Rise of Atheism

[element771]

Something that troubles me is the rise of atheism in many countries outside of the US. I know that I should not find any worry by unbelief but I would be lying if I said that I don't. Sometimes the rise of atheism makes me wonder about my own beliefs. I find myself asking a couple of questions as a result:

1. If God's presence in the world is so obvious then why is atheism on the rise?

2. If the arguments that have convinced me are as powerful and convincing as they seem, why can I not convince someone using them?

[Petersean]

Hello Element,

You ask some good questions.

1. If God's presence in the world is so obvious then why is atheism on the rise?

Is atheism on the rise?

The sense that it is may be a matter of perspective. For example, Christianity is on the rise in Asia. Christianity and Islam are on the rise in Africa.

In the First World we are seeing a break-down of a social convention that connected identity with membership in a particular religious confession. Since World War II there has been a general break-down in the value associated with membership in any group that demands or requires essentially any kind of commitment. The sociologist Robert Putnam in "Bowling Alone" documents how all kinds of social organizations have declined over the last 50 years. I'm in Rotary and what I've heard and seen is that all the communal charitable organziations, such as Rotary, Optomists, Kiwanis, have seen declines in membership, including for the first time ever in this decade Rotary. Likewise, I've seen from internet dating that the favorite response of people to the religion question is "spiritual but not religious" and "Christian/other" by Protestants who don't like the idea of being labelled as "Protestant."

So, I think what we are seeing is the same development of a declining social capital and the uncovering of people who were de factor or what Vox Day calls "low church atheist," i.e., people who are functionally atheist through apathy.

I don't think that the data supports the notion that "high church atheists such as Dawkins or P.Z. Myers - who have a develped atheist ideology - are increasing in number. We can see evidence of that in the frustration that such people have in the continuing strength of religious sentiment among the mass of people.

2. If the arguments that have convinced me are as powerful and convincing as they seem, why can I not convince someone using them?

Because we are fallen creatures who intellect has been weakened and whose will overpowers reason.

Mortimer Adler distinguished between "opinion" and "knowledge" as a psychological phenomenon. "Knowledge" is that kind of thing that we are compelled to believe; 2 plus 2 is four and we can't dispute that fact - we are compelled to accept that.

But the existence of God is not a matter of compelled knowledged, and, so, it falls into the area of "opinion", howevemuch it is true, rational and supported by evidence. The existence of God is not "self evident"; as Aquinas points out:

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

Since it is not self-evident and not compelled "knowledge", human beings must "weight" the evidence. When we do this we ask how the evidence fits other evidence we are in possession of, how our friends view the evidence, how the conclusion would affect us in our lives etc. So, evidence that one person finds compelling, may not be given the same weight by another.

According to Thomas Kuhn, this same kind of thing goes on the development of science where a scientist's allegiance to his teacher is one reason why the acceptance of scientific doctrine happens more by one generation dying out and being replaced by a younger generation than by the conversion of individual scientists to the new doctrine.

It's messy, but we're stuck with being humans rather than angels.

[unkleE]

Petersean,

That was a very good answer. Thank you for it.

Element771,

To that good answer, I would add my own comment that in my experience discussing with atheists on their forums, that the major challenge from them to me is emotional rather than logical. They don't bring many new facts or arguments to the table (I've been a believer for more than 45 years, so I've heard most of it before), but they do tend to argue with great emotional force, using ridicule, questioning all sorts of things that are less important, sometimes misusing history, and coming over me like a tidal wave because of their sheer numbers on such a forum. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it may be that you are the "victim" of such emotional force too.

My response is always (following CS Lewis's advice) to ask myself again if anything factual has changed - and almost always it hasn't. I reconsider the arguments that convince me, and they still convince me. And most importantly of all, I consider whether the atheist arguments have a sound basis. I believe that most arguments against God are on what I would call secondary matters - often important but still secondary. By this I mean that before we can even begin to argue, we need at least to be able to justify why we trust our reason that we use in the argument, trust the ethics that are often used in these arguments against God, and believe that we have free will to make an genuine choice between truth and error. As I discussed briefly in Arguments for God, I don't believe atheism can do that. So all of the arguments atheists use lose their force unless they can explain these things. (These arguments rarely convince atheists, but asking them to justify their faith in reason, ethics and freewill is an interesting exercise.)

That helps me, I hope it may help you too.