Bob Seidensticker is an Atheist blogger who lives in Seattle, Washington. On his blog, he wrote a series of articles that presented “25 Reasons We Don’t Live in a World with a God.” Within those 25 reasons, he shares what he thinks is solid evidence that God doesn’t exist and that the Bible is not true. His approach to dealing with this subject is to ask, and attempt to answer, the question, “How would we know that we are living in a God World?” In answering this question, he gives his 25 reasons – expressed as clues – that God does not exist. (If you wish to read his entire series on this topic, you may do so at the links below.)
Of course, his “clues” are so full of falsehoods and logical problems as to render his objections rather meaningless, but he does not see it that way. In fact, as is the case with most Atheists, he sees them as very strong evidence to support his beliefs. Because of his naturalistic worldview beliefs, he views reality in a way that simply dismisses the problems associated with his own point of view.
He shares that he began doing this particular series of blogs about the problems associated with Christianity because a Christian asked him to spell out what kind of evidence he would need to see in order to believe God exists. In his response to that question, he basically dismissed the question out of hand and stated that there really is not much that could ever be said that would convince him. He then simply changed the subject and set out to give all of the reasons he believes God does not exist.
I will, here, respond to Seidensticker’s “clues,” but I will not do it by simply going through his 25 reasons. Rather, I want to dig a little beneath what he wrote and point out more specifically the fallacies of his reasoning. His 25 reasons do not have a real logical order, so going one by one through them would actually make it more difficult to understand the true problems associated with his point of view. There is a lot of overlap injected into his various points, and frequently there is more than one bit of false reasoning within individual ones.
Responding to his “clues” in a single article would be too long, so this article will be the first of a three part series designed to expose Seidensticker’s problems. In each of the three articles, I will cover eight points, with each point exposing why his reasoning is faulty. It is in understanding at this level that the problems with his specific objections come clearly into focus. By showing the problems with his entire approach to reasoning, it becomes rather easy later on to deal with any specific objections he has regarding the Christian faith. In fact, when the underlying reasoning is exposed, most of the actual objections simply fall away.
While he claims to base his beliefs on science, the fact of the matter is, virtually nothing he says is based on actual science. Rather, his views are nothing more than an expression of his naturalistic worldview beliefs that are completely religious in nature. That being the case, he is not really trying to discredit Christianity as he claims. Rather, what he is really trying to do is substitute his naturalistic religion for the Christian faith. With that in mind, let’s look at his problematic understanding about the nature of reality.
1. Seidensticker assumes the truth and validity of a naturalistic worldview without the ability to back it up.
We will start with this point because it is actually the root of all of his other objections. The bottom line belief in atheistic Naturalism is that the natural universe is all that exists. That being the case, everything in all of reality is governed by the natural laws of the universe, so ultimately, everything about every part of reality can be known using empirical science. Of course, people who believe this will acknowledge that we don’t yet have all knowledge, and there is some knowledge we may never figure out, but that at least theoretically everything can be known.
Understand clearly here, this is not a scientific point of view. It pretends to be, but in fact it is a faith position. There is no science that can back up this viewpoint. In fact, there is much in science that actually points in a different direction. Naturalists assume (believe by faith) that the natural universe had a natural origin, that life came from non-life, that the life that exists on earth emerged based on naturalistic evolution, and that consciousness came from non-consciousness. The only problem is, there is no actual empirical science to demonstrate that any of these things are even possible, much less that they are actually true. The premise that Naturalism is true is not based on science, it is a faith (religious) position at its very core. Thus, what is really going on here is not an attempt to prove Naturalism is true, but to evangelize those who do not believe it.
2. Seidensticker uses anecdotal examples to try to prove his point.
In his attempt to dismiss the existence of God, Seidensticker tries to throw in various illustrations to prove his points. The only problem is, anecdotes do not prove anything. Anyone can make up a story, or assert the meaning of a reported incident in a way that seems to be relevant but actually is not.
Seidensticker makes a big deal that Christianity can’t prove itself using empirical methodology, then turns right around and tries to prove Christianity is not true using the very methods he decries. Anecdotes do not prove his point – never have and never will. If he can’t give actual evidence of what he is trying to prove based on his own naturalistic presuppositions, his assertions are, once again, meaningless.
3. Seidensticker sets up straw men and knocks them down, while at the same time ignoring other possible scenarios and explanations.
Seidensticker makes the interesting comment that the universe doesn’t look like it exists with mankind in mind. He states that the Bible teaches that the universe was created for man, but that science tells us that the universe is “unnecessarily big” for it to have been created as part of God’s plan for humanity. He somehow imagines that he has the ability to know God’s intentions for creating the universe and what would have been a better way to do it. Of course he doesn’t have that knowledge, and making that assertion is absurd on its face.
But beyond that obvious problem, one could imagine numerous possible scenarios and explanations. Just as Seidensticker used his imagination to imagine why the current form of the universe would not fit God’s purposes, I could imagine reasons why it would – and they would be just as valid as his. This argument is purely an exercise in futility.
4. Seidensticker does not hold himself to the same standard of evidence that he demands of Theists.
When dealing with whether or not the Bible is true, empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence Seidensticker will accept from those who believe the Bible is true. Of course, there are various pieces of empirical evidence that can be brought to bear when discussing the truth and reliability of the Bible, but obviously God cannot be empirically proven. As a person, he transcends the natural universe, and religious beliefs of any kind cannot be demonstrated empirically.
This is where Seidensticker runs into problems. In spite of the fact that most Atheists like to think that Atheism is not a religious belief system, it actually is. And that being the case, it runs into the exact same problem as any other faith system – he can’t prove his faith empirically, either.
In trying to get around this problem, Atheists will often say, “Atheism is not a belief, it is, rather, a lack of belief.” However, stating the proposition using a negative expression does not get Atheists off the hook. While they may not believe in God, the do have a positive belief in something – and that something is that the natural universe is all that exists. When stated this way, the religious nature of the belief quickly becomes visible. They cannot prove that the natural universe is all that exists, they must believe it by faith. That being the case, if they are going to be consistent, they must hold themselves to the same standard they hold everyone else – but they refuse to do that.
5. Seidensticker does not know how to distinguish between science (a methodology) and Naturalism (a faith system).
One of the very serious problems Atheists face is in making a distinction between science and Naturalism. Based on naturalistic beliefs, these two actually do merge. Since Atheists believe that the natural universe is all that exists, in their minds there is no other possibility but for science to be able to account for everything that happens in reality. Thus, for them, it must be possible to naturally explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, biological evolution, and the emergence of consciousness from non-consciousness. By the same token, there is no other choice but to simply dismiss the possibility of miracles.
But in reality, science and Naturalism only fit together that way if Naturalism is actually true. So far, no Naturalist has been able to prove that belief. The truth is, science is a methodology that is based on experiment and observation. Naturalism, on the other hand, is a belief system.
It is interesting that Naturalists often accuse Christians of being anti-science or of “not believing in science.” Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Science only deals with things related to the natural universe, and Christians absolutely believe that the laws of nature, as they operate in the natural universe, are regular and can be depended upon. The fact that we also believe that there is a transcendent reality does not in any way mitigate our appreciation of the scientific method.
So, based on his worldview beliefs, Seidensticker superimposes science on his naturalistic worldview beliefs and declares them one and the same. That is simply not true.
6. Seidensticker judges Theism by the beliefs of Naturalism.
One of the most important things to understand about the very concept of worldview is that the core beliefs of every worldview system literally contradict those of every other worldview. When it comes to Naturalism vs. Theism, Naturalism believes the natural universe is all that exists, that human beings are nothing more than natural animals who simply have a more highly evolved brain than other animals, and that the ultimate one can accomplish in life is survival and personal pleasure. Christian Theism, on the other hand believes there does exist a transcendent reality, that human beings are special creations of God that were created in his image, and that the ultimate one can accomplish in life is to know God in a personal, eternal relationship. These two worldview positions are polar opposites, as can easily be seen.
As such, one can’t evaluate one set of worldview beliefs based on the beliefs of a different worldview. You can talk about differences but you can’t use one set of worldview beliefs to judge another. If you want to critique a particular worldview system, you have to do so based on the beliefs of that system. Using that approach it is very possible to explore inconsistencies and internal contradictions.
What Seidensticker does is to say Christian Theism is not true based on the beliefs of Naturalism – a completely illegitimate argument. Of course the beliefs of Christianity do not jive with Naturalism. In using his approach, Seidensticker puts himself in a position where his arguments cannot be taken seriously.
7. Seidensticker makes assumptions about history that are nothing more than broad generalizations that can’t be backed up.
In dealing with his understanding of history, Seidensticker said, “Christianity had its chance to create a Christian utopia with Europe of the Middle Ages. Spoiler: it wasn’t so great.” There are several major problems with this particular point. In saying this, he demonstrates that he doesn’t understand human nature; he doesn’t understand the numerous cultural dynamics of the Middle Ages; he does not understand how to distinguish between material and spiritual dynamics; and he doesn’t understand the essential beliefs about the Christian faith. What needs to be understood here is that Seidensticker is looking at history in a very narrowly focused way, and is making assertions about what “should have” happened using broad generalizations based on his narrow understanding.
In Seidensticker’s “historical rendering,” there is no actual history discussed. He merely mentions a period of history and a location, then uses his incorrect understanding of Christianity (and of reality in general) to make a generalization that has no basis in reality. Every single example he listed as evidence for his point of view is nothing more than an anecdote that he filtered through his naturalistic worldview lens to try to make a religious point.
8. Seidensticker assumes that because people in countries dominated by a particular religion tend to belong to that religion, religious beliefs are largely dictated by one’s culture.
While it is certainly true that one’s culture influences what religion a person self-identifies with, particularly at younger ages, this has absolutely nothing to do with what is objectively true and not true. At this point Seidensticker’s worldview beliefs slip profoundly into the picture. As a Naturalist, he believes (even without the kind of proof he demands of Theists) that since the natural universe is all that exists, all religious beliefs can be explained using empirical methods.
In fact, this is exactly the point of view of the social scientists in every field of social science that base their study upon naturalistic worldview beliefs. The only problem is, the subjects studied by social scientists (sociology, anthropology, communication, psychology, theology, etc.) cannot be fully explored using empirical methods. There are elements in each where various kinds of measurements can be made in order to come up with means and averages, but empirical methodology simply cannot be applied to the thoughts, beliefs, and values of human beings in order to come up with definitive answers.
The truth of the matter is, at their very foundation, religious beliefs are individual, not collective. Many individuals who hold the same or similar beliefs may congregate and worship together, but the collective does not ultimately decide the beliefs of individuals. Seidensticker’s starting point in developing his assumptions on this topic are simply false.
What this Means
As can be seen in my first eight responses to Seidensticker, atheistic beliefs simply do not reflect reality. In order to try to discredit the Christian faith, Atheists must believe things and make accusations that are illogical and false. Keep your eye out for my next article – part two of this series. There we will look at the next eight problems regarding Seidensticker’s attack on Christianity.
© 2019 Freddy Davis
Very well explained
Thanks