A Problem for Atheists and Agnostics

Greg Bahnsen, in discussions of epistemology, would often refer to his well-known "apple sorting machine" analogy. The analogy was between epistemology (how we know what we know) and the construction of a hypothetical machine designed to sort apples. It is very common to hear people claim that they do not have beliefs, or a worldview, but simply use method 'x' to sort out the facts and then come to conclusions. In Bahnsen's analogy, people's "neutral" epistemological methods would be compared to the apple sorting machine. Bahnsen would point out that in order to construct an apple sorting machine, one would first have to know something of what a good and bad apple consisted of, and then they would have to know how to tell them apart. Then the apple sorting machine could be designed. In the same way, in order for anyone to know true facts from false facts, they first have to know some general truths about what constitutes truth and a true fact. One would also need to know how to discern true facts from false facts. Then an epistemological methodology can be constructed to sort them. We have to know something general about what we know, before we can know how we know. We need an ontology (understanding of existence) before we can have an epistemology (an understanding of how/what particulars we can know about existence). The point being, that when people say they just use method "x" to know truth, they are not being honest. A worldview, which was ascertained by some means other than method "x," had to be in place first. This is an insightful analogy and it has many implications for discussions in apologetics. When it comes to method "x" as being the scientific method, Christians have been quick to point out that biblical presuppositions provide the worldview through which science is justified and the universe rendered intelligible. However I think this illustrates a much broader point, namely a problem that atheists and agnostics have in even speaking to the realm of theology. What do I mean?

Well, it isn't uncommon to hear self-identified atheists and agnostics make broad statements about the whole field of theology such as:

"If there was a God he would be *blank* and therefore we couldn't even know for certain"

or,

"If God existed the world would be like *this*, and it isn't, therefore there is no God."

But given their worldview, how can they know this? These are not naturalistic arguments, coming from a naturalistic worldview, they are actually theological arguments (and poor ones at that!). The problem here for the atheist/agnostic is one of epistemology. When they argue against theological knowledge, or the existence of God, they themselves are using theological arguments, or claiming to know about something they say is an impossibility. In other words, keeping in mind that ontology (knowledge of existence) precedes epistemology (how/what we can know); how can atheists/agnostics make knowledge claims, like those given above, about something that doesn't exist? They must either concede that they do have some knowledge of God, or the things of God, or they must admit that they simply can't say anything meaningful about a subject that "doesn't exist."

Some atheists are consistent here and will not make these kind of arguments. They will simply stick to their naturalistic presuppositions and try to argue that there is "no evidence" for a supernatural realm. However, it is not uncommon to hear atheists or agnostics go on the offensive by attacking the character of God, or by using the kind of sound bites listed above. If that is the case, the above criticism is valid.