Why reason and atheism don't go together

By agreeing to debate whether God exists, an atheist concedes the debate. Why is this so? It is not self-apparent, and it doesn't seem intuitively true. However, by examining the foundations of an atheist's beliefs, we can come to the conclusion that they rest on assumptions which require God to exist for them to be valid. (Note I take atheist to encompass those who deny God's existence and those who claim there is no good reason to believe in God in this article.)

When an atheist agrees to debate a topic, they assume the authority of reason and order. He assumes that I am arguing a certain position, and he is arguing another. These assumptions are all quite correct, that is what we are doing. He holds that to accept God's existence is different to denying God's existence. This is of course true, for A is not Not-A.

But these fundamental beliefs have are inconsistent with his belief in atheism. Our reasoning is assumed to have validity based on what appear to be genuine insights into the world. But there is a problem. The atheist maintains that logic is matter in motion, just the product of chunks of atoms colliding and doing what atoms do. This is problematic, because it means that on the face of it there is no good reason to trust the logic our minds created, for it is the produce of non-truth seeking forces, and as such there is no reason why our ideas would relate to the world.

However, the atheist may respond by arguing that reason does apply to the world, as mapped out by our extraordinary success at discovering principles about how the universe works, such as causality. But here again, the atheist will struggle to justify his foundational belief. The atheist philosopher David Hume pointed out that percieved order and causation (which are both things the atheist needs to assume if his argument is to hold) are just the product of human nature, and the only reason why we expect things to happen in the future like the past is our unjustified assumption that there is uniformity is the world. To use past experiences as the basis of predictions presupposes that there is conformity, which there is no justification for, it is circular reasoning. Now Hume does not for one minute deny the ball will bounce when we drop it, or that causation is true, he is just pointing out that from an atheist point of view there is no rational justification for believing it. So the atheist takes a leap of faith in claiming that the world is ordered, the world is intelligible and reason is reliable.

In fact, what the atheist is doing is admitting that God exists by doing these things. He of course admits that it is rational to hold that reason is reliable, that there is order and the world is intelligible. But his own worldview fails to back this up, it would just be an irrational view, as demonstrated by the failure to justify causation. However, on the theist worldview, it is clear that the creation is seen to mirror God's glory. Thus, we would expect and ordered universe, that our reasoning ability would be reliable so we could learn truths of God and that the universe is intelligible. The various scriptures affirm this. The point is, in claiming the rationality in trusting reason, they affirm there is a good reason for trusting the authority of reason, and the only good reason is the existence of God.

So why can't the atheist just say these foundational beliefs are just assumptions and carry on? Well, if they did, there whole worldview would be denying reason. If they deny the use of reason, then they deny that there argument has any meaning whatsoever, for reason helps define things apart. So they must accept reason. But that can only be done if you accept the existence of God.

Of course, many of you will disagree with this argument for emotional reasons (and maybe some logical points too). However, this argument naturally makes sense. If you approach it from the viewpoint of every belief needs justification, then you will see why atheism fails. As for the existence of God, well there are many arguments for that which I think work. But most importantly of all, if you accept the use of reason, you must have justification for that, which only God can give.

To conclude, we can summarise what I have argued:

1) Arguments against the existence of God rely on trusting the authority of reason.

2) An atheist cannot soundly justify why they trust reason, as all their attempts will rely on assumptions which are inconsistent with his worldview.

3) A theist can justify why they trust reason on the basis that God is the foundation of reason.

4) Thus, if an atheist trusts in reason, they are relying on the existence of God as their objective justification.

I would encourage anyone who has not come into contact with David Hume to read up on his ideas on causation, they are readily available on the web and he is a fantastic thinker to engage with.