Debates, when handled civilly, are a wonderful thing. It’s important for individuals with opposing viewpoints to bounce ideas off of each other, to understand why other people think differently from them, and to take an opportunity to examine their own beliefs and what might be the strengths and weaknesses of their position. Indeed, the main reason I started this blog was to encourage open dialogue with people who disagree with my Christian worldview, provided that dialogue is respectful, and I don’t feel personally attacked by the individual making their point.

However, there is a right and a wrong way to debate someone. Not strictly by avoiding personal attacks, although of course that’s important. Another wrong way is to frame the argument in a way that makes your position seem like something it isn’t, and I see that too often in atheist vs theist debates.

I’ve mentioned before in my post Addressing Three Common Atheist Arguments that the most popular objection to the existence of God is simply, “there’s no evidence.” The people who use this talking point the most are often very critical in their views of theism, alleging it to be pure myth, calling it a “delusion” (in Richard Dawkins case), and asserting that they, the atheists, are on the side of science whereas the theist is arguing philosophically.

So, let’s unpack this a little. First, I want to define terms. What is atheism? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines atheism as a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. If you don’t believe in a God (or a god) you’re an atheist, as opposed to a theist, who does believe. That’s all. Pretty straightforward, right?

Now I want to point out something that often happens in these atheist vs theist debates. When debating the theistic position, the atheist will often go on to not only decry God as a myth, but also belief in angels, demons, the afterlife, spirits, or anything having to do with the supernatural. They will argue that there is zero evidence not only for God, but for anything metaphysical, and that we can only be sure that what we see in nature is real. If you look up any debate between, say, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris and any Christian apologist, you’ll likely hear something along these lines. Hitchens, for instance, once compared belief in the afterlife to belief in a “theme park” in a debate with William Lane Craig. (around the 2:07:35 mark)

But here’s the catch: these statements go well beyond atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god – it doesn’t preclude someone from believing in the afterlife or anything spiritual. For example, Buddhist teachings regarding spirits and the afterlife are deeply supernatural, but because there’s no belief in a creator god, you can be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time!

What you cannot be, however, is a philosophical naturalist. What is naturalism? That’s a very good question, I’m so glad you asked. Merriam-Webster defines philosophical naturalism as “the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena.” Naturalism asserts that there is nothing beyond the physical realm, that even that which could reasonably be attributed to supernatural phenomena (like seemingly impossible answered prayers) will always have a scientific explanation.

And this brings me to the question I want to answer in this post. What is the crucial point missing in most atheist vs theist debates? Simply put, it’s an acknowledgement that both sides are appealing to philosophical presuppositions when they try to argue their case. The atheist will often argue that their side is a purely scientific one, but what many Western atheists refer to as atheism is more closely aligned with naturalism, a philosophical mindset. Indeed, the whole idea that a more “scientific” worldview is the superior, correct one is itself a philosophical claim!

Conclusion

I’m not trying to argue for Christianity or even against atheism in this post. My goal in writing this is not to convince you, if you are an atheist, to abandon your position. My goal is simply to encourage fairness and intellectual integrity in these debates, as I believe it’s important to be as charitable as possible to the other side when arguing your position.

Science is beautiful. It helps us learn more about the world and has allowed us to make countless technological and medical advancements thanks to the brilliant minds that came before us (many of whom, I should point out, were themselves theists!). But science only tells us how the world works – it doesn’t tell us where it came from, or whether there’s anything beyond nature. When you try to answer that question, whether you affirm or deny it, you step outside of science and into philosophy.