[Note: One of the frequent contributors to the comments section at Debunking Christianity (where this post was originally published) is named Don Camp. That information is necessary in order to understand the wordplay in it.]
There are quite a few believers out there who argue that the existence of a Creator is obvious to all, and that the only reason atheists deny this is because they don’t want to submit to his authority. For those in this theistic camp — those who, as one might say, don this particular religious attire — God is evident from the world he created. As Romans 1:20 puts it, “his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” Furthermore, this supposedly explains why belief in some god or other is found in every human society.
Atheists, however, reject the Creator because they don’t want there to be divine judgement; they want the freedom to do as they please. Thus, they cannot accept the idea of a higher power with moral demands on them.
It is a simple explanation, one designed to convince believers that they shouldn’t bother listening to the arguments of atheists — for the arguments are merely a cover for the real reason atheists reject God: their disobedience.
But now, let’s suppose that the two premises of the argument are true — that the existence of a creator is evident from the world around us, and that some of us don’t want to obey a higher authority. Why would anyone in that case argue that there is no creator? If his existence is obvious, after all, then it is also obvious that belief in a creator who makes no moral demands on us — like the god of deism — is a much better alternative than atheism.
There are deists, and there are members of different religions who believe in gods, yet do not submit to the moral demands of the Christian deity. Why, then, would anyone be an atheist if the evidence for a creator is as obvious as this argument claims it is?
There are quite a few believers out there who argue that the existence of a Creator is obvious to all, and that the only reason atheists deny this is because they don’t want to submit to his authority. For those in this theistic camp — those who, as one might say, don this particular religious attire — God is evident from the world he created. As Romans 1:20 puts it, “his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” Furthermore, this supposedly explains why belief in some god or other is found in every human society.
Atheists, however, reject the Creator because they don’t want there to be divine judgement; they want the freedom to do as they please. Thus, they cannot accept the idea of a higher power with moral demands on them.
It is a simple explanation, one designed to convince believers that they shouldn’t bother listening to the arguments of atheists — for the arguments are merely a cover for the real reason atheists reject God: their disobedience.
But now, let’s suppose that the two premises of the argument are true — that the existence of a creator is evident from the world around us, and that some of us don’t want to obey a higher authority. Why would anyone in that case argue that there is no creator? If his existence is obvious, after all, then it is also obvious that belief in a creator who makes no moral demands on us — like the god of deism — is a much better alternative than atheism.
There are deists, and there are members of different religions who believe in gods, yet do not submit to the moral demands of the Christian deity. Why, then, would anyone be an atheist if the evidence for a creator is as obvious as this argument claims it is?
RSS Feed