Atheists Argue in a Circle

Often you will hear from atheists the claim that "Christians argue in a circle". The fact of the matter is that the atheist are masters of arguing in a circle. Here is an example:

Christian: "Why do you believe in man coming from natural evolution rather than special creation by a divine Creator?"

Atheist: "Well it's obvious. All the scientific evidence points to evolution."

Christian: "Which scientific evidence specifically?"

Atheist: "Well, the fossil evidence, for one thing."

Christian: "Did you personally examine this geologic column with all its fossils or did you just read about it or hear about it from someone else?"

Atheist: "I learned it in College."

Christian: "So are you just taking the word of your professors and the people who wrote the books?"

Atheist: "Well, yes, but they are the experts."

Christian: "Other than blind faith in the text books and the professors, do you have any other reason for believing them?"

Atheist: duh!

Now, what we have here is the difference between a Christian and an atheist is the solidity of the testimony each is willing to "believe". I believe that the TESTIMONY of the Bible is solid reason for believing that God has actually communicated with man and given His revelation to man (John 20:30-31; Eph.3:3-5). I study the testimony itself and reach this conclusion. My "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom.10:17). It is in the examination of the evidence presented that I reach the conclusion that this body of testimony cannot be the product of human wisdom alone. The nature of the testimony is such that I cannot reasonably believe that human wisdom alone can account for the Bible. Now, on the other hand, the atheist is relying on what some men tell him is scientific evidence as THEY have interpreted it using the Philosophy of Naturalism (which they did not scientifically prove to be correct to start with). They begin with a premise that was not itself proven true. BELIEF that the physical and natural realm is all there is, is MERELY an unproven and unprovable FAITH. It is mere BLIND faith.

The circular logic of the naturalist is this: 1) I believe in men who have interpreted the universe naturally. 2) Physical and observable things are all I can see, and I refuse to believe in some things I can't see, 3) I believe the universe happened naturally by means of the physical things observable within itself. 4) Therefore, none of the testimony of a so-called God can be true.

As you can see, none of the four points are anything more than a choice of blind faith by the atheist. Let's ask regarding the circular logic of the four points:

1) Why should anyone just throw their brains aside and just believe in men who have decided to interpret the universe naturally, ignoring all the years of testimony of men who have experienced encounters with a Creator and preserved their testimony? Are those men (the philosophers of naturalism) really smarter than all those who have testified before of having revelation and communication from the Creator? Why should we accept the naturalist's faith or philosophy when he cannot prove it is true?

2) Why should I believe in some things I cannot see while arbitrarily refusing to believe the testimony from those who exemplify knowledge of another thing I do not see? If God has revealed Himself to others and left strong testimony through them, on what basis do I arbitrarily choose to ignore and deny it?

3) Why do you merely believe, without good evidence, that the universe, life, and intelligence just happened naturally? Does this happen all the time, or did it just luckily happen only one time? How is this faith of yours anything other than just blind faith? Can you prove, or do you know anyone who can prove that the universe, life, and intelligence just happened naturally? If you cannot prove it, then you are still simply arguing in a circle, while hypocritically accusing Christians of arguing in a circle.

4) In other words, "none of the testimony of God can be true" because you SAY it is not true, and you say it is not true because you have blind faith that it is not true. Why do you believe your faith is true? Because you WANT to. Round and round the atheist goes with his own circular logic.

Now, in this article I have sought only to show that when atheists ridicule Christians for arguing in a circle, they are being a bit hypocritical. I can confidently say that I don't believe in God merely because the Bible says it is God's word, and then argue in a circle that I believe in the Bible because it says it is God's word and I believe in God cause the Bible says He exists. I believe the Bible because it claims it is God's word AND proves it is God's word by demonstration of wisdom higher than mere man can produce. The mere claim without the proof is insufficient. So, it is not merely the claim, but the claim WITH the proof inherent within the presented testimony that has forced my belief and the belief of millions of others through the years. The evidence is seen in the whole unified theme of the collection, the prophetic insight it displays, which is a wisdom higher than mere humans could reasonably produce by human wisdom alone. I look at the features of historical, geographical, and archeological accuracy, and listen to the complete TESTIMONY it gives. Weighing the evidence it presents is what forces the conviction that it is true. The evidence it presents to my own sense of fairness and honesty FORCES me to believe that it's claim and proof are too strong for me to reasonably deny. Therefore, I believe.

The atheist cannot overcome that testimony with good reasons for me to doubt it. The atheist has his own issues that make me believe that he is himself arguing in a circle that does not have good reasons for me to accept his circle of reasons and give me reason to think that my position is merely circular and unreasonable. I've tested my own views as well as his, and am satisfied that my reasons for believing in God are far greater than his reasons for not believing the testimony, and far greater than his reasons for believing the Philosophy of Naturalism as a valid philosophy. Yes, one of us is arguing in a circle, but it is not the Christian who knows the testimony presented in the Bible. Truly, it is the atheist who does not know, nor wants to know, the evidence of the biblical Testimony, and he does not want to know because he chooses to argue in his own circle. He does not want to come to the light lest his deeds be exposed (John 3:17-21).

By -Terry W. Benton 5/25/2011

Return to the General Articles page

Home / Bible studies / Bible Survey / Special Studies / General Articles / Non-Bible Articles / Sermons / Sermon Outlines / Links / Questions and Answers / What Saith The Scriptures /Daily Devotional / Correspondence Courses / What is the Church of Christ / Book: Christian Growth / Website Policy / E-mail / About Me /