Atheism is often portrayed as the absence of faith—the rational position that remains when religious belief is set aside. But this self-portrayal is misleading. Atheism, particularly in its naturalistic form, involves substantial faith commitments that go far beyond what evidence and reason can establish. Exposing these hidden faith commitments levels the playing field and reveals that the choice between theism and atheism is not faith versus reason but faith versus faith.
The Myth of Faithless Atheism
New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens have promoted the image of atheism as simply "following the evidence." Religious believers exercise faith (belief without evidence); atheists exercise reason (belief based on evidence). Faith is a vice; reason is a virtue.
This framing is rhetorically powerful but philosophically naive. Every worldview—including atheism—rests on foundational assumptions that cannot be proven from more basic principles. These foundations must be accepted on something like faith.
The question is not whether we have faith commitments but whether our faith commitments are reasonable. And to assess this, we must first make the faith commitments explicit. What does the atheist assume without proof?
Key Insight
Faith, properly understood, is not "belief without evidence" but "trust based on evidence that goes beyond what evidence alone can establish." By this definition, everyone exercises faith—including atheists. The relevant question is not "faith or reason?" but "which faith is best supported by evidence and reason?"
Faith Commitment #1: The Reliability of Reason
Every worldview assumes that human reason is basically reliable—that our cognitive faculties can lead us to truth. Without this assumption, we couldn't trust any conclusion, including atheism.
But can the atheist justify this assumption? On the naturalistic view, our cognitive faculties are products of unguided evolution, selected for survival rather than truth. Evolution doesn't care whether our beliefs are true—only whether they help us survive and reproduce.
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has developed this into a powerful argument against naturalism. If our brains evolved purely for survival, we have no reason to trust them for abstract philosophical conclusions. False beliefs can be just as survival-enhancing as true ones. The belief that a tiger is a cuddly pet to be approached might be false, but if it's combined with a desire to run away from cuddly pets, survival is enhanced.
The atheist trusts reason but has no grounds for that trust within their worldview. They exercise faith in reason's reliability—faith that naturalism cannot justify.
Theism, by contrast, can justify trust in reason. If God created us in His image to know Him and His world, our cognitive faculties were designed for truth. We can trust reason because a rational God made us rational.
Darwin's Doubt
Charles Darwin himself expressed this concern:
"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
Darwin recognized that his own theory raised questions about whether we can trust our reasoning—including our reasoning about evolution. Naturalism undercuts itself.
Faith Commitment #2: The Universe Is Intelligible
Science assumes that the universe operates according to regular, discoverable laws—that nature is intelligible. This assumption has been remarkably fruitful; modern science is built on it.
But why should the universe be intelligible? Why should mathematical equations describe physical reality? Why should the cosmos be comprehensible to human minds?
Einstein famously remarked: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." The intelligibility of nature is not obvious or necessary; it's a remarkable fact that requires explanation.
Naturalism has no explanation. If the universe is a brute fact arising from blind processes, there's no reason to expect it to be orderly or comprehensible. The atheist simply assumes intelligibility without justification.
Theism explains intelligibility. A rational God created an orderly cosmos and created rational creatures capable of understanding it. The fit between mind and nature is not coincidence but design. Science is possible because God made it possible.
Faith Commitment #3: Objective Morality Exists
Most atheists live as if morality is objective—as if some things really are right and others really are wrong. They condemn injustice, advocate for rights, and make moral arguments. They speak as if moral claims are true, not just preferences.
But can atheism ground objective morality? We've examined this question in earlier lessons. On naturalism, humans are evolved animals in a purposeless universe. There is no transcendent moral law, no divine command, no ultimate accountability. Moral beliefs are evolutionary adaptations or social conventions—not perceptions of objective moral reality.
The atheist who affirms objective morality exercises faith in something their worldview cannot justify. They believe in moral facts while denying the only plausible foundation for moral facts.
Theism grounds morality in God's nature and will. Moral truths are objective because they reflect an objective reality—the character of God. The atheist's moral experience, on theism, makes sense. On atheism, it doesn't.
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts."
— Romans 2:14-15
Faith Commitment #4: The Universe Is Self-Explanatory
Atheism assumes the universe either needs no explanation or is self-explanatory. It simply exists as a brute fact—unexplained and inexplicable.
But why should the universe exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? The universe is contingent—it could have been different, or it might not have existed. Contingent things require explanations. What explains the universe?
Saying "the universe just exists" is not an explanation; it's a refusal to explain. It's accepting a brute fact where explanation is needed. This is an enormous faith commitment—faith that the most fundamental question of existence simply has no answer.
Theism provides an explanation: God—a necessary being who exists by the nature of what He is—created the contingent universe. The existence of anything at all is explained by the One who is the ground of all being.
Faith Commitment #5: Consciousness Emerges from Matter
On naturalism, consciousness is a product of material processes—neurons firing, chemistry happening. Somehow, subjective experience emerges from objective matter.
But how? This is the "hard problem of consciousness," and no one has solved it. We have no idea how physical processes produce subjective experience—how the brain's electricity becomes the sensation of seeing red or feeling pain.
The atheist believes that consciousness emerged from matter but cannot explain how. This is a massive faith commitment. It's believing in something no one understands, based solely on the requirement that naturalism be true.
Theism faces no such problem. If God is a conscious being who created humans in His image, consciousness is expected. Mind comes from Mind, not from mindless matter. The existence of consciousness points to a conscious Creator.
The Hard Problem
Philosopher David Chalmers distinguishes the "easy problems" of consciousness (explaining brain functions) from the "hard problem" (explaining why there's subjective experience at all). Science might explain everything the brain does while leaving untouched why there's "something it's like" to be a brain.
This isn't a problem science will eventually solve; it's a problem that naturalism's categories cannot address. Consciousness doesn't fit in a purely physical worldview. The atheist must take it on faith that it will somehow fit.
Faith Commitment #6: Life Arose Spontaneously
Atheism assumes that life arose from non-life through natural processes—that given the right conditions, chemistry became biology.
But this has never been demonstrated. Despite decades of origin-of-life research, no one has shown how the simplest living cell could arise naturally. The complexity is staggering—DNA, RNA, proteins, membranes, metabolic pathways—all must be present and coordinated for life to function.
The atheist believes life arose spontaneously because it must have, if naturalism is true. This is faith—faith in a process no one has observed or replicated, based on the prior commitment that naturalism is correct.
Theism explains life's origin simply: God created life. The information in DNA, the complexity of cells, the diversity of organisms—all point to a Designer. The atheist's faith that life arose naturally is not supported by evidence; the theist's faith that life was created is supported by the evidence of design.
Faith Commitment #7: The Future Will Resemble the Past
Every scientist—and every person—assumes that the future will resemble the past. The laws that governed the universe yesterday will govern it tomorrow. This assumption underlies all prediction, all planning, all science.
But can this assumption be justified? Philosopher David Hume famously argued it cannot. We cannot prove the future will resemble the past without assuming it—which is circular. We believe in the uniformity of nature, but we cannot prove it.
The atheist takes this uniformity on faith. They trust that nature will continue to operate regularly, but they cannot justify this trust.
Theism provides grounds for this trust. If a faithful God created and sustains the universe, we can expect regularity. God's character guarantees the orderliness of nature. The uniformity of nature is not a brute fact but a reflection of divine faithfulness.
Faith Commitment #8: Science Is the Path to Knowledge
Many atheists embrace scientism—the view that science is the only (or primary) path to knowledge. What science cannot discover, we cannot know.
But scientism is self-defeating. The claim "only scientific claims can be known" is not itself a scientific claim. It's a philosophical claim that cannot be established by scientific method. Scientism fails its own test.
Moreover, scientism excludes vast domains of knowledge: mathematics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, history, philosophy, personal experience. None of these are "scientific" in the narrow sense, yet they constitute much of what we know.
The atheist who embraces scientism exercises faith in a principle that is self-defeating and excludes most human knowledge. This is not enlightened rationality but arbitrary restriction.
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
— Colossians 2:8 (ESV)
Assessing the Faith Commitments
Having exposed atheism's hidden faith commitments, we can now assess them:
Are they reasonable? Some seem arbitrary (the universe just exists); some seem self-defeating (trusting reason that evolved for survival, not truth); some involve believing what cannot be explained (consciousness from matter).
Are they consistent? There are tensions—believing in objective morality while denying its foundation; trusting reason while undermining its reliability; expecting nature to be orderly without explanation.
Do they explain the evidence? Naturalism struggles to explain the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, the origin of life, consciousness, morality, and the reliability of reason. These are not minor gaps but fundamental features of reality.
By contrast, theism's faith commitments have strong explanatory power. God explains why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is intelligible, why moral truths exist, why consciousness exists, and why reason is reliable. The theist's faith is supported by its explanatory success.
Using This in Apologetics
How can we use the awareness of atheism's faith commitments in conversation?
Level the playing field. When atheists claim to follow evidence while believers have faith, point out that everyone has faith commitments. The question is whose faith is better justified.
Ask probing questions. "On your view, why should we trust reason?" "How does consciousness arise from matter?" "What grounds moral obligations on naturalism?" These questions expose the gaps in atheist worldviews.
Show theism's explanatory power. Point out how theism explains what naturalism cannot—the origin of the universe, consciousness, morality, rationality. Faith in God is not blind but is supported by its capacity to make sense of reality.
Be gracious. The goal is not to embarrass but to invite honest reflection. We're all truth-seekers with blind spots. The hope is that recognizing atheism's faith commitments opens the door to considering whether theism's commitments might be better founded.
Conclusion: Faith Versus Faith
The choice between atheism and theism is not faith versus reason but faith versus faith. Both worldviews involve foundational commitments that go beyond what evidence and reason alone can establish. The question is which set of commitments is more reasonable, more consistent, and more explanatory.
When we examine the hidden faith commitments of atheism—faith in reason without grounds, faith in an intelligible universe without explanation, faith in objective morality without foundation, faith that life arose from non-life, faith that consciousness emerges from matter—we find a worldview that assumes much and explains little.
Theism, by contrast, provides explanations. It grounds reason in a rational Creator, intelligibility in divine design, morality in God's nature, consciousness in the divine image, and existence itself in a necessary being. The theist's faith is not blind but is supported by its power to make sense of reality.
The playing field is level. Both worldviews require faith. The question is which faith best fits the world we actually experience. For those willing to examine the evidence honestly, theism's case is strong—and atheism's blind spots become increasingly difficult to ignore.
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
— Hebrews 11:1
Discussion Questions
- The lesson identifies eight hidden faith commitments of atheism. Which do you find most significant? Which might be most useful in conversations with skeptics?
- Plantinga's argument suggests that naturalism undermines trust in reason. Explain this argument in your own words. How does theism provide better grounds for trusting our cognitive faculties?
- How can recognizing atheism's faith commitments change the tone of conversations about faith? How does it "level the playing field" while still allowing us to make a positive case for Christianity?