|Follow @ThePoachedEgg |
By Donnie Griffin
I’ve noticed many atheists use circular reasoning when they explain why they believe what they do. They go from no evidence, to no faith, to no evidence again. I’ve spoken to many atheists in person and online, and this is how it goes:
(If I were to begin my argument against atheism this way, my atheist friends would panic in their hurry to be first to chastise me for my anecdotal fallacy.)
But so begins the typical atheist’s rant about faith, such as the one I recently read at the Southern Skeptic…except in my intro, I have kind of put his shoe on the other foot.
He then proceeds… “When I ask why they believe Christianity is true, they usually start by saying there is evidence that god exists: the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, etc. But these arguments are not evidence; they are arguments.”
I’ve read just a small sample of this writer’s stuff and he seems to be intelligent enough to understand the category error he has made, but he doesn’t.
He seems to be saying that Christians have no evidence to believe Christianity is true (a typical claim of atheists). He goes on to argue that because there is no evidence for Christian truth claims, then faith is not based on evidence. Therefore one either has evidence or faith, because, he claims, they are exclusive.
Next, he concedes that Christians use arguments for God’s existence as evidence that God exists. Another argument he extends though, is that an argument is not evidence, it is an argument. This is the extent that the “intellects”, the “open-minded” go to validate their belief that God doesn’t exist.
I believe I have introduced enough evidence here to argue against his argument though…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>