Unveiling the Divide

Atheism Beliefs Versus Christian Beliefs

Atheism is not simply an absence of belief in gods; it functions as a worldview that shapes how its adherents understand reality, morality, knowledge, and science, just as theistic worldviews do. When scrutinized philosophically, however, critics argue that atheistic naturalism faces serious challenges in grounding true beliefs and a coherent scientific enterprise, as demonstrated in Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism.​

Atheism as a Distinct Worldview

Atheism, historically, is best defined as a positive belief that no gods exist, contrasting with agnosticism’s uncertainty. This position gives rise to an atheistic worldview—a “cluster of beliefs” about the most significant questions of life, such as the nature of reality, morality, humanity, and the universe. This worldview is not neutral or passive; rather, it actively asserts materialism or philosophical naturalism as ultimate reality, often accompanied by faith in science, reason, and humanism.

Modern discourse sometimes shifts the definition of atheism to a mere “lack of belief,” but as Steve Schramm notes, atheists typically act as though they hold strong disbelief, shaping their perspective on everything from origins to ethics. Like any worldview, atheism interprets evidence, guides values, and motivates advocacy, not unlike its theistic counterparts.

Comparing Atheistic and Theistic Worldviews

A theistic worldview anchors reality—and human cognition—in a rational, purposeful creator, asserting that the universe is intelligible and value-laden due to divine intention. In contrast, the atheistic worldview posits that existence is the product of blind, unguided processes, with values and meaning emerging from material phenomena.

Where theism provides grounds for objective morality, truth, and rationality, atheism frequently contends that these are human constructs, evolutionary adaptations, or byproducts of chance. This foundational difference shapes their respective abilities to answer life’s deeper questions about purpose, consciousness, and scientific truth.

Why Atheistic Naturalism Cannot Support True Beliefs or Science

Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a powerful critique of atheistic naturalism’s ability to warrant trustworthy beliefs and support science. The argument goes as follows:​

• If naturalism and evolution are both true, our cognitive faculties are the result of random genetic mutations selected for survival, not necessarily for truth.​

• Natural selection selects behaviors based on fitness, regardless of the truth of the underlying beliefs. If holding a false belief yields survival benefits, evolution may favor that belief just as well as a true one.​

• Therefore, the probability that our minds are reliably aimed at truth is low or inscrutable under naturalism.​

• If we cannot trust our faculties to produce more true beliefs than false ones, then any conclusion we draw (including the truth of naturalism itself) is self-defeating.​

Plantinga’s analysis suggests that theistic belief, in contrast, provides a reason to trust our cognitive faculties, since a rational creator would want us to know truth. For science to be a truth-seeking endeavor, the reliability of human reason must be warranted—not just assumed.​

Conclusion

Atheism, properly understood, is not a default absence of belief—it is a substantive worldview with claims about reality, morality, knowledge, and the natural order. Philosophical analyses, such as Plantinga’s, demonstrate that atheistic naturalism faces significant challenges in justifying the reliability of human cognition and, consequently, the pursuit of science and the acquisition of true beliefs. Ultimately, the debate is not just about definitions, but about which worldview best supports the possibility of rational inquiry, moral knowledge, and a coherent account of reality.