No Such Thing as Atheism
B. K. Campbell
We are not afraid to declare that there is no such thing as an atheist. For consider, in
order for there to truly be such a thing as an atheist, there would have to be no God,
and man would have to function contrary to the knowledge of His existence.
Our discourse on this matter is not contingent upon a selective definition of the word
atheism- nor is it confined to an individual’s confession of belief. The reason we
claim the non-existence of atheism is because of the testimony of Scripture (Romans
1:18). What the atheist claims to know about the origin of knowledge, about the
meaning of life, about the construction of the world and the existence of man all
contradiction the function and presence of what the atheist does and claims to know.
If Atheism is what it actually claims to be, namely the phenomena of accidental life
and the autonomy of man, then the atheist should be a very different creature from
what he claims himself to be. He is not what he should be (given the animal basis of
his nature) nor is the universe what it should be (assuming the validity of his axiom).
Instead, the atheist is a contradiction; he is antithetical to his own presuppositions.
And not only is the atheist’s system circular (being founded on speculation and
wishful thinking), but it is also an epistemological impossibility. As Christians we do
not deny the circularity of our own position, as all men have their starting points,
what we deny is the futility and suicide of our position. What the Christian claims to
know can actually be deduced from what the Christian assumes. In this respect
atheism is bankrupt. It betrays its most cherished beliefs when it utilizes what it
cannot account for in order to attack what it needs. This violent contradiction can be
seen when the atheist functions more consistently on the basis of Christian
presuppositions then he or she does on the basis of atheistic presuppositions. And
this is precisely why we believe that there is no such thing as an atheist; not only does
scripture teach it, but the atheist always manifests it (Romans 2:14-15).
All atheists must pretend to believe in a creed, and at the same time they must betray
that creed. This is because if what they claim to know were actually true, then there
would be no way that they could logically know it. In an atheist universe knowledge
apart from self- or outside of self- is not possible, and this is because knowledge
founded on the affirmation of existence is futile. Autonomy will never be enough to
warrant universals. And not only this, but we must even question the possibility of the
atheists knowledge of self or existence. If perhaps, the atheist can show how
objective statements, how meaningful statements are possible, from the basis of a
subjective axiom, we are certainly willing to listen. But the task is not logically
possible. No man can bring forth, from his axiom, what is not already contained in his
axiom. We believe this principle holds true, we believe that all men have an axiom
and that not all avowed axioms (or starting points) are the same. Thus, not every
starting point will be broad enough to supply the individual with knowledge.
In the case of those who claim to be without a starting point- or to have an infallible
starting point- we demand the demonstration of what is claimed from the basis of
what is assumed. In the case of those who affirm the Bible to be the Word of God we
find synthesis between the axiom and the proposition. In the case of those who reject
the axiom of Revelation (only to replace it with autonomy) we find this task to be a
logical impossibility. Indeed, even the very concept of logical consistency must be
defined according to the assumptions of one’s worldview. And in this case, the
atheist must demonstrate how logic can be anything more than a construct of the
individual mind.
Again, we retort that there is no such thing as an atheist in the most absolute sense of
the word. We do not claim that there is no such thing as a person who believes that he
or she is an atheist- or that he or she thinks there is no God, but we claim that all such
persons are self-deceived: 1) about their own identity and cognitive reality and 2)
about what they actually know to be true. Such people suppress truth (Romans 1:18);
they do not actually know what they claim to believe (i.e. that there is no God). In this
we can see the impossibility of atheism; for in order for atheism to be true it must be
the case that God does not exist; it must be the case that men have no knowledge of
Him- as opposed to merely believing that He does not exist. But knowledge always
affects action and men void of the knowledge of God should not function as though
there was a God. And yet this is precisely what we find in atheism- the rational and
logical function of persons who claim that the universe is void of objective logic and
reason.
Men who seek to argue against the existence of God must defend the epistemology by
which they seek to argue against God- and they must not only do this in order to
sustain their objections, but they must account for their objections without utilizing
Christian presuppositions. By utilizing Christian assumptions the atheist shows that he
cannot function on the basis of his own assumptions- he shows (indirectly) that the
Christian worldview must be assumed in order to even attack the Christian
worldview. And this is why all atheism must fail- this is why there can be no
authentic atheism, because all men who claim to be atheists smuggle presuppositions,
which ultimately affirm the validity of what they claim to disprove. The man who
argues for the non-existence of air must breath it in order to argue against it. In the
same way, let the atheist refute the existence of the Christian God without assuming
the reality of Christian presuppositions. We argue that no man can do this because all
predication relies on pre-conditions of intelligibility, pre-conditions which must be
assumed in order to even account for intelligibility. It is our contention that these
conditions, that these primitive assumptions, are nothing other than fundamental
Christian presuppositions. How can we be so sure? Because only Christian
presuppositions are consistent with what men claim to know, they are essentially
what all men quietly assume. They alone provide the adequate stability for the
foundation of knowledge. And not only this, but we can actually demonstrate that the
atheist is assuming these principles because he or she cannot know upon the basis of
what they claim to assume. It is only by “hi-jacking” Christian principles of
knowledge that the atheist manages to object to the Christian position of knowledge.
Nor do we say that men must be conscious of underlying Christian assumptions, but
that they must be shown that they are operating according to these assumptions. What
is being assumed (by the atheist) is nothing other than what the Christian affirms. In
the end the atheist can only function upon the basis of what he actually knows and not
on the basis of what he claims to know. And this is why his axiom is in violent
contradiction with his propositions: because inherently he does know God. And as all
men know God, they seek to suppress what they know. Atheist function is contrary to
atheist belief (as though the universe contains meaning, is not atheistic, and as though
they believe in something other than what they claim to assume). We are not aware of
any atheist who claims that he or she is making an “irrational case” against God, we
are only aware of those who appeal to logic and the idea of consistency.
Again, in order to be an atheist one must function as though God did not exist- one
must refuse to assume principles that remain logically impossible if God did not
exist- but there is no man who can logically do this, there is no man who can escape
the a-priory reality of the Christian system, there is no man who can logically deny
scripture without also utilizing the presuppositional tenets of scripture. In the final
analysis it matters very little what men claim their assumptions to be, it matters what
their assumptions truly are. And this cannot be known solely on the basis of
confession (which in most cases amounts to self-deception), but only on the basis of
function. The impossibility of atheism is quickly seen when we examine the axiom of
atheism, which must exist prior to any proposition deduced by atheism. And herein do
we find, that all who claim atheism actually presuppose Christianity.
B. K. Campbell
We are not afraid to declare that there is no such thing as an atheist. For consider, in
order for there to truly be such a thing as an atheist, there would have to be no God,
and man would have to function contrary to the knowledge of His existence.
Our discourse on this matter is not contingent upon a selective definition of the word
atheism- nor is it confined to an individual’s confession of belief. The reason we
claim the non-existence of atheism is because of the testimony of Scripture (Romans
1:18). What the atheist claims to know about the origin of knowledge, about the
meaning of life, about the construction of the world and the existence of man all
contradiction the function and presence of what the atheist does and claims to know.
If Atheism is what it actually claims to be, namely the phenomena of accidental life
and the autonomy of man, then the atheist should be a very different creature from
what he claims himself to be. He is not what he should be (given the animal basis of
his nature) nor is the universe what it should be (assuming the validity of his axiom).
Instead, the atheist is a contradiction; he is antithetical to his own presuppositions.
And not only is the atheist’s system circular (being founded on speculation and
wishful thinking), but it is also an epistemological impossibility. As Christians we do
not deny the circularity of our own position, as all men have their starting points,
what we deny is the futility and suicide of our position. What the Christian claims to
know can actually be deduced from what the Christian assumes. In this respect
atheism is bankrupt. It betrays its most cherished beliefs when it utilizes what it
cannot account for in order to attack what it needs. This violent contradiction can be
seen when the atheist functions more consistently on the basis of Christian
presuppositions then he or she does on the basis of atheistic presuppositions. And
this is precisely why we believe that there is no such thing as an atheist; not only does
scripture teach it, but the atheist always manifests it (Romans 2:14-15).
All atheists must pretend to believe in a creed, and at the same time they must betray
that creed. This is because if what they claim to know were actually true, then there
would be no way that they could logically know it. In an atheist universe knowledge
apart from self- or outside of self- is not possible, and this is because knowledge
founded on the affirmation of existence is futile. Autonomy will never be enough to
warrant universals. And not only this, but we must even question the possibility of the
atheists knowledge of self or existence. If perhaps, the atheist can show how
objective statements, how meaningful statements are possible, from the basis of a
subjective axiom, we are certainly willing to listen. But the task is not logically
possible. No man can bring forth, from his axiom, what is not already contained in his
axiom. We believe this principle holds true, we believe that all men have an axiom
and that not all avowed axioms (or starting points) are the same. Thus, not every
starting point will be broad enough to supply the individual with knowledge.
In the case of those who claim to be without a starting point- or to have an infallible
starting point- we demand the demonstration of what is claimed from the basis of
what is assumed. In the case of those who affirm the Bible to be the Word of God we
find synthesis between the axiom and the proposition. In the case of those who reject
the axiom of Revelation (only to replace it with autonomy) we find this task to be a
logical impossibility. Indeed, even the very concept of logical consistency must be
defined according to the assumptions of one’s worldview. And in this case, the
atheist must demonstrate how logic can be anything more than a construct of the
individual mind.
Again, we retort that there is no such thing as an atheist in the most absolute sense of
the word. We do not claim that there is no such thing as a person who believes that he
or she is an atheist- or that he or she thinks there is no God, but we claim that all such
persons are self-deceived: 1) about their own identity and cognitive reality and 2)
about what they actually know to be true. Such people suppress truth (Romans 1:18);
they do not actually know what they claim to believe (i.e. that there is no God). In this
we can see the impossibility of atheism; for in order for atheism to be true it must be
the case that God does not exist; it must be the case that men have no knowledge of
Him- as opposed to merely believing that He does not exist. But knowledge always
affects action and men void of the knowledge of God should not function as though
there was a God. And yet this is precisely what we find in atheism- the rational and
logical function of persons who claim that the universe is void of objective logic and
reason.
Men who seek to argue against the existence of God must defend the epistemology by
which they seek to argue against God- and they must not only do this in order to
sustain their objections, but they must account for their objections without utilizing
Christian presuppositions. By utilizing Christian assumptions the atheist shows that he
cannot function on the basis of his own assumptions- he shows (indirectly) that the
Christian worldview must be assumed in order to even attack the Christian
worldview. And this is why all atheism must fail- this is why there can be no
authentic atheism, because all men who claim to be atheists smuggle presuppositions,
which ultimately affirm the validity of what they claim to disprove. The man who
argues for the non-existence of air must breath it in order to argue against it. In the
same way, let the atheist refute the existence of the Christian God without assuming
the reality of Christian presuppositions. We argue that no man can do this because all
predication relies on pre-conditions of intelligibility, pre-conditions which must be
assumed in order to even account for intelligibility. It is our contention that these
conditions, that these primitive assumptions, are nothing other than fundamental
Christian presuppositions. How can we be so sure? Because only Christian
presuppositions are consistent with what men claim to know, they are essentially
what all men quietly assume. They alone provide the adequate stability for the
foundation of knowledge. And not only this, but we can actually demonstrate that the
atheist is assuming these principles because he or she cannot know upon the basis of
what they claim to assume. It is only by “hi-jacking” Christian principles of
knowledge that the atheist manages to object to the Christian position of knowledge.
Nor do we say that men must be conscious of underlying Christian assumptions, but
that they must be shown that they are operating according to these assumptions. What
is being assumed (by the atheist) is nothing other than what the Christian affirms. In
the end the atheist can only function upon the basis of what he actually knows and not
on the basis of what he claims to know. And this is why his axiom is in violent
contradiction with his propositions: because inherently he does know God. And as all
men know God, they seek to suppress what they know. Atheist function is contrary to
atheist belief (as though the universe contains meaning, is not atheistic, and as though
they believe in something other than what they claim to assume). We are not aware of
any atheist who claims that he or she is making an “irrational case” against God, we
are only aware of those who appeal to logic and the idea of consistency.
Again, in order to be an atheist one must function as though God did not exist- one
must refuse to assume principles that remain logically impossible if God did not
exist- but there is no man who can logically do this, there is no man who can escape
the a-priory reality of the Christian system, there is no man who can logically deny
scripture without also utilizing the presuppositional tenets of scripture. In the final
analysis it matters very little what men claim their assumptions to be, it matters what
their assumptions truly are. And this cannot be known solely on the basis of
confession (which in most cases amounts to self-deception), but only on the basis of
function. The impossibility of atheism is quickly seen when we examine the axiom of
atheism, which must exist prior to any proposition deduced by atheism. And herein do
we find, that all who claim atheism actually presuppose Christianity.
