The Quest for Logical Necessity: A Critique of Atheism

Introduction

Atheism, the belief that God or a higher power does not exist, has been a dominant force in modern philosophical discourse. Prominent thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bertrand Russell have argued that the existence of God is improbable, unnecessary, or even impossible. However, this paper will argue that atheism fails to provide a coherent, logical explanation of reality, and that the existence of God can be demonstrated through logical necessity.

The Limits of Empiricism

Atheists often rely on empirical evidence to support their claims. However, empiricism has its limits. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga notes:

“Empirical evidence is not sufficient to establish the non-existence of God… one cannot sensibly claim that there is no God because we have no empirical evidence of His existence.” [1]

Empiricism can only take us so far in understanding reality. It cannot account for abstract concepts like morality, consciousness, or the nature of time and space. These phenomena require a more nuanced, philosophical approach.

The Cosmological Argument

One of the most enduring arguments for God’s existence is the cosmological argument. This argument posits that the existence of the universe requires a first cause or uncaused cause, which can be identified as God. As Thomas Aquinas famously argued:

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause… If there were an infinite regress of causes, there would never be a first cause, and therefore no subsequent causes.” [2]

Atheists like Russell have countered that the concept of a first cause is unnecessary, as the universe could have emerged from a quantum vacuum or eternal multiverse. However, these alternatives raise more questions than they answer:

  • The Problem of Infinite Regress: If the universe has an infinite past, then it is impossible to explain why anything exists at all.
  • The Multiverse Conundrum: If our universe is just one of many, then what explains the existence and properties of the multiverse itself?

The Teleological Argument

Another classic argument for God’s existence is the teleological argument, which posits that the complexity and order in the universe suggest a designer or purpose. As philosopher William Lane Craig notes:

“The probability of a single protein molecule arising by chance is 1 in 10^164… The origin of life requires a vast number of such coincidences.” [3]

Atheists like Dawkins have responded that evolution and natural selection can explain the complexity of life without invoking a designer. However, this response overlooks:

  • The Origin of Life: Evolution assumes the existence of life, but does not explain how life arose in the first place.
  • The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: The fundamental constants of physics are “fine-tuned” to allow for life, suggesting a purpose or intention behind the universe’s design.

The Moral Argument

Atheism often struggles to provide a coherent account of morality. As philosopher J.P. Moreland notes:

“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist… If objective moral values do exist, then God exists.” [4]

Atheists like Hitchens have argued that morality can be based on human well-being or social contract theory. However, these approaches are vulnerable to:

  • The Is-Ought Gap: Just because something is the case (e.g., humans tend to behave in a certain way) does not mean it ought to be the case.
  • The Problem of Moral Relativism: If morality is based on human opinion or culture, then there is no objective moral standard.

Conclusion

Atheism, despite its claims to empirical superiority, fails to provide a coherent, logical explanation of reality. The cosmological argument, teleological argument, and moral argument all demonstrate the existence of God through logical necessity. While atheism may offer partial explanations for certain phenomena, it cannot account for the fundamental nature of reality.

As philosopher Étienne Gilson notes:

“The existence of God is not a hypothesis, but a philosophical conclusion… It is not a matter of faith, but a matter of reason.” [5]

Ultimately, the critique of atheism presented here challenges readers to reexamine their assumptions about the existence of God or a higher power.

References

[1] Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.

[2] Aquinas, T. (1273). Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Article 3.

[3] Craig, W.L. (2013). On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Evidence. David C. Cook.

[4] Moreland, J.P. (2009). Consciousness and the Nature of God. Routledge.

[5] Gilson, É. (1960). The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Random House.