Is Atheism More Rational Than Theism? II

Posted to talk.atheism on March 2, 1996

The Toulmin Method

In my original post on this subject, I concluded that atheism could not be presumed a more rational stance than theism.

This conclusion was not accepted in its entirety by those who responded :-)

After going 'round and 'round on this thing with just about EVERYONE, I am going to try to approach the issue from a different perspective - one which does not make use of the word " worldview"  which everyone seemed to find so odious ( or, at least, slippery :-)

This time, I'm going to use the Toulmin method of informal argument as the framework of my discussion.

The Toulmin method is described in the Harbrace College Handbook, Eleventh Edition, which states that " (t)his approach sees ... arguments as the progression from accepted facts or evidence (data) to a conclusion (claim) by way off a statement (warrant), which establishes a reasonable relationship between the two."  (p. 315).

First, a Christian argument.

Christian Argument

Data: My data is our ordinary experiences of life and death, in which life may be characterized as uncertain and transient while death may be characterized as certain and final. Also, the experience that life contains occasions for joy and pleasure on the one hand, and sorrow and suffering on the other.

Claim: Therefore it is worthwhile for a person - in good physical health and under normal circumstances - to wholeheartedly invest oneself in the various projects of life despite and in full awareness of the reality of inevitable suffering and death.

I have qualified " person"  with " in good physical health and under normal circumstances"  (e.g., not serving a life sentence in solitary confinement) because that should be the *easiest* conclusion to warrant.

Warrant: Since suffering and death are overcome by God in Christ.

Alternatives to the Christian Argument?

Now, even if one accepts my data as accurate and my claim as at least arguable, it is painfully obvious that my warrant is based on an alleged supernatural revelation.

Now as a fideist, I am not disputing that.

My question is, are there any atheists who would ACCEPT my data and my claim? [Obviously, if one believes that it is not worthwhile for a healthy person under normal circumstances to invest themselves in the projects of life, this argument is doomed.]

Now, to any atheists who WOULD accept my data and who are at least sympathetic to my claim, my obvious next question is, " how would YOU warrant this claim?"  Can it be warranted?

I've thought about this, and have only been able to come to three alternatives (again, presupposing that data and claim are accepted).

Alternative One: Naturalism

Alternative One: A naturalistic warrant. For example, we believe that life is worth living because humans who do not believe life is worth living have less chances for survival than those who do believe life is worth living. The " pessimists"  are de-selected.

My problem with at least this particular naturalistic warrant is that it changes, IMHO, the claim. We can not claim that life is worth living, we can only claim that life has the appearance of being worth living for a variety of reasons that have nothing (necessarily) to do with whether or not life IS, in fact, worth living.

Can one come up with a naturalistic warrant that would justify one in claiming that life IS worth living?

Alternative Two: Assume the Claim

Alternative Two: Make my claim the data.

In this alternative, it is considered self-evident that life is worth living.

But, while I believe my data paragraph in the Christian argument above is relatively non-controversial, I believe a data paragraph stating that life is worth living would be very controversial.

It is not at all obvious, to me anyway, that life IS worth living. There seem to be many people " in good physical health and in normal circumstances"  who do not believe that life is worth living, and who act on that belief through suicide or through other, less dramatic, forms of self-destructive behavior (e.g. drinking, drugs, abusive relationships, etc.)

So, again IMHO, to accept the idea that life is worth living as not needing a warrant, as being self-evident, seems to me to merely make use of a supernatural revelation without dignifying (or disgracing) it by the name.

Alternative Three: Other Religious Traditions?

Alternative Three: Question the exclusiveness of the Christian warrant.

After all, Christians don't have the only game in town. Who is to say that any number of the thousands of religious alternatives to Christianity - if not all of them - would provide an equally good supernatural warrant.

But this does not, IMHO, get to the heart of the issue. The issue is whether or not a supernatural warrant is necessary, not which supernatural warrant is the correct one - if that is even knowable.

Any thoughts?

Return to top of page.

Return to Apologetics page.

Return to Archive

Return to The Inclusive Christian

Bill Bekkenhuis

Return to top of page.