Search Results

There is an Indian tale about five blind men and an elephant. These men were all asked to describe what an elephant was like. So each man touched a different part of the elephant and assumed that the whole elephant was like the part they encountered. The one who touched the side of the elephant proclaimed that an elephant was like a wall. The one who touched the tail said that an elephant was like a rope. The one that touched a leg said that the other two men were crazy and that an elephant was actually like the trunk of a tree. The one that touched an ear was shocked and he loudly protested that an elephant was like a banana leaf. And the fifth man, who touched the tusks, insisted that an elephant was like swords. Many people insist that the religions of the world are like the blind men touching the elephant. The religions give different answers about the nature of God and insist that everyone else is wrong. But perhaps, suggest some people, God is like the elephant and the religions of the world all have just part of the truth. This view is often known as “religious pluralism” and although it is appealing, there is a significant criticism that can be made of it. That is, the pluralist assumes he is not blind but all the religions of the world are blind. How can the pluralist be so sure that he is not blind? How does the pluralist know that his view is correct? The story of the blind men could be modified so that five blind men touch five very different animals and then conclude that an elephant is like those animals. Or what if only one of the men touches an elephant while the rest touch something else? To just proclaim that all the religions of the world have part of the truth, doesn’t necessarily make it so. Perhaps its the religious pluralist that is blind. Learn More Short Blog: World's Religions Contradict Each Other in Their Core Beliefs Video (below): All the World's Religions Cannot Be True - Neutrality is Impossible

Is abortion wrong? Does a woman have the "right to choose”? Abortion is wrong because it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being. And a human fetus is an innocent human being with only four things that differentiate it from other humans. The four factors can be represented with an acronym: SLED = Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. But none of these four factors justifies murdering another human being. Consider the following. Does the size of a person make them more or less worthy of life? If that were the case, then basketball players would be more worthy of life than other people. Does someone’s level of development make a difference? If that were true, it should be more acceptable to kill prepubescent teenagers than fully grown adults. Does a person's environment make a difference? Is it acceptable to murder an astronaut because he or she is in outer space rather than on earth? Obviously not. What about dependency? Does someone like the late Stephen Hawking deserve life less than others? All of the factors in the acronym “SLED” make no appreciable difference to whether someone deserves to live or die. The Life Training Institute, led by Scott Klusendorf, makes this point in the following passage. In the past, we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender, but now, with elective abortion, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. We’ve simply exchanged one form of bigotry for another… no human being, regardless of size, level of development, race, gender, or place of residence, should be excluded from the moral community of human persons. In other words, the pro-life view of humanity is inclusive, indeed wide open, to all, especially those that are small, vulnerable and defenseless. Learn More Short Blog: Killing Newborn Infants Permissible? External Book: The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture Reference “What Makes Humans Valuable? The Philosophical Case,” Life Training Institute, July 12, 2018, https://prolifetraining.com/making-case/human-value/.

How do our sources about the life of Jesus compare to our sources about other ancient figures? Michael Licona (Ph.D. in New Testament Studies from the University of Pretoria) explains that the evidence for Jesus is quite good. Other prominent figures in the ancient world, such as Caesar Augustus, aren't even as good as what we have for Jesus. Caesar Augustus is regarded as Rome’s greatest emperor and was ruling the empire when Jesus was born. Historians rely on six chief sources to learn about Augustus’s adulthood: a funerary inscription that is nearly 4,000 words in length, Plutarch who wrote around 90 years after Augustus’s death, and four others writing 100-200 years after his death. When we consider that this is what we have for the greatest Roman emperor, four biographies of Jesus written within 35-65 years of His death is pretty good! Learn More Short Blog: Bias in “Historical Jesus” Research and Lack of Consensus Reference Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, eds., Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics (Nashville, Tenn: B & H Academic, 2012), 143.

“Yeah, but you haven’t proven that the Christian God exists!” When skeptics encounter philosophical arguments for the existence of God, they sometimes try to counter them by saying that the arguments, at best, only establish the existence of some type of transcendent being. But, they continue, this being is not necessarily the Christian God. For example, Richard Dawkins writes, …there is absolutely no reason to endow that [being] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes such as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. In a sense, Dawkins is absolutely right. No philosophical argument(s) for the existence of God can establish all the different properties normally ascribed to God. However, the arguments, when properly presented, are not intended to establish every property. What they do form is a cumulative case for a being that is similar to the Christian God. For example, the moral argument can establish a being of moral perfection; the cosmological and teleological arguments can establish a being of great power and knowledge; the ontological argument can establish a necessarily existing being and so on. However, it is true that these arguments do not establish every single attribute of the Christian God. But if there are good reasons to believe that something like the Christian God exists; and if there are other arguments that support the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, as well as other key aspects of Christianity; then a strong cumulative case can be made for the Christian worldview. Given all this, it takes a whole lot more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. Learn More Short Blog: If God Wants a Relationship With Us, Why Doesn’t He Show Himself More? Reference Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 1st Mariner Books ed (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008), 101.

“Christianity is just another meta-narrative foisted on unsuspecting people in order to control and exploit them.” This statement represents how many postmodernists regard Christianity. Postmodernists claim that there are no “meta-narratives;” that is, there are no comprehensive explanations of reality that apply to all people and all times. There are simply the subjective “narratives” that people create in order to justify their positions of power and their oppression of others. For postmodernists, narratives such as Christianity, Marxism, Islam, and even science are all examples of this. The problem with this position is that it refutes itself. If there are no meta-narratives, then not even postmodernism can be a meta-narrative; it cannot claim to be the objective truth about all of reality. Although postmodernists deny it, they do treat their view of things as the objective truth. That’s why they disagree with others and try to convince them to accept their view. But if there is no objective truth, then not even postmodernism can be objectively true. All of this raises another point and that is, how could postmodernists know there is no objective truth? How can they know that all meta-narratives are false? If there is a reality that exists outside of the human mind then some description(s) of it will be more correct than others. Even if none of them are correct, postmodernists owe us some good reasons for rejecting all of them. And this they have not done. Learn More Short Blog: Human Limitations in Determining Whether God is Just

Who is Alvin Plantinga?... He’s a revolutionary. The past half-century has seen a dramatic change in analytic philosophy. It used to be the case that few philosophers believed in God and those who did, kept their heads down. Today the situation is very different. According to the atheist Quentin Smith (Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University), Alvin Plantinga is largely responsible for this dramatic change. Smith explains that it all began in 1967 with the publication of Plantinga’s “influential book,” God and Other Minds. Seven years later it was followed by an “even more impressive book,” The Nature of Necessity. These works made it clear that a theist was writing at the “highest qualitative level” of analytic philosophy. Smith goes on to note that in the following years, ...naturalists [i.e. atheists] passively watched as [theists], most influenced by Plantinga’s writings, began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians. Plantinga, who is now retired, spent most of his career at the University of Notre Dame where he helped establish the school as, arguably, the best place in the world to study philosophy of religion. His career involved solving the logical problem of evil, developing reformed epistemology, and reviving the ontological argument. As a result of his work, and the work of many others, the intellectual landscape has been overturned. Atheists can no longer claim that reason, logic and evidence belong solely in their domain. Any atheists who do so, betray an ignorance of both the revolution and the man behind the revolution. Learn More Short Blog: Richard Dawkins Would "Fail Any Introductory Philosophy" Course Reference Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo 4, no. 2 (2001): 195–215, https://doi.org/10.5840/philo20014216.

What psychological factors could lead someone to become an atheist? This question is an interesting one since it is the converse of what many atheists, such as Sigmund Freud and Ludwig Feuerbach, asked about theists. Freud argued that theists believe in God out of a desire for an idealized father figure. Paul Vitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at New York University, turns this explanation on its head. Vitz, who was an atheist until his late 30s, presents his psychological analysis of atheists in Faith of the Fatherless. His work is summarized as follows. Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one’s earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this “defective father hypothesis” provides a consistent explanation of the “intense atheism” of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism. Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each person, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. At the same time, the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is worth challenging by pointing out the psychological factors that can predispose people to accept atheism. Learn More Short Blog: Scientists Become Atheists Because They Study Science? Reference Paul C. Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, Second edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2013).

Is religious hypocrisy disgusting? Is it sickening? Does it even matter? It certainly does. And it mattered to Jesus too. Jesus spent a lot of time decrying the hypocritical religious leaders of his day. He even used scathing language to expose and denounce their double standards. Here’s what he said: The scribes and the Pharisees… preach, but do not practice… They do all their deeds to be seen by others. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!.. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? In today’s world, many people are also repulsed by hypocrisy. And in this sense, they are like Jesus. However, some people take things a step further and they refuse to have anything to do with God because of the religious hypocrites they encounter. Furthermore, they don’t want to go to any church, where God is worshiped, because of hypocrites. Their lives are devoid of any expression of love for their Creator. This refusal to love God, to worship him, and to praise him, is all justified by pointing to hypocrisy. Does this make sense? Is it justified? Not at all. To understand why, imagine you had a sister who was always telling you to love your parents and to love all people. One day you found out that she had been very cruel to a large group of people, and so she was clearly a hypocrite. She had repeatedly said to love everyone but she obviously had not done so herself. She clearly did not “practise” what she “preached.” If you found yourself disgusted by her, that would be a completely understandable response. But what if you decided to take things a step further and you cut off all contact with your loving and kind parents? Would that make sense? Obviously not. Why should your parents be rejected and ignored because of your sister’s actions? They were not hypocrites. She was. So why should you reject them because of your sister? This same reasoning applies to those who ignore God because of religious hypocrites. Hypocrisy is certainly something to be disgusted by; but how does that justify ignoring and rejecting God? If the Christian God exists, then he deserves to be worshiped no matter how many hypocrites there are. Pointing to hypocrisy as the reason we don't worship God, is just a lame excuse. It’s simply an attempt to justify one wrong by pointing to another wrong. Learn More Short Blog: Fake News Highlights Dangers of Fake Religion Video (below): Why the Hypocrisy of Christians is a Bad Excuse Reference Matthew 23: 2,3,5,29,33 (ESV)

Did Jesus prophesy the coming of Muhammad? Many Muslims believe he did. One verse in the Bible that they point to is John 14:16 where Jesus says, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.” The Greek word for “Counselor” is paraclete but Muslims argue that the word was originally pariclytos which could then be a reference to “Ahmad.” (According to the Quran in Sura 61:6, "Ahmad" is another name for Muhammad.) The problem with this is that in the more than 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, there is not a single use of the word pariclytos. Furthermore, given the context of this verse, there are numerous reasons why it doesn’t work as Muslims want it to. These reasons are explained by Dr. Ron Rhodes. Jesus identified the “Counselor” or “Comforter” as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). This Comforter was given to Christ’s apostles (John 14:16), and would testify about Christ – not Muhammad (John 15:26). He would abide with God’s followers “forever” (Muhammad has been dead 1300 years). Jesus affirmed that the apostles “know” the Comforter (the Holy Spirit – John 14:17), but they did not know Muhammad. The Comforter would be sent in Jesus’ name (John 14:26), but Muhammad did not come in Jesus’ name. Jesus told His apostles that the Comforter would be in “in you” (verse 17), but Muhammad was not “in” Jesus’ apostles. The Comforter would “glorify” Jesus (John 16:14), but Muhammad claimed to supersede Jesus. Further, the fulfillment of Jesus’ words took place ten days later on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5), not 600 years later in a city hundreds of miles from Jerusalem. Learn More Short Blog: Was Jesus Actually a Muslim Prophet? Reference Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 2002), 63–64.

Is there any point in being Buddhist? For Paul Williams, a former Buddhist, the answer is no. Many people know that Buddhism teaches reincarnation and that one’s good and bad deeds in this life (i.e. karma) will affect the next life. What is less well known is that Buddhism teaches there is no such thing as a “soul” that lives on after death. What then is reincarnated? Buddhists teach that there is only a causal effect from one life to the next (in terms of karma) but nothing (i.e. a soul) is actually reincarnated. This has led some to question the whole point of practising Buddhism in the first place. It was this issue, as well as a number of factors that led Dr. Paul Williams, Emeritus Professor of Indian and Tibetan Philosophy at the University of Bristol, to reject Buddhism. In his book, The Unexpected Way, he writes, I began to think that if Buddhism were correct then unless I attained enlightenment or something like it in this life, I – Williams, the person I am – would have no hope. For the rebirth of Williams that follows from my not attaining enlightenment would not be the same person as Williams. Clearly I was not going to attain enlightenment in this life. So I (and I suspect all my friends and family) must have in themselves finally no hope. Learn More Short Blog: Buddhist Reincarnation led to Hopelessness - Paul Williams Reference Paul Williams, The Unexpected Way: On Converting from Buddhism to Catholicism (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2002), 15.

Are atheists ever persuaded to become Christians through rational discourse and intellectual reasoning? In Jordan Monge’s case, that’s exactly what happened. Monge describes her early life as follows. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘦 4, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺: ‘𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦?’ 𝘉𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘦 11, 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘺 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 ‘𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴.’ 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥. When Monge was older and studying at Harvard University, she met a Christian who, for the first time in her life, could rationally explain to her why Christianity made sense. She describes the friendship she developed as follows. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘤𝘩𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴, 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘥’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭, 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘐 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵. 𝘖𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘴, 𝘸𝘦’𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴; 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦-𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭. Monge explained that Porter was not like the other Christians she had met. He didn’t shy away from her toughest questions and objections. In fact, he seemed to thrive on them. 𝘕𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘵 𝘢 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴... 𝘛𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘯𝘰 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 ‘𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩’ 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. After an extensive period of searching, questioning, and thinking, Monge’s journey finally ended. On Easter Sunday in 2009, she surrendered her life to Christ and was baptized. Do atheists ever change their minds? They certainly do. And Monge is but one example of that. Learn More Short Blog: Philosopher's Journey from Atheism to Theism - Edward Feser External Website: https://jordanmonge.com/ Reference Jordan Monge, “My Harvard Jesus Moment,” ChristianityToday.com, April 4, 2013, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/atheists-dilemma.html.

Do atheists ever engage in circular reasoning? They certainly do and they do it quite often. One of the most common claims of the New Atheists is that science proves that all religions are wrong. Yet as the New Atheists agree, science is (currently) defined in such a way that it cannot support any religion or point to God. If any scientific theory does point to God, it is immediately dismissed as “pseudoscience.” So what many atheists are actually claiming is that a method, which can only support their worldview, proves that their worldview is correct. That certainly sounds like they are assuming what they are trying to prove which can also be described as a circular argument. It's similar to the way some Christians argue that they know God exists simply because they know the Bible is true. To be sure, it is perfectly legitimate to consider scientific (i.e. empirical) evidence when evaluating religious truth claims. However, that evidence needs to be lifted out of the realm of science and considered within the realm of philosophy. It is only in philosophy that one can follow the evidence wherever it leads. Learn More Short Blog: What Psychological Factors Lead to Atheism?