Foundational and assumptive problems with atheist arguments
Because atheists sell a particular brand of rationality that Christians don’t subcribe to.
Well whats unique about that brand of rationality?
- Its skeptical. It breaks down, it doesn’t build up.
- Its not very contextual. Its reductionistic.
- Its not comparative.
There are also three other trends I’ve recognized–that are red flags:
- Skepticism can be used against anything–against any belief. But human existence requires belief.
- Also, skeptics typically aren’t skeptical of their own skepticism or don’t spend the same amount of time being skeptical that they spend reading arguments.
- This is all compounded by the way that skeptics write books. Academic books tend to tell both sides of the story and then integrate and compare. Skeptics usually set up a strawperson attack rather than providing the scholarship. An example of this is using Thomas Aquinas, but not realizing that his next book had answers to the objections raised by new atheists. This seems like dishonesty and/or an insufficient understanding of the history of philosophy.
What else from a historical perspective?
- Its heavily influenced by Hume’s thought, but there have been multiple criticisms of Hume since he wrote which haven’t been sufficiently refuted.
- I would reemphasize that it almost totally omits both a full range of Classic arguments as well as newer arguments.
- Its heavily influenced by positivism, which has been throughly discredited in philosophical circles.
- It doesn’t recognize its own assumptions fully (materialism, naturalism, scientism, etc..)
You can create doubt about pretty much everything. Existence of doubt is insufficient to disprove.
Also, atheists won’t admit that they have a burden of proof in their advocacy for change of the behavior of Christians. This ends up being a reciprocal burden.