I don’t know how many times I’ve had a conversation with an atheist which ends up with them saying something like:
Christians believe in the Trinity. Muslims believe in Allah. The Ancient Romans believed Jupiter etc. Who knows what Hindus believe. Your faith may all be genuine but you can’t all be right, therefore the only logical conclusion is to only believe in a god if there’s objective, undisputed, absolute, cast-iron proof. And there isn’t any. So you’re a fool.
Seems sensible, actually.
Oh no, wait. It doesn’t. Because this atheist hasn’t given the full picture. They might think they have, but they haven’t. Here’s how they should have presented it:
- Everyone believes in something (I believe that the Bible is true, a Muslim believes that Muhammad was Allah’s final prophet, atheists believe that there’s nothing other than what we can observe in nature).
- We can’t all be right.
- Therefore, we should do everything in our power to determine who is right.
Ok, now that’s better. The atheist demands evidence not only that a god exists, but that one specific God (or host of gods) exists. Problem though: God is outside of nature, and therefore can’t be observed in the manner which the atheist has faith in.
In other words, all that the atheist is saying is ‘I don’t believe in God, therefore I don’t believe in Him.’ Clearly circular reasoning.
Now, everyone demonstrates circular reasoning when it comes down to worldviews. I believe that humans don’t have wings. I’ve seen evidence that humans do have wings (e.g. in movies, people dressed up in public) but I easily dismiss those as fiction because of my beliefs. So atheists shouldn’t be ashamed of their faith (in fact, it comes across as a bit desperate when atheists insist so strongly that everyone should believe them), but should acknowledge it.
So there we go.