Debate often arises during discussions with atheists as to whether or not atheism is a claim. Atheists typically hold that their position is not an affirmative one- it is simply a rejection of theistic claims. They would say they make no claim regarding the existence of God. They do not believe God does not exist, they simply do not believe God exists. Consider the following statement from Christopher Hitchens:

“We don’t say on non-truth claims or faith claims that we know when we don’t…. atheists do not say that we know there is no god. We say to the contrary, no argument and no evidence has ever been educed that we consider to be persuasive……The same with the afterlife. Of course, we don’t say that we know there isn’t one. We say that we don’t know anyone who can bring any reason to think that there is” (Hitchens, 2011).

This is one example of the common claim made by atheists. First, I’d like to point out an inconsistency that many atheists have when it comes to the topic. They are quick to (often provocatively) state that God does not exist, or at the very least presuppose it in their worldview. However, when pressed to support this claim, they will attempt to shift the burden of proof by stating that they are in fact not making a claim, but rather rejecting the claim of the theist.

Before the issue of whether or not atheism makes a claim is addressed, we should fully understand the logical conclusions. If someone makes the claim that God does not exist, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate this in the same way that the Christian has the burden of proof to demonstrate that God does exist. Here, the atheist may claim that the “default” is unbelief. This is an issue for two reasons.

Certain beliefs are necessary to satisfy preconditions of intelligibility.

In fact, without these beliefs, one cannot construct a functional worldview. One must presuppose something. The atheist believes in an external reality, or at the very least assumes it in their actions. Given this category of belief, for the atheist to claim that, in the absence of evidence, the default (or even rational) position is one of unbelief, they must either undermine their own worldview or demonstrate that belief in God is not one such belief. This entails disproving Christianity, which asserts that God is self-evident and the most foundational of all truths, being the belief which makes all other beliefs justified and intelligible.

The lack of evidence for God’s existence would not be evidence for a lack of existence.

At best, the person who reaches the conclusion that there is no evidence for God is left with agnosticism. An additional, positive, affirmative layer of evidence is required to rationally reach atheism. “However,” the atheist may respond, “in some cases it is obvious due to lack of evidence that something does not exist!” They are correct. If it is shown that, were object A to exist, we would invariably see effect B, then it can be reasonably held that A does not exist, given B does not exist. However, the situation of God is not comparable. For an atheist to use a perceived lack of evidence as evidence that God does not exist, they must first demonstrate that the evidence they believe to be missing would be an inevitable ramification of God’s existence. This is a superbly difficult task, given the atheist must account for all of the theistic worldviews individually.

This is more difficult than it may seem. For example, they must demonstrate that there would, in any case, be evidence of a deistic god. However, it is no easier of an endeavor to disprove the God of Christianity in this manner. Christianity holds that God created the universe in which we live, and is therefore the evidence of His existence. Whatever legitimate facet of the universe which is utilized by the atheist is therefore a subset of the creation of the God he is attempting to disprove, according to Christianity. It follows that no actual feature of the universe can be used as evidence against the God who is conceived of as having created it. Who would have thought?

However, the issue is more nuanced than this. Because the Christian worldview consists of a God who created every aspect of nature, the only aspects which may be used as evidence against this God are going to be points of contention between Christians and atheists (that is, regarding the nature of the universe).

Obtaining an Honest Statement from the Atheist

When talking to atheists, I have found it best to ask the following question, clarifying that I am looking for a clear answer. The question is: “does God exist.” Occasionally, I will get a direct response either affirming He does not or stating that they do not or cannot know. However, often they say that they don’t believe that He does. Note that they do not say they believe He does not, but that they do not hold a belief that He does. The issue is that this does not address the question. The question is about the state of affairs, that is, of all of reality, not the state of affairs within their mind. To explain a psychological state is not relevant to the question. Only the two claims are. If one is not willing to make those claims, then they must say they don’t know, unless they believe they do know but are simply unwilling to accept the burden of proof.

The Atheist’s Presuppositions

At this point, I ask them about their worldview. If they claim that God does not exist, I ask them to evidence it. They may just throw the burden of proof back on you, but at this point I will clarify that they likewise have the burden of proof and tell them that I will accept mine if they accept theirs. There should be no room for a double standard. If they say that they do not know, then I ask them about their working assumptions in their life. Most will say that they live as if God does not exist, since He has not been proven, according to them. However, positing an unjustified claim is not much worse than assuming the unjustified claim. It is irrational to live as if we know something to be the case when we do not. We must have evidence that something is the case if we are to rationally live according to it.

The truth is that if atheists are not making a claim, they are assuming it. The first requires a burden of proof, but the second must also be justified. Assuming God does not exist without evidence against Him is no better than assuming God exists without evidence for Him. Therefore, there’s a dilemma for the atheist. They must either accept this and present their evidence against God, which can then be disassembled and dealt with productively for once, or they must give up this assumption. However, there isn’t any middle ground to retreat to. We cannot simply wait for evidence of either Christianity or Atheism, because this is a presupposition which guides our entire thought process. The only alternative to autonomy, or freedom from God and self-sufficiency intellectually, is theonomy. God must be their King. Their Lord. Their Judge. The Christian too often feels forced to take the burden of proof alone. Why not challenge their autonomy? Why not challenge their assumptions, and pass them the burden for once? We’ve surely held it long enough.

Grace and Peace