son of Joseph). Islam came next as a sect of Christianity and claimed the first two went off the path. Judaism died with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and there are many logical inconsistencies in the Muslim religion. That leaves Christianity. 
6) There are over 25,000 denominations of Christianity, but only one can claim to have the historical roots in the early Christian communities, and that is the Catholic Church.

Sorry, I said it would be short, but it was not exactly something I decided to just believe one day. haha.

I am open to any questions, I just wrote this off the top of my head.

Have a wonderful day, Z!

Well said. One of the best explanations I've actually ever heard. Although it doesn't change my personal convictions which is more in line with Agnosticism. That by far is on of the best explanations I've read spelled out. I would dive into where I disagree but I don't really want to online debate also I am working. I honestly asked because I viewed [you] in high school as some one with high intelligence and I tend to generalize theists particularly Christians as people with lower intelligence. This is unfair but it seems to trend that direction. I really just wanted to see what brought you to where you are today. Ok off to lunch. I would really like to meet up and grab lunch at some point. It's always good talking with you. Have a great rest of your day