#ontologicalargument

The Psychology of Atheism & Agnosticism

By Author Eli Kittim

Atheism is the position that there’s no God. According to Bart Ehrman, a renowned Bible scholar, atheism is a *belief system.* It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence or empirical knowledge. It’s as much a belief as Theism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. According to the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnostic in 1869:

It simply means that a man shall not say he

knows or believes that which he has no

scientific grounds for professing to know or

believe.

In other words, whereas explicit atheism refers to “the absence of theistic belief,” agnosticism refers to an *absence* of knowledge. In the former case, an individual refuses to believe in the existence of God. In the latter, the person doesn’t know whether or not God exists. In either case, the person refuses to acknowledge or accept the existence of God, let alone God’s revelation (aka the Bible).

The common thread among atheists and agnostics is their *continual denial* of any evidence for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological or ontological arguments). I’m particularly interested in the psychological *causes* (rather than the philosophical arguments) of militant atheism, which denote a defiant and persistent rejection of God. To present a valid argument against God’s existence is one thing. But the need to reject God’s existence at all costs is quite another. So, what is the prime motivating factor underlying this psychological repudiation?

Answer: 2 Corinthians 4.4 (NLT):

Satan, who is the god of this world, has

blinded the minds of those who don’t

believe. They are unable to see the glorious

light of the Good News. They don’t

understand this message about the glory of

Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

Could there be two Gods? Or could there be two maximally great beings? Read more to know the answer...

Do religions have it Right? Is there or is there not a God? What does that even mean?

This is an example of what's called an Ontological Argument, or an argument about the existence of God. This is a very big questions for philosophers, as it is tied for our innate desire to understand and know if there is, or isn't, meaning to our existence.

Many people will profess that, to believe in a “God” is a weak way of coping; that God is the easiest answer to accept when you question our reality. Believing in it gives one hope, or faith in what they're doing; it can let someone accept their negative actions or not accept them and puts responsibility for all the bad things in life because God has a plan for you. The biggest issue with this is that you accept an answer that has no evidential value to it, giving rise to the possibility of you accepting other things without evidence. As i stated, it can also take your action and consequences and pass it to another, which is negative because it stops you from growing and evolving through trial and error. “If everything has a reason and God has a plan, then it doesn't matter what i do because whatever it is God wants me to do it.”

When thinking of the existence of God, you’re often faced the argument from design which simply states that the Universe evidences great complexity or design, thus it must have been designed by a great Designer or God: with the idea of the Watch comes the Watchmaker.

When faced with this question, not many can be objective about it because often times we are faced with others who believe they found an answer but with no evidence to support it. So it's normal to look down on others and rebel against the ideas they present, but in doing so you attach the idea to yourself with the negative association you have with that person.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”