The belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God. If “faith” is defined as “belief lying beyond proof”, both Christianity and atheism are faiths. While this suggestion might seem astonishing to some atheists, it is not only philosophically correct but also illuminating in shedding light on the changed fortunes of atheism in recent years. The strength of the atheistic feeling has been directly proportional to that of its religious antithesis: with the weakening of religious faith in many parts of the West, especially Western Europe, there has been a concomitant erosion in the attractiveness of its atheistic alternatives. In the Western European context at least, a swelling public indifference toward religion has led to the loss of the potency of both poles of religious culture, Christianity and atheism.
In recent years there has been a growing recognition of the ultimate circularity of the great atheist philosophies of recent centuries. The explanation of the idea of God put forward by Feuerbach, Marx, and Freud have one all-important feature in common: they presuppose atheism. It is the fundamental assumption that there is not—indeed there cannot be –a God that prompts them to offer explanations of why perfectly intelligent human beings should think that there is a God to believe in. As there is no God, the origins of this idea must lie in the malfunctioning of the mind, the subtle influence of the human unconscious, or the complex social forces that shape our beliefs and values, often without our being aware of them. Yet when all is said and done, these explanations of religious belief start out from atheist premises and duly arrive at atheist conclusions. They are, in their own way, coherent: they are not however, compelling. They simply offer an atheist explanation of religious belief, in much the same way as Christianity offers a theistic explanation of the same phenomenon. They explain the observation on the basis of a preconceived standpoint; they most emphatically do not establish that standpoint in the first place.
How can this be? God is simply not an empirical hypothesis that can be checked out by the scientific method. As Stephan J. Gould and others have insisted, the natural sciences are not capable of adjudicating negatively or positively, on the God question. It lies beyond their legitimate scope. There is simply no water tight means of arguing from observation of the world to the existence or non existence of God. This has not stopped people from doing so, as a casual survey of writings on both sides of the question indicates. But it does mean that the “arguments” are suggestive and nothing more. The grand idea that atheism is the only option for a thinking person has long since passed away, being displaced by the growing awareness of the limitations placed on human knowledge and the need for humility in religious and antireligious advocacy.
The Twilight of Atheism
The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
by Alister McGrath p180-181
Oxford University, Oxford, England
Thank you so much for sharing that very interesting essay!
Hence the circularity of their arguments....
Thanks so much, ckilmer, for this illuminating extract from Alister McGrath!
As I have said I don't know how many times now:
Atheism would commit the Fallacy of Proving the Negative.
It is silly to define a position by saying what it is NOT.
As Stephan J. Gould and others have insisted, the natural sciences are not capable of adjudicating negatively or positively, on the God question.
Yes, precisely. And what I question is when someone tries to use the natural sciences, Quantum Theory in particular, to justify such a position "positively" - as in the case of asserting QM, The Uncertainty Principle, The Copenhagen Interpretation, Godel's Incompleteness Theorum justifies and supports Platonic Philosophical Realism. (That, after all was the subject and not the existence of God.)
There is simply no water tight means of arguing from observation of the world to the existence or non existence of God.
Then stop trying. I have never made any assertion about the existence of God, one way or the other. I only question the basis for assertions others have made, and on what basis, logically, they have made them.
IOW - stop putting assertions in my mouth that I haven't made.