Doctrine is loosely defined as belief in something. Thus, it can be argued that atheism is a doctrine. Socrates was the man who popularized this doctrine. However, a careful examination of Socrates’ point of view will lead to the conclusion that he was not talking about atheism. He was talking about philosophical position against religion. Atheists attempted to prove the non-existence of God by destroying the claims of religion, and this strategy failed. The proponent of this study cannot support the doctrine of atheism, because the idea of the non-existence of God is difficult to defend.
Emergence and Promulgation of the Doctrine
If ancient philosophers and intellectuals discussed atheism, it was not in the form that is recognizable to 20th century or 21st century thinkers. Ancient ideas about atheism can be described as an attempt to experience liberal thinking. This assertion is supported by intellectuals like Jan Bremmer; he argued that in Greek and Roman antiquity atheism failed to develop into a popular ideology with a recognizable following (Hyman 39).
It is easy to understand the reason for the failure of atheism by taking a look on the root before the Age of Reason. If there were real atheists during that time period, they would not have the mechanism to refute the authority of the religious leaders. They had no weapon to challenge the belief system that explains the foundation for a stable and well-organized physical world.
The turning point came during the Renaissance period when radical developments in knowledge acquisition brought rational methods in understanding the known world and the physical Universe. Men like Galileo Galilee discovered that stars are heavenly bodies with predictable movement patterns. This type of discoveries removed the veil of mystery from unexplainable events.
In this particular time period, scientists discovered laws of nature. One of the most important discoveries was the core principles that comprised the scientific method. As a result, scientists and intellectuals realized that there was a way to validate the claims made by individuals.
One of the groundbreaking experiments that exemplified the significance of the scientific method was the one that debunked the theory of spontaneous generation. Ancient and medieval philosophers believed that simple organisms like microbes and maggots came from non-living matter. They observed dead animals break down into simple matter through the action of maggots. In their minds maggots came from nowhere and so they theorized that maggots were the byproducts of spontaneous generation (Schaechter 81).
A scientist named Francesco Redi carried out an experiment in 1668 that provided a clear link between flies and maggots. In his research design some of the glass jars containing rotten meat were accessible to flies. The other set of jars with rotten meat was not accessible to flies. It was discovered later that the flies laid their eggs in the rotten meat. When Redi debunked the spontaneous generation theory, philosophers realized that there was a scientific explanation for the existence of life on earth.
Scientific discoveries and political upheavals shaped atheistic thought in the modern age. Atheism, in its modern formulation, is a claim that there is a way to prove the non-existence of God (Hyman 15). However, the original framework was not as sophisticated as this one. The atheists that first emerged in the late 17th century were the so-called “heretics” of churches; they did not conform to the teachings of the church. It can be argued that atheism as a doctrine is a modern invention, a byproduct of a need to demonstrate intellectual capabilities and the need to rebel against the status quo.
Early in the discussion, the doctrine of atheism is on shaky ground. Supporters of the theory are unable to prove that ancient philosophers supported their arguments in favor of atheism. They love to quote Plato’s words, on statements made that his mentor Socrates argued in favor of atheism. However, a closer examination of the context of the Socratic statements and Plato’s reconstruction of the event will reveal that there was no denial of the existence of God. Socrates and Plato did not provide the foundation for a new doctrine called atheism. They were merely voicing out their displeasure against the religion of ancient Greece (Bullivant and Ruse 140).
Some of the adherents of atheism will attempt to strengthen the defense of the doctrine by stating that one of the earliest philosophers of ancient Greece was accused of atheism. Anaxagoras was brought to trial because he did not believe in the divinity of the sun. Anaxagoras said that the Sun God did not exist, because in his opinion the sun was nothing but a “red hot stone” (Bullivant and Ruse 140). Just like Socrates and Plato who came after him, Anaxagoras was not questioning the existence of God; he was questioning the religion of his day. An analysis of his teachings revealed that he believed in a cosmic intelligence that created the world (Bullivant and Rose 140).
Without a doubt, atheism at its core is nothing more than a doctrine of anti-religion (Karkkainen 138). If atheism was based on the teachings of ancient Greek philosophers, it can be argued that the final goal was to eradicate religion. Therefore, atheism was created to develop a weapon that will destroy the oppressive stranglehold of religion. As a result, there are at least three reasons for its promulgation: 1) to free the world from the shackles created by religious authorities; 2) to establish a society characterized by intellectual freedom; 3) to promote science over religion.
Objections to the Validity of the Doctrine
Insights gleaned from analyzing the reasons for its promulgation and core message will reveal that atheism’s validity depended on how its adherents discredit religion. There is a good reason why ancient philosophers and medieval thinkers were unable to formulate a coherent intellectual framework in favor of atheism. It was difficult or impossible for them to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. Thus, their criticism as far as theology was concern centered on the weakness of man-made religion.
The argument against the existence of God became more sophisticated during the Age of Reason, because atheists were able to use the scientific method to examine the claim of God’s existence. Just like the experiments conducted by Redi and other notable minds of the Renaissance period, atheists demanded evidence to demonstrate the existence of God. In other words, they wanted to manipulate God like a dependent or independent variable. They wanted to fit God into jars in the same way that Redi placed rotten meat into see-through containers to attract flies. They wanted to see visual elements to confirm God’s presence.
Expounding the Doctrine
Atheists point to the absurd claims of religious leaders and sacred scriptures to prove the non-existence of God. For example, ancient Greece worshipped the Sun God, however, science validated Anaxagoras’ claim that the sun possessed no divine qualities. Atheists had an easy day in the office when they dismantled the arguments of Hinduism and other forms of Eastern religions. Modern day atheism will find it an easy task to dismantle these types of religion. However, they met their match when it comes to Christianity.
Christianity is far more sophisticated and well-developed compared to other Eastern or tribal religions of the ancient world. Christianity does not make absurd claims like the religions found in ancient Greece. For example, it does not say that a giant named Atlas is the reason for tremors and earthquakes. It does not say that people should worship bulls, lions, and crocodiles like ancient Egyptians were prone to do. On the contrary Christianity’s sacred scriptures offer great insights into the mind of an intelligent and powerful God that created the world in accordance to scientific laws. For example, the Bible says that God hanged the earth on nothing (Brownlee 21).
Archaeological and historical artifacts support the claim that this statement existed more than a thousand years before the birth of the great explorer named Magellan. It was only in 1521 when the Western world fully recognized the fact that the earth was not flat. It took a few more centuries in order for scientists to verify the fact that the earth is indeed suspended in space.
Atheism attempts to use science to discredit the foundation of Christianity, which is the purported “Word of God” or the Bible (Roth 12). Atheists made the argument that the Bible made a scientific blunder when it declares that God created the first man and woman. Atheists argued that the first human being evolved from simple organisms, and in one giant leap of evolution monkeys became humans. They are pleased with this argument; however, evolution remains a theory (McGrath 33).
It is important to shoot down Christianity’s claim that it is a religion that comes from God. In order to do this, atheists had to examine Christianity’s impact when it comes to the social aspect of human life. It is interesting to note that atheists had to go back almost one thousand years to the period of the Crusades to discredit Christianity. Atheism’s argument to the fallacy and failure of Christianity must come from contemporary issues and current events. However, they will find that Christianity in the modern world is a force of good.
Finally, they will present the history of the Roman Catholic Church in its attempt to block human development, especially when it comes to scientific pursuits and other intellectual endeavors. They will try to prove that Roman Catholics made life difficult for scientists. They will also try to show the negative impact of religion in the lives of people around the world. They will show the impact of religious extremism in Taliban-controlled areas in the Middle East, and the stranglehold of less sophisticated religions in countries like Pakistan, India, and Nepal.
Agreement and Disagreement with the Doctrine
It is impossible to agree with the doctrine of atheism because its adherent failed to show proof of the non-existence of God. It must be pointed out that this proposition was doomed from the very beginning. This assertion is supported by historical evidence that shows zero support from ancient and medieval philosophers. A doctrine of substance must garner the support of intellectual giants like Socrates, Plato, and Anaxagoras.
However, these men did not even consider the ramifications of the non-existence of God. The best that they could offer to the atheist was their arguments on the inherent weakness of man-made religions. Failure to find support from intellectual giants of the past weakened their position. Moreover, their insistence will reveal their arrogance, because it is tantamount to the claim that they are greater than the collective wisdom of the ancients.
They can make the counter-argument that ancient philosophers did not have access to the scientific method. However, this is not a valid excuse. There is a good reason why the contemporary world honors the sheer genius of ancient philosophers and mathematicians. They were able to develop sophisticated theorems and propositions even without the aid of modern scientific tools. In other words, a doctrine based on truth must be self-evident for men like Pythagoras and Democritus (Peters 96). However, a literature review revealed that the concept of atheism was conceived in the modern age (Converse 148).
Since atheism was created in the modern age, it is therefore a critique against religion. Atheists have their backs against the wall, so to speak, because there is no intellectual framework that supports their main theory. An honest opinion from them will reveal that they cannot say with absolute certainty that God does not exist (Dawkins 137). Atheists had to acquire the ability of omniscience and travel to the farthest corner of the universe to claim with absolute certainty that there is no God (Roth 11). Thus, the atheist had to settle for the next best thing, and that is to destroy the importance and significance of religion.
Atheism failed to annihilate God’s existence using the scientific method, because there is no conflict between God and science (Roth 23). For example, Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection is not a valid argument to prove the non-existence of God. First of all, this theory has many loopholes. In the present time there is no evidence to show that organisms are able to evolve into powerful mutants. On the contrary the evidence shows extinction, because species are dying due to their inability to adapt to a changing world.
Secondly, the theory is not consistent with natural laws (McGrath 33). For example, molds and fungi are efficient organisms. The Theory of Natural Selection is based on survival; therefore, it makes no sense for organisms to evolve into human beings that are not efficient when it comes to the use of natural resources.
The scientific method failed to discredit God’s existence. On the contrary, the scientific method bolstered the claim that a powerful and intelligent being created the physical world. God’s existence is the only plausible explanation to the presence of complex and highly-organized organisms. God’s existence explains the presence of a stable cosmos.
Conclusion
Atheism failed to prove the non-existence of God. The methods they employed were limited only to the religious aspects of divinity. In other words, God is not constrained by man-made religions. The non-existence of God is impossible to prove, because atheists needed to become like God in order to make this claim. It is the height of intellectual arrogance to claim with one hundred percent certainty that there is a way to prove the non-existence of God.
This assertion is supported by historical evidence that atheism is a modern invention. Ancient philosophers did not develop a doctrine of unbelief, they simply voiced out their opinions against the inherent flaws of man-made religions. Science did not invalidate the claim of God’s existence. On the contrary it enabled people to see indirect evidence that a powerful and intelligent being created the physical world.
Works Cited
Brownlee, Edward. The Never Ending Story Bible. Indianapolis: Xulon Press, 2008. Print.
Bullivant, Stephen and Michael Ruse. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Converse, Raymond. Atheism as a Positive Social Force. New York: Algora Publishing, 2003. Print.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 2010. Print.
Karkkainen, Veli. The Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004. Print.
Hyman, Gavin. A Short History of Atheism. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010. Print.
McGrath, Alister. Science & Religion: An Introduction. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print.
Peters, James. The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the Rationality of Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009. Print.
Roth, Ariel. Science Discovers God. Hagerstown, Maryland: Autumn House Publishing, 2008. Print.
Schaechter, Moselio. Encyclopedia of Microbiology. New York: Elsevier, 2009. Print.