Is Atheism Just a Lack of Belief? Does Faith Mean Believing Without Evidence?

A simple Facebook comment turned into one of the most fascinating apologetics discussions I've had in a long time.

After responding to a common atheist objection, the comment section quickly filled with atheists, agnostics, and skeptics challenging nearly every point I made. Rather than spending days replying one comment at a time, I decided to step back and address the much deeper philosophical questions driving the entire conversation.

In this episode, we examine five of the most common objections raised against Christianity:

• Is atheism really "just a lack of belief"?
• Is biblical faith simply belief without evidence?
• Can evolution explain objective morality?
• Who actually bears the burden of proof?
• Are logical fallacies being used correctly—or simply as rhetorical weapons?

Along the way, we'll discuss worldview, evidence, testimony, scientism, objective morality, the cumulative case for God's existence, and why definitions matter far more than most people realize.

In the second half of the episode, I respond directly to many of the actual comments left by atheists in the discussion, addressing objections about faith, evidence, morality, the Euthyphro dilemma, meaning, naturalism, the burden of proof, and more.

Whether you're a Christian looking to strengthen your thinking or a skeptic wondering how Christians answer these objections, my hope is that this conversation encourages careful reasoning, honest dialogue, and a genuine pursuit of truth.

Have a question or objection you'd like addressed on a future episode?

📧 questions@actualanswerspodcast.com

If you enjoyed today's episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share it with someone who enjoys discussing life's biggest questions. Thanks for listening to The Actual Answers Podcast.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to the Actual Answers Podcast. I'm your host, Matt Hazelwood, and here we tackle the questions that matter most. From the challenges of atheism and competing worldviews to the theological questions that Christians ask every day. Our goal is simple: to seek truth, provide clear biblical answers, and equip believers to think carefully, speak faithfully, and defend the Christian faith with confidence. So whether you're a skeptic looking for answers, a believer seeking understanding, or a Christian wanting to sharpen your ability to engage the culture, this podcast is for you because truth matters, questions matter, and Christianity has actual answers. Welcome to the Actual Answers Podcast. Let's get to the episode. I'm so glad you've joined me today because today's episode is a little different than our normal episodes. So a few days ago, I posted a response on social media to a comment from an atheist, and I wasn't expecting much to come from it, but before long, the comments section did explode. Dozens of atheists, agnostics, skeptics began responding, challenging nearly every point that I had made. So I could have spent the next several days trying to respond to every individual comment one at a time, but honestly, that would have uh probably would not have been very helpful. As I carefully read through the discussion, I realized that although there were many different people commenting, almost every objection fell into just a handful of recurring themes that I thought should be addressed. In other words, there were really only a few philosophical issues driving nearly the entire conversation. And that's what I want to do today. This isn't going to be a reaction video uh to internet comments. It's going to be a philosophical discussion about the ideas behind those comments. Because ultimately that that's what mat that's what matters. Truth isn't discovered by counting likes or seeing who gets the last word. Truth is discovered by carefully defining our terms and following the evidence and reasoning correctly. So today we're going to examine five major issues that repeatedly surface throughout the discussion. First, is atheism really nothing more than a lack of belief? Or does it function as a worldview? Second, what is biblical faith and is it really the opposite of evidence? Third, what is actually what is actually good grounds for objective morality? What actually grounds that? Fourth, is who bears the burden of proof in these discussions? And finally, we'll we'll talk about the proper use and adequate abuse of logical fallacies in online debates. And then I'm actually going to address the specific comments so that way you can hear what real atheists are saying, what actual atheists are saying, and so that you can have actual answers to what is being said by actual atheists. So that way you get it straight from the horse's mouth, if you would. So after working through those larger philosophical issues, I'm gonna return to the actual comments. We're gonna take them one by one and respond to many of them individually. So my hope is that you'll you'll not only hear my answers, but you'll also learn how to think more carefully about these types of questions yourself. Because some of the things are not always so obvious. You kind of have to think carefully about this. So let me just say one thing before we begin. My goal today is not to mock anyone or score internet points. I generally appreciate those who took the time to engage the discussion, especially those who did so respectfully. Um, if I'm wrong, I want to know it. But if we're going to disagree, let's make sure we're disagreeing about what is actually being argued, not about caricatures and slogans and assumptions that have never been defended at all, which is unfortunately that happens most of the time. So, with that said, let's begin where with where every atheist seemed to begin. The the number one comment for sure is atheism is merely a lack of belief. By far, the most common objection I received was the claim that atheism is merely a lack of belief and therefore is not a belief system or a worldview. So my first response is very simple. Why should I accept that definition? Right? That's that's not an unreasonable question. It is a request for justification. Remember, he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. And the claim is atheism is merely a lack of belief. So you now bear the burden of proof that should convince me of why I should accept that definition. Historically, atheism has ordinarily referred to the positive belief that there is no God, even its etymology points to that direction, right? The Greek prefix a means without, and theos means God. Now, I'm not arguing that etymology settles the question. That would that would commit the etymology etymological fallacy. Words can and they do change over time, but my point is much more modest. The historical usage and etymology demonstrate that the modern definition is not self-evident, it's it's not clear at all that that should be accepted at face value. A semantic proposal has been made, but almost no one in the comments attempted to justify why I should abandon the historical understanding in favor of this newer definition. Simply repeating, atheism is just a lack of belief, is not an argument. It's merely restating the very point under dispute. Remember, he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. Now, closely related to the second, uh, is the second claim kind of tied to this, and that was atheism is not a belief system. Again, my question is the same. Why should I believe you? That is simply another assertion unless it is defended. In ordinary language, words ending in ism, the suffix there, almost always refer to some identifiable doctrine, philosophy, movement, or body of thought. Theism, naturalism, materialism, idealism, empiricism, Calvinism, Marxism, and countless others. Right? Even our dictionaries reflect this. You can look it up yourself. Merriam-Webster speaks of an ism as a doctrine or theory. Oxford defines an ism as a doctrine, system, or body of principles and practices. Once again, I'm I'm not claiming that this proves atheism is a worldview necessarily. What I'm saying it demonstrates why the claim that atheism is uniquely different from virtually every other ism out there is not obvious. It's not obvious at all. If someone wishes to redefine atheism as the lone exception, the burden rests on them to explain why, because it's not obvious. But I believe the strongest evidence came not from dictionaries or etymology, but from the comments themselves. Right? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I granted the definition. Suppose atheism really is nothing more than a psychological state of lacking belief in God. Something fascinating happened literally immediately after people started stating that. Nearly every commenter stopped describing a psychological state and began making positive claims about reality. They argued about morality, meaning, science, consciousness, evolution, reason, faith, and religion. Those are not descriptions of a person's internal mental state, those are philosophical claims about the nature of reality. In other words, whatever they called atheism, they immediately began defending what functions as a worldview. As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously observed, what you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say. Their comments revealed far more than a mere absence of belief. They really acted more than that. And finally, even if atheism were merely a psychological state, that would not exempt it from rational evaluation, right? Merely describing what someone believes or does not believe does not justify that belief or unbelief. If someone says, I simply don't believe Julius Caesar existed, no historian would stop at the psychological description. We would immediately ask, why? What reasons justify that conclusion? The same question applies here. The issue has never been what is your psychological state. The issue is why is that psychological state rationally justified? Just because you want to kind of default to a psychological state, that doesn't mean that you get to not bear a burden of proof. We all feel and lack belief in things, but we need to have justification for why. Right? That question belongs equally to Christians, to atheists, to agnostics, and everyone else. We all bear the responsibility of providing reasons for the positions we hold. So that was for sure the biggest comment. And so those are my questions. Those are assertions, but I want to know why I should drop the normal use of those words and adopt this new way of looking at it. And what warrants it? What justification can we use, or should I uh see in order to see this happen, this transition happen? Well, number two is Christianity apparently requires faith, not evidence. Right? That was the second objection. It appeared over and over again in the comments. It usually sounded something like this religion requires faith because there is no evidence. At first glance, that sounds pretty persuasive, but I believe it rests on two hidden assumptions that are almost never defended, just assumed in the process. So the first hidden assumption is that faith is the opposite of evidence. It isn't. Faith and evidence belong to different categories. It's a category mistake. Evidence answers the question, why should I believe this? Faith answers the question, will I trust what the evidence justifies? In other words, evidence concerns the grounds of belief, but faith concerns the acts of trusting based upon those grounds. The real opposites are evidence versus no evidence, which some do claim, and faith versus maybe unbelief or distrust, right? To put faith against evidence is like asking which is more important, fuel or driving. Fuel and driving are not competitors, one enables the other. Or imagine asking which is more important, a map or traveling, right? The map gives you the grounds for the journey, it does not replace the journey. Likewise, evidence grounds faith, it doesn't, it does not eliminate the need for it, which we'll kind of get into that a little bit later. But the second hidden assumption is a definition that many critics simply import into the discussion without argument whatsoever. Faith is belief without evidence, or belief in the absence of knowledge. Now, once that definition is assumed, the conclusion is inevitable. Christianity requires faith. Faith means belief without evidence, therefore, Christianity requires belief without evidence. But notice what happened here, right? Christianity's doctrine of faith has not been examined, it has been replaced. The biblical and historic Christian understanding of faith has been substituted with a modern, popular definition. And then Christianity is criticized for teaching that substituted definition, which that happened in the comments, right? That's not an argument, it's it is assuming the very point under dispute. Before someone can criticize Christianity's doctrine of faith, they must first demonstrate that Christianity itself defines faith as belief without evidence. Simply importing that definition is question begging. So historically, Christians have understood faith with three Latin terms, notitia, ascensus, and fiducia. First comes notitia, knowledge of the truth, then a census, intellectual assent that the truth is in fact true, and finally comes fiducia, personal trust or reliance upon that truth. In other words, biblical faith presupposes knowledge, it doesn't replace it. Christianity has never defined faith as believing in the absence of evidence. Criticizing Christianity with that definition is like trying to critique soccer by using the rules of baseball, different games. Before you criticize a position, you must first allow that position to define its own terms. The biblical evidence confirms this, right? John's gospel explicitly states its purpose. These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ. John 20, 30 through 31. Luke opens his gospel by explaining that he carefully investigated everything and wrote an orderly account, quote, so that you may know the certainty, end quote, of what you've been taught. Luke 4, or excuse me, Luke 1, 1 through 4. And Peter rejects myths by appealing to eyewitness testimony. Quote, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1 16. Paul enters synagogues and quote reasoned with people from the scriptures in Acts 17, verses 2 through 3. Christianity does not invite people to belief in spite of evidence. It repeatedly presents evidence as the basis for belief. Now, some object objected by quoting Hebrews 11:1. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. But notice what the text actually says. I have never seen my great-great-grandfather, and I have never even seen a photograph of him. Yet I have good reasons to believe he existed. The fact that something is not presently seen does not imply it lacks evidence. Right? The same mistake appears in John 20. Jesus tells Thomas, Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Again, notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say, Blessed are those who believe without evidence. Thomas already possessed evidence. He had the testimony of the other disciples, he had the testimony of Mary Magdalene, Jesus' own repeated predictions of his resurrection. What Thomas lacked was not evidence, it was personal sight. John immediately follows this account by saying that Jesus performed many other signs which were written down so that you may believe. The problem is that many people have adopted an unnecessarily narrow definition of evidence, and probably an unwarranted definition, narrow definition of evidence. Scripture certainly does not do that. Human beings acquire knowledge through many means, right? Sense perception and reason, memory, testimony, and ultimately divine revelation. Historical evidence, philosophical arguments, logical inference, scientific investigation, personal experience, and eyewitness testimony are all legitimate forms of evidence. The question is never simply, is there evidence? The real question is what kind of evidence would count? This becomes especially important when we think about testimony. Testimonial evidence is one of the most common and arguably one of the most indispensable sources of human knowledge. How do you know Pluto exists? How do you know DNA exists? How do you know George Washington lived or Alexander the Great conquered Persia? That the earth has a molten core. Most of us know these things because trustworthy witnesses have informed us. So, right? Remove testimony from human knowledge and history disappears. Most of science disappears, medicine disappears, geography disappears. Even knowledge of your own birthday largely disappears. Right? Civilization itself depends upon testimonial evidence. Of course, not every testimony is true. The question has always been whether the witness is credible and whether the testimony is corroborated. The observation has enormous implications for Christianity because the New Testament repeatedly presents itself as testimony. We were eyewitnesses. We have seen, we have heard, we have touched. Luke carefully investigated the events. Peter rejected myths in favor of eyewitness testimony. Paul appealed to more than 500 witnesses to the resurrection, many of whom were still alive. The Christian faith is presented as a historical claim supported by testimony that invites investigation, not as a blind leap in the dark. And finally, the discussion should never be framed faith or evidence. That's a false dichotomy, right? Imagine boarding an airplane and you know aerodynamics work. You know commercial aviation is statistically one of the safest forms of travel. And you know thousands of flight land safely every day. Yet when you sit down in your seat, you still trust the pilot. Knowledge did not eliminate trust, it made trust reasonable. That is precisely how biblical faith works. Evidence does not eliminate faith, it grounds it, it and it strengthens it, it bolsters it, it makes it rational. So that's a category mistake. That's why most of the time atheists actually pin faith and reason against each other. Those are more closely related rather than faith and evidence, because those are just two entirely different categories that are not competing with each other at all. The the third thing that was brought up, kind of overarching, was morality without God. Right? The third objection was that morality can be explained without God through empathy or compassion, evolution, or what benefits society. My response is pretty straightforward. Those explanations may describe morality, but they do not ground morality. And nobody addressed this at all. There is a profound philosophical difference between explaining how we came to hold certain moral beliefs and explaining why those beliefs are objectively, objectively true and morally binding. Right. Even if evolution is true, it may explain why human beings developed empathy. Psychology may explain why we feel guilt. Sociology may explain why cooperation benefits civil civilizations, right? But none of those explanations, however, they don't answer the normative question of why ought I be moral, right? Describing how people behave is not the same as justifying how people ought to behave. You you cannot derive an objective moral obligation from a merely descriptive account of nature, right? So several commenters appeal to empathy and compassion as the foundation of morality, but that simply moves the question back one step. Why is empathy morally good? Why am I objectively obligated to be compassionate? If the answer is because empathy is good, then morality is being grounded another moral value rather than explained as its foundation. If the answer is because it helps society flourish, then morality has been reduced to utility. But something being useful is not the same as something being morally obligatory, right? Society may benefit from honesty, yet the question remains why am I morally obligated to be honest when dishonesty benefits me? This is this is why the Christian argument has never been merely that people cannot behave morally without God. Of course they can, right? Christians have never denied that atheists can perform acts of genuine kindness or courage or compassion or self sacrifice. The question is not whether people can recognize moral truths, it's the question is what ultimately grounds those truths. If objective moral duties truly exist, duties that bind all people at all times. regardless of opinion or culture, then they require an objective ground sufficient to account for them. That's the question that the moral argument seeks to answer. So you you can actually go to does God exist? Uh number two, which I address the moral argument and a lot of the a lot of the uh rebuttals that you'll hear regarding that. So that's that's the whole point of that argument. So the fourth thing is who bears the burden of proof one point raised repeatedly in the comments is absolutely correct. Right? I want to agree whenever I can agree. Christians do bear the burden of proof for Christianity. If I claim that God exists then I have the responsibility to provide reasons for that claim. I gladly accept that burden. In fact the Christian intellectual tradition has been doing exactly that for over 2,000 years. Christianity has has never feared investigation because it has never claimed to be a blind leap in the dark. That's why it's not feared. Right? The Christian case is not built upon a single argument but upon a cumulative case. God is the best explanation for why the universe began to exist Kalam cosmological argument. I have a video on that or an episode on that. God is the best explanation for why anything exists rather than nothing. God is the best explanation for the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties, for the existence of consciousness, for the reliability of human reason, for the origin of life and information encoded in DNA, for the intelligibility of the universe, for the applicability of mathematics to the physical world, for the widespread of human awareness of the divine, for the historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for the explosive growth of the early Christian movement, for fulfilled messianic prophecy and for the remarkable unity and preservation of scripture. So now whether you find ultimately find those arguments persuasive, that that's another matter, but it is simply false to claim that Christianity offers no evidence or no arguments. Now you may not find that persuasive and that's fine. That's a whole nother question but if you say it's not persuasive then you also bear the burden of proof of showing why it's not persuasive right if I present an argument there's there's only three ways to dismantle any argument the the terms have to be unclear they have to be ambiguous the premises have to be false or the reasoning has to be invalid or it has to be logical fallacies. Right? So at the same time the burden of proof does not belong exclusively to Christians right the moment someone moves beyond saying I am unconvinced and begins making positive claims about reality such as naturalism is true or consciousness is purely material or morality is the byproduct of evolution or miracles cannot occur and there is no evidence for God, they have assumed a burden of proof of their own right burden of proof follows positive truth claims not religious affiliation. Christians must defend Christianity naturalists must defend naturalism. Materialists must defend materialism every worldview carries the responsibility of giving reasons for what it affirms. The real question therefore is not who has the burden of proof we all do right the real question is whose explanation best accounts for reality as we actually find it. So I agree right the Christian does have to bear the burden of proof in fact that's part of what this podcast does I've already got two episodes out does God exist part one and I go through the Kalam cosmological argument. I find that argument very very persuasive and I take great pains to plug in the holes that I see other Christians kind of just kind of let slide by I think it's much more strong than you give it credit for. In fact there was a few comments in the comment section that kind of all I can already tell what they're responding to in the Kalam that I address forthrightly in there. And a lot of it comes from a misunderstanding of what evidence is what the arguments are the scientific discoveries the philosophical so go listen to that episode does God exist part one and does God exist part two I'll be making more episodes regarding and actually taking the time to bear the burden of proof because the atheist is right they have to bear the burden of proof but again you also bear the burden of proof as an atheist if you say there is no evidence right how in the world can you justify that claim that's a universal negative you've looked at all the evidence all of it at all times past present and future you would have to be God in order to make a claim like that we've got to we've got to make more modest claims here. So I think you're exactly right so go check out those episodes and then tell me what you think. The fifth thing is that I saw a lot of abuse of logical fallacies right one final observation before we move on to the specific comments is throughout the comment section I noticed a growing trend that is becoming increasingly common in online discussions. People learn the names of logical fallacies and begin using them as though merely identifying a fallacy settles debate. It doesn't simply saying that's a straw man or that's circular reasoning, that's an equivocation or that's a false dilemma is not an argument. It's only the beginning of an argument. Right to demonstrate a logical fallacy you must do more than name it. You must identify the precise argument being made explain where the reasoning fails and show why the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Otherwise you're you're not engaging the argument you're simply attaching a label to it. And ironically this often becomes a fallacy in itself right dismissing an argument by labeling it rather than refuting it. There's another danger here as well that we should be careful not to accuse someone of committing a fallacy merely because we disagree with their conclusion right an argument can have a false conclusion without committing a formal fallacy and an argument can be logically valid while containing false premises. So logic is concerned first with whether the reasoning follows not whether we like where it leads. Right as Christians we should care deeply about careful reasoning because truth matters that's that's what this podcast is about. And if I commit a logic fallacy I do want somebody to point it out but I also expect them to demonstrate it not merely assert it right anybody can say anything. The same standard should apply to everyone good philosophy requires more than vocabulary it requires careful thinking intellectual honesty and and a willingness to follow the evidence where it leads so those were kind of the overarching things that I saw in all the comments that those are those are the kind of the five things that they all had in common so now I want to turn our attention to the actual comments the actual answers to the actual comments and I just took them in order. These are no particular order so I'm going to read the comment and I I just copied and pasted these and so that way you have a a fair handling of all of the comments and then I'm just going to respond just kind of you know quickly to each one because a lot of what has already been said really addresses almost if not all of them actually so the first comment is from Ron he says nonsense absolutely zero faith is required to not be convinced in a claim so Ron, if all you're saying is I'm not convinced then I agree that statement alone requires no faith but that's not a rebuttal to anything I've argued right my argument wasn't that being unconvinced requires faith it was that every worldview rests upon found foundational commitments. So you've you simply restated your psychological state without addressing any of the arguments right it's it's just a statement at that point. Jennifer says okay provide the evidence that atheism is false that's literally all we've been asking people to do. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and religious people claim their God is real. So prove it you probably don't worship or believe in Zeus or Odin or Vishnu or Inana or Coyote or any of the other gods from other pantheons. We are the same just include yours in the list as well Jennifer well I'm happy to bear the burden of proof for Christianity. In fact Christians should like I said that's that's why there are entire fields of natural theology and Christian apologetics devoted to presenting positive arguments for God's existence and the historical case for the resurrection. But your first sentence commits a category mistake I don't have to prove atheism is false before arguing that Christianity is true. Those are two different claims if I argue God exists I bear the burden for that claim. But if someone argues God does not exist, which I maintain that that is what atheism holds as I argued before at least that's my suspicion of what's going on there or if somebody says there is no evidence for God, right? They bear the burden of proof for those claims as well right you don't get to get get off scot-free. As for like Zeus and Odin and the others that that's a false analogy right Christians reject those gods because we we believe there are good reasons to do so the question isn't how many gods either of us reject it's whether there are good reasons to believe the God revealed in Jesus Christ exists. Lumping every deity into one category doesn't eliminate the need to evaluate the evidence for you know each individual claim. All right Rava so she's got four points here Rava says number one atheism is the absence of belief number two and we know that our moral sense is directly derived from our evolution and is governed by very specific cognitions right no God needed number three it's just completely wrong uh four no faith no faith is the absence of knowledge otherwise you would not believe but you would know again a believer shows us his ignorance all right Rava so you made four assertions but almost no arguments right simply stating that quote atheism is the absence of belief doesn't justify that definition it's the very point under debate right saying morality comes from evolution confesses the origin of our moral sense with the ground of our moral uh sense with the ground of our moral obligations right describing why we have moral feelings is not the same as explaining why we are morally obligated to obey them which is a category mistake right saying it's just completely wrong for your third point that's it's just a bare assertion right not it's not a rebuttal I need to say nothing there. And for your fourth one so defining faith as quote the absence of knowledge simply assumes your definition rather than Christianity's definition. Scripture repeatedly grounds faith in signs, eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecy historical investigation and reasoned arguments right John 20 Luke 1 Acts 1 Acts 17 the list it really does go on and on. Before criticizing Christianity's concept of faith right you must first show that Christianity itself defines faith as belief without knowledge rather than simply substituting your own definition and arguing against that instead Philip nice and short says this conversation clearly goes above your intellectual pay grade don't use difficult words you don't understand yourself. All right Philip Phil, this is not an argument this is literally textbook ad hominem right rather than addressing a single premise or conclusion I presented in the post you attack my intelligence instead. Now whether I'm brilliant or an idiot has no bearing whatsoever on whether my arguments are true or false right I'm I might be an idiot. If my reasoning is flawed show me where a premise is false or where the conclusion doesn't follow right in order for something to be uh a false in an argument the uh terms must be shown to be ambiguous or unclear the premises must be shown to be false or the reason the reasoning to be invalid right insults are not evidence and ridicule is not a refutation John Smith we don't have to believe there's no God all caps I have to I only have to not believe your assertions all caps that there is a God and since you have zero evidence it's easy all right John if all you're saying is I'm not convinced then you've merely described your psychological state and have not offered an argument but your comment doesn't stop there you also assert that there are there is zero evidence for God. That's no longer a mere lack of belief right it's a positive epistemic claim that requires justification simple you know simply capitalizing zero doesn't establish it right the emphasis doesn't prove anything Christians have offered philosophical historical scientific and moral arguments for God's existence for centuries you may find them unpersuasive but to say that there is no evidence is a bald assertion unless you can actually engage and refute those arguments. Plus again guys our our claims need to be more modest again to say that there is zero evidence that assumes you have literally observed all evidence at all times you would have to be God to do that. But you can't be God and deny God at the same time in the same relation right then it makes no sense you have to make more modest claims all right Jeff he's the these next few are kind of getting a little longer but I think they're worth reading so Jeff he says I don't usually argue with theists because frankly you guys aren't going to understand it in any ways but OP used metaphors instead of properly defending their position. Number one this line of reasoning is called God of the gaps regardless of what we do or don't believe you're making the claim that your interpretation of God exists. We're merely we're we merely assert without evidence he doesn't that's technically true but it's not in the way you think in the same manner you would say unicorns or dragons don't exist. Does that mean there aren't horses or giant reptiles? No it just means that specificity of a unicorn and a dragon don't exist. Atheists merely take it a step farther in that we had a creator it doesn't make them God it simply makes them an engineer. Okay number two morality is not based in religion certainly not Christian religion if it was Martin Luther's 95 theses wouldn't have existed and the the Hussite rebellion uh wouldn't have happened and King James would have never separated from the Catholic Church right you can't claim religion as the epicenter of morality interesting when its morality has been extremely fluid. Morality is based on what's good for yourself and others. We as a society benefit more from being morally good than bad and if everyone stole murdered and raped our quality of life would drastically lower would it not number three this is merely your interpretation of life Greek philosophers weren't Christian and nor is it necessary for philosophy just because you're a nihilist a non-Christian Greek word by the way doesn't mean everyone else is I think you meant to say you're not a nihilist four atheism does doesn't ask you to believe in faith atheism is as OP addressed a conclusion you are presented with scientific evidence and you find not one religion has any scientific evidence to back it up not one apparently that makes you an atheist you can be an atheist and not believe in the empirical data that is the Big Bang I don't know why you would why you would considering you can effing see the Big Bang with your own eyes. All right thanks Jeff so Jeff your comment contains several thoughtful points right but it also contains several unsupported assertions right you begin with an ad hominem by by suggesting theist simply won't understand which contributes nothing to the argument right labeling my reasoning God of the gaps is also just a label unless you demonstrate that I'm arguing from ignorance rather than from an inference to the best explanation. The cosmological moral and fine-tuning arguments don't say science can't explain this therefore God. They argue that God is the best explanation of the available evidence from what we do know right your morality section it confuses the source of moral disagreement with the ground of moral obligation right Christians don't argue that religious people always behave morally right but the but that objective moral duties require an objective moral ground. So appeal appealing to societal benefit only tells us what is useful not what is morally binding right it moves from is to ought without justification. You transitioned without justification there from an is to an ought likewise saying purpose is whatever we we create changes the subject from objective meaning to subjective fulfillment. So we had another shift there that was unjustified and finally asserting that quote no one religion has any scientific evidence is another bare assertion and conflating quote scientific evidence with quote all evidence those are my scare quotes and then assume scientism without defending scientism but scientism is self-defeating historically historical and like philosophical and logical testimonial and experiential evidence are all legitimate forms of evidence and Christianity has always invited its historical claims to be investigated rather than believe blindly so it seems like you would prefer more scientific evidence. Again I'm gonna point you to does God exist part one the Kalam cosmological argument I take great pains to show the scientific evidence that would show with the evidence that we have available that leads to the best explanation being that God is the best explanation for why the universe began to exist so I'm I'm gonna point you to that episode if that uh interests you at all. So our next two comments are from Robert and so his were the longest and it's broken up into two of them. So I'm just gonna read them as they came in to me. So Robert's first comment is this Ah I missed the last paragraph there. Let's fix that. First of all, since you invoked fallacies you didn't understand I'll add two more terms for you to look up false equivalence and equivocation because you just used both. You are equivocating on the word faith trusting evidence based conclusions and basic assumptions like our sense being generally reliable is not the same as religious faith. You are also making a false equivalence by claiming atheism requires the same kind of faith commitment as religion. Atheism does not require believing the universe came from nothing or that every scientific question is already answered. Saying we don't know is not faith it's acknowledging the limits of our knowledge you committed a few other fallacies throughout already mentioned equivocation, false equivalence and circular reasoning but you may also want to look up bare assertion, false dilemmas, straw men, argument from ignorance, special pleading, category error, as you did each of those as well. Learn what they mean, stop doing it and you'll have more sound arguments. All right Robert so Robert simply listing the names of logical fallacies is not the same as demonstrating one. Most of those were just simply listed right if I've equivocated identify the word the two meanings I allegedly use and where the argument depends on an unnoticed shift in meaning. If I've committed a false equivalence explain the relevant differences that I that I ignored merely reciting fallacy names is not an argument. As for you know faith I wasn't equivocating I intentionally distinguished two different discussions first I defined Christian faith as Christianity has historically understood it knowledge, assent and trust. Then in a separate paragraph you notice I separated those two then in a separate paragraph I referred more broadly to the foundational commitments or first principles upon which every worldview rests. If you dislike calling those um commitments faith that's that's fine. That seemed to be how most people were using that term. That's why I felt the liberty to do that. But that's fine you don't have to do that call them presuppositions properly basic beliefs foundational commitments the label isn't the issue the point is that no worldview begins from nowhere. Right I also agree that saying we don't know is not a faith commitment but that's not a position I addressed. I didn't address that at all. My point was that many of the positive claims commonly advanced alongside atheism or naturalism about morality and consciousness and rationality and the origin of life and the universe they carry their own epistemic burdens and foundational assumptions that they're relying on all right finally you assume without argument that religious faith is categorically different from every other form of rational trust right but that's the very point under debate. So before accusing Christianity of requiring you know blind faith meaning faith without evidence you first have to demonstrate that Christianity itself defines faith that way rather than substituting a modern popular definition for the biblical and historic one. So that's why I made those distinctions not equivocating that's why there's a paragraph break there. So, Robert, I think this next one from Robert, I think it actually came in first and it just kind of got mixed up. But here's Robert's uh second comment. Robert says, Well, this is all kinds of stupid. Let's fix it. One, no, it's not a conclusion. I believe true. I don't accept your theological claims. That's it. You say there's a God, I say I'll need some proof to accept that claim. You cannot provide that. So I say not convincing. Two. While the OP is wrong, atheism has nothing to do with morality. That's something like secular humanism. One could be atheist and not moral, such as Stalin, for example, you are too. You may want to look up what circular reasoning means because this is not an example of it. Maybe you're confused about the definition. Circular reasoning is when the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. For example, God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's God's word. The conclusion is used to prove itself. That's not what's happening here. Saying empathy and compassion are the basis of morality is not arguing empathy is good because empathy is good. It's explaining where a moral framework comes from. A secular moral system can argue that empathy evolved because it promotes cooperation and survival, and that societies function better when people minimize suffering and maximize well-being. Whether you agree with those premises is a separate question, but they are not circular. If you're going to invoke logical fallacies, at least understand them. And what's this quote ultimate moral obligation nonsense? It sounds like bare baseless assertion. You choose your morals same as everyone else. Assuming you're a Christian, morality isn't a particularly strong case for the God of your mythology. Hell, your holy book is full. Oh, he says, hell, your holy book is full of immoral things that God has done: genocide, slavery, rape, etc., all supported by that God. Morality is a Christian weakness, not virtue. Number three, this confuses ultimate performance, uh permanent, excuse me, with meaning. Something does not become meaningless simply because it eventually ends. Friendships end, music ends, vacation ends, and our own lives end, yet we still find them deeply meaningful. Number four, faith as it pertains to religion, is simply belief without evidence. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Don't know where you got that definition from. Hebrews 11:1 says, Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. There you go, Robert. John 20, 29, Jesus said to them, Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. Notice that, Robert. Second Corinthians 5 7, this is him quoting still, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Romans 8 24 through 25. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope is hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is uh for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. So maybe read the Bible, uh, what the Bible actually says and not what you think it says. I don't understand why Christians refuse to read their own holy book. If more read it, I guess we'd probably have more atheists. All right, well, there's a lot there, Robert. So your your comment is is much more substantiated or substantial here. So let me respond in kind. So first, saying I'm not convinced merely describes your psychological state. It isn't an argument. The moment you add you can't provide proof, you've moved beyond your psychological state into an epistemic claim that itself requires justification. Second, you've actually changed the original claim. The claim I responded to wasn't that evolution explains why humans developed empathy. It was that morality is grounded in empathy and compassion. That was the claim I was addressing. Those are two very different theses, right? Explaining the evolutionary origin of empathy is not the same as grounding moral obligation. Empathy and compassion are themselves moral virtues. So appealing to them as the foundation of morality, which is what happened, it simply relocates the question: why is empathy morally obligatory? If empathy is morally binding because it's morally good, then you've assumed the very thing you're trying to establish rather than grounding it. Third, you've you've shifted the discussion from objective meaning to subjective significance. You've you've made that shift and you didn't justify why you made that shift. I never argue that temporary things cannot be enjoyable or personally meaningful. I argue that if reality is ultimately ends in oblivion, then those meanings are not objectively enduring. That's a category shift, not a rebuttal. And finally, you define religious faith as belief without evidence. But that is precisely the point under debate here, right? Christianity has historically defined faith as knowledge, ascent, and trust, not blind belief. The passages you cite contrast faith with sight. I try to give that emphasis there, not with evidence. And those are not synonymous. John immediately follows Thomas's account by saying, These signs are written so that you may believe. John 20, 30 through 31. Luke writes an orderly, carefully investigated account so that Theophilus may have, quote, certainty in Luke 1, 1 through 4. Peter appeals to eyewitness testimony in 2 Peter 1:16, and Paul reasons publicly in Acts 17. So before criticizing Christianity's doctrine of faith, you have you first have to demonstrate that Christianity itself defines faith as belief without evidence and not conflating that with sight rather than substituting a modern popular definition for the biblical and historic one. Jason, he has a lengthy reply here as well. So Jason says, nice try. Atheism may be a belief, but the post says belief system, which indicates a line or process or protocol, etc. Not believing in something is not a system, which of course I addressed that earlier. Empathy and compassion without promise of reward or threat is quite different than the system used by religion. We simply do unto others for the sake of it, not out of fear. Your faith removes the noity of empathy and compassion. What you suggest is that without threat you may be an evil person. Purpose does not need to be eternal. While I live and breathe, my purpose is to share love, help people, protect my kin, and enjoy my days. Your faith would lead me to believe that God's purpose for mankind would be to fuel the fires of hell with our souls. It's the only logical conclusion. Only remember modest claims, guys. And he kind of closes off, says, quote, if I faith, if faith consists of knowledge, then the hundreds of conversations with well-learned people and zealots alike would have concluded with logical and rational answers. That has never happened. What does happen is one of the following. Or quote, we are not meant to understand or incapable of comprehending, still not knowledge. Or most commonly a weak attempt to insult me and running from the conversation. I do know, I have learned, it is what led me to disbelief. The faith required by atheists to accept, accept, spelled wrong, that we do not know was before everything is literally one step less than what you believe. Everything came from nothing, or God came from nothing, then created everything out of the same nothing. I'm going to refer you to my does God exist part one. You are who I'm referring to. My faith is justified by logic and reasoning, he says. All right, Jason. So I appreciate the thoughtful response. First, saying atheism is not a belief system is simply another assertion, unless you explain why I should accept that definition. Right. In practice, atheists routinely discuss morality, meaning, science, consciousness, reason, religion, and human origins, all positive philosophical claims that look very much like a worldview rather than merely an absence of belief. Plus, the linguistic evidence that is at is, you know, presented at face value. You would have to show me how that doesn't speak into this at all. So remember, you have to, you have to actually bear the burden of proof, not just assert that. Second, you've shifted my argument about the ground of morality into a discussion about the motivation for morality, right? I never argued that Christians behave morally merely out of fear or reward. The question wasn't why are people motivated to be good, but what makes any obligation objectively binding? Right? Those are different questions. Third, you've again changed the discussion from objective meaning to subjective purpose, right? You made that transition and didn't justify why you did that. I fully agree people can have personal goals and enjoy life, right? The issue is whether those purposes possess objective significance if reality ultimately ends in oblivion. Fourth, your appeal to personal conversations with Christians doesn't establish the biblical definition of faith. It simply reports your experience. Christianity is defined by scripture, not by the weakest conversations either of us had, right? You you would expect me to read some heavy-hitting atheists, and I would expect you to read some heavy-hitting, you know, theology books. And this this is this is not controversial, my definition of faith. It's not controversial at all in my world. Uh, fifth, the existence of many Christian denominations doesn't imply Christianity is false, right? That's a non-sequitur. Disagreement among mathematicians doesn't make mathematics false, nor does disagreement among philosophers make philosophy false, right? The relevant question isn't how many groups exist, but it's which position is true, right? And I would expect various, you know, groups to disagree, but truth to be exclusive to one, because truth by its very nature is exclusive. All right, I'm in this room. If it's true that I'm in this room, think of all those other rooms I'm not in, right? That's very exclusive. All right. Finally, I agree that saying we don't know is not itself a faith commitment, right? And I never argued otherwise. My point is that every worldview ultimately rests on foundational commitments that cannot themselves be established by empirical science alone. Call them faith or presuppositions or properly basic beliefs, if you prefer. The label isn't the issue. The question is whether those commitments are rationally justified, right? Take take your reasoning and your logic. That's what you referred to, that the faith is is grounded in reason and logic, is what you said. But the problem is what grounds your reasoning in logic. Well, the issue that you're going to run into is that whatever you would say, whatever justification you're going to give me, you're going to have to reason about that evidence. So you're going to have to assume what we're talking about. But you're resting on that, right? It is circular in by by definition. And that's that's the issue with all ultimate presuppositions, is that they can't make room for themselves without being circular, but you can't be fallacious in justifying your ultimate worldview, right? That that's the whole that's the whole issue there. That's that's why it's such a problem. Emerson, this was my favorite comment, by the way. Emerson, I agree with everything you say. This is what she's saying. Emerson, she said, I agree with everything you say, except for the faith part. Of course, all atheists have faith in something sports, team, love, etc. But atheism doesn't demand that you have faith in atheism itself. For example, you may have a true and justified belief in a non-supernatural creation of the universe and base that off of evidence. I also don't agree with her, uh, with her that religion is exclusively based in faith. But I think religion does to some agree, some degree, demand some element of faith, at least scripturally, but maybe not definitionally. So, Emerson, I I think this is one of the fairest comments in the entire comment section. So, congratulations. You're you're the only one here that I think gets the gold star, right? I think this is the fairest comment, and we actually agree on quite a bit here, right? I agree that religion is not exclusively based on faith, and also agree that simply being an atheist does not logically require believing every naturalistic explanation, right? You can be a Buddhist and an atheist as well. My my broader point, however, is that every worldview eventually rests on foundational commitments that are not themselves established by empirical science alone. Remember, science presupposes those things. Whether we call those faith or presuppositions or properly basic beliefs is largely a semantic question. Where I would disagree is with the claim that scripture demands faith in the sense of belief without evidence, right? Biblically and historically, faith is better understood as knowledge ascent and trust. Scripture repeatedly appeals to signs and eyewitness testimony, historical investigation, fulfilled prophecy and reason arguments as grounds for belief, right? John 20, Luke 1, Acts 1, Acts 17, and so on. So I would argue that Christianity requires trust based upon sufficient grounds, not a leap into the dark, right? Remember, those passages we don't conflate uh sight with lack of evidence, and we don't narrow evidence uh merely down to empiricism or scientism, which is self-defeating, because we can't justify things with self-defeating claims. But I think I think you're on the right track here. So keep keep searching. Emma, who is the original poster, by the way, it says she said, it's a belief you conclude to. Not guilty is a conclusion too. One's built on evidence, the other isn't. Two, empathy-based morality is circular. You need an ultimate obligator. That's just the euthyphro dilemma. Is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it's good? Either way, we need a cosmic obligatory is asserted and not shown. Meaning. Three, meaning that ends in nothingness is not is fake, which I didn't say that, but she quotes me as that. A meal doesn't need to last forever to have been worth eating. All right. So Emma, I'm gonna qualify something before I respond. The first part of your comment, especially part one, I actually I don't know if I fully understood it, it wasn't extremely clear on my end. So I'm gonna address it as if I did understand it. Uh, but when I was kind of looking at this, there was about three or four different ways I could have taken it. So just in case, you know, I if my if you find like my first response to your first point completely off the mark, it's probably because I just didn't understand it. So I'm totally open to uh correction there. But the rest of it I I I grasp pretty well. So, Emma, a conclusion is still something one believes to be true. So conclusion and belief are not mutually exclusive categories, they're in different categories. A jury concludes not guilty because it believes that verdict is warranted under a particular, particular legal standard. Likewise, if you conclude the evidence for God is insufficient, that is still a belief about the evidence. Simply asserting that Christianity is not built on evidence is the very point under debate, not an argument for it. Second, the euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma against classical Christian theism because it overlooks the historic third option. Goodness is grounded in God's own unchanging nature. God neither invents morality arbitrarily nor submits to a moral standard outside of himself, he commands it in accordance with his perfectly good nature. In fact, I would recommend you go listen to the podcast Does God Exist Part 2? And we we dive into that uh specifically and some of your other things in more depth, anyways. Finally, you've shifted the discussion from objective meaning to subjective value, and you didn't justify that transition there, right? I never argue that temporary things cannot be enjoyable or worthwhile. A meal can absolutely be worth eating. My point is that if reality ultimately ends in oblivion, then every human created purpose ultimately lacks objective and enduring significance. That's a different philosophical question altogether. And our final comment here is Leon or Leona. I don't know how to pronounce that, but she says, or he says, I actually don't know. Leon, atheism is only what we don't believe in God, that we don't believe in God. That's all. No book, no superstition, no buildings. But Leon, you've simply restated the definition under dispute rather than argued for it. Why should I accept that atheism is only a lack of belief? Historically, atheism has generally referred to the belief that there is no God. And today, many who identify as atheists go well beyond describing a psychological state by making positive claims about morality, meaning, science, consciousness, and religion, and reality itself. Right? Those are worldview claims, not merely an absence of belief, plus the linguistic evidence. I think certainly has to at least be addressed a little bit. So whether atheism has no sacred book or clergy or buildings is really beside the point. Those features don't determine whether something functions philosophically as a worldview. So, all right, as as we wrap up today's episode, let me let me leave you with one final thought. If you've listened this far, you've probably noticed that the biggest disagreement weren't really about God at all. They they were about definitions, epistemology, morality, burden of proof, and logic. So before we can answer the question, does God exist? We have to first answer questions like what counts as evidence? What is faith? What is a worldview? What makes an argument valid? Until those foundational issues are clarified, people often end up talking past one another rather than with one another. So I genuinely appreciate everyone who took the time to comment, even those who strongly disagree with me. While I certainly don't agree with many of the conclusions that were reached, I do appreciate the thoughtful engagement. Truth is uh truth has nothing to fear from honest questions, right? And so neither should Christians fear these engagements as well. So if you've commented on the original post and I didn't respond to your specific objection today, it wasn't because I ignored it. Many of the comments raised the same underlying philosophical issues. So my goal was to address those foundational questions rather than simply argue back and forth online. So if I misunderstood your position or you think I've overlooked something important, I genuinely would like to hear from you, right? You can email me anytime at questions at actualanswerspodcast.com. Whether you agree, disagree, have a question, or simply want to continue the conversation, I'd love to hear from you. I can't promise we'll agree, but I can't promise I'll read what you send and I'll give it thoughtful consideration. So if today's episode helped you, think a little more clearly about these issues, would you mind doing me a favor? Share this episode with a friend, especially someone who enjoys discussing big questions about God, truth, and reality, right? If there's anything, if there's something that you're enjoying here, I'd I'd appreciate it if you subscribe, leave a rating, write a review, all the things that help. It really does help people discover the podcast and discover the show a little bit more. So thank you so much for listening to the Actual Answers Podcast. Until next time, keep asking good questions, keep pursuing truth, and remember, the Christian faith has never asked us to stop thinking. It invites us to think more carefully than ever before. God bless, and I'll see you next time. Hey, thanks for spending this time with me on the Actual Answers Podcast. My prayer is that these conversations help you know God more deeply, trust his word more confidently, and engage the world more faithfully. Hey, if this episode was helpful, be sure to subscribe, share it with others, and send in your questions or rebuttals for future episodes at questions at actual answers podcast.com. Until next time, keep asking these questions, keep seeking truth, and remember, Christianity doesn't hear questions, it provides actual answers. I'm Matt Hazelwood, and I'll see you next time.