Thought on the Blind Faith of Atheism, not Christianity

One of the most interesting things that you experience as a Christian is being routinely told by atheists and atheistic-naturalists that you have nothing but ‘blind and un-evidenced and unjustified faith’ as the basis of your beliefs, and the reason that this is so interesting is because it is the opposite of the truth, for it is actually the atheistic-naturalist who holds such blind faith, not the Christian; indeed, for consider that while the Christian may have an ‘unknown but justified faith’ where he (the Christian) might not know how God, say, created life or consciousness, he (the Christian) is justified in believing that God could do so given His omnipotence, and yet the atheistic-naturalist, by contrast, has an utterly blind and unjustified faith for not only does the atheistic-naturalist not know how, on his worldview, life came from non-life, or rationality from irrationality, or consciousness from unconsciousness, the atheistic-naturalist does not even know if they could arise on naturalism for he has no idea if natural forces have the causal power to make these things come about, and thus the naturalist, on nothing more than blind faith, simply “believes” that they can come about (and note that the examples of what the naturalist believes on blind faith can be multiplied to include much more than the above) and so the while the Christian may not understand ‘how’ something came about he knows that it could do so on Christian theism, but the naturalist does not even know this, and it is for that reason that, at least in these domains, the Christian is more rational in his belief than the ‘blind-faith atheistic-naturalist’.


2 thoughts on “Thought on the Blind Faith of Atheism, not Christianity

  1. “justified in believing that God could do so given His omnipotence”
    This is not knowledge. Everyone “knows” this: given omnipotence, God could have created all life. But you don’t know anything about God or omnipotence, nor the creation of life. The sentence leaves you completely uninformed on every concept that it mentions. It is not knowledge.

    Atheists, on the other hand, do not have to believe that rational minds can come from nonrational* material. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of cranes of explanation. But atheists don’t require that, at all. It’s poor reasoning to assert what it is other atheists know or believe or can reason without actually doing the reading yourself. If I said “One cannot get from the Bible to a peaceful society, because it is filled with racism, sexism, slavery, and war” you would soon know I am unread on theology, apologetics, history, philosophy and the actual words of actual Christians. It is for pretty much the same reason I can assert, with very high confidence, that you have no read a lot of scientific or secular philosophy literature.

    *anyone who uses irrational as the negation of rational has not trained in philosophy, nor have they read up on philosophy. So, not only have they not been schooled, they have not school themselves either. Neither do you have to, but it is entertaining to notice an internet blogger be so confident about an issue they haven’t researched.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s