A Critique of Pure Atheism

Andrew Likoudis questions the basis of some popular atheist arguments.

- Andrew Likoudis

Proving or disproving the existence of God is predominantly a matter for reason, rather than for scientific enquiry. What are needed are deductive arguments that try to explain God, and, through logical inference, his relation to the world.

It would be an error to limit truth-seeking to empiricism (science) alone. Modern atheism, whenever it insists upon using empiricism as an all-purpose tool for knowledge, does so in pursuit of the exact issue that transcends empiricism, since God is outside the universe, not in it. That is to say, God's intelligence is reflected in his creation, but is not always perceived, or able to be used as verifiable evidence. And what has been said by many theologians also needs to be fully grasped: that God is completely distinct from anything we could try to use to classify him. Indeed, Aquinas describes God in Latin as totalliter aliter - 'totally other' - and therefore outside of our capacity to fully grasp.

It's true that human limitations make it difficult to prove, or understand, higher truths. Fortunately, it's possible at least to begin to describe aspects of God that are comprehensible through human faculties. For instance, God is a pure perfect intelligence - almost by definition as 'the personal creator'. If he were only sub-optimally intelligent, then he would not be infinite, and so not God, at least in the traditional monotheistic sense.