Is Atheism Silly?

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:02]I saw this uh tweet from Matt Fradd, which includes excerpts from an interview he recently did with J.

[00:00:09]Budziszewski, who's a Catholic philosopher.

[00:00:13]Uh and in the clip, Budziszewski is talking about the philosophy of materialism or atheistic materialism and explaining how atheistic materialism appears to be very implausible.

[00:00:29]Uh and Matt prefaces this clip with this comment, "Materialism is awfully silly."

[00:00:37]And I thought this I thought this was worth a response.

[00:00:40]Because um there's something very fundamental here that I think apologists routinely fail on. And by apologist, I don't simply mean Christian or conservative Christian apologists.

[00:00:53]I also mean apologists for alternative perspectives, such as apologists who are defending atheistic materialism or naturalism or atheism simpliciter.

[00:01:05]Uh I think this problem is a general problem I find with so much ideologically driven apologetics.

[00:01:13]Is it focuses not simply on presenting arguments for one's view but also on straw manning the alternative views by attempting to make them look silly.

[00:01:27]And I think this is a fundamental failure of the apologist. It brings me back to the mandate for apologetics that is often cited, at least for Christian apologetics, in 1 Peter Peter 3:15 to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that lies within, but do so with gentleness and with respect.

[00:01:47]And it's often been noted that there are two components to that mandate for the apologist. One component is to provide arguments, reasoning, discursive defense of your beliefs. The other is to exhibit a winsomeness and charity to others, gentleness and respect. And a key aspect of that winsomeness, that epistemic virtue that an apologist should exhibit, whether they are a Christian apologist or a not a Christian apologist, is to treat the beliefs, the alternative views of other people with the same charity and nuance that you would want your own views to be treated.

[00:02:28]So, um I'm pretty sure that Matt Fradd does not appreciate it when people say his Catholic beliefs are silly.

[00:02:38]When um people say, wait, you believe that a priest prays for a wafer and now that wafer, which does not change at all in terms of its visual presentation or any of its measurable properties, it has somehow become the body of Christ. You want us to believe that?

[00:02:58]Well, this doctrine of transubstantiation, that's just silly.

[00:03:03]And certainly, you could look at, for example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity from the perspective of a skeptic. That doctrine could be viewed as simply silly.

[00:03:16]The idea that there is a benevolent, perfectly loving God who oversees uh and meticulously provides for and governs all the events of creation, including all the suffering of untold animals and human beings for eons and eons. All of that has been governed by a perfectly loving and all-powerful God.

[00:03:38]Many people look at that doctrine and say, well, that's silly.

[00:03:43]If Matt doesn't like other people viewing his beliefs and dismissing them as a silly, I I think it's unwise and uncharitable and inconsistent with epistemic virtue that should be expected of an apologist to do the same thing you would not appreciate in others to the beliefs of your interlocutors to dismiss their views as silly.

[00:04:06]It is true that you can present atheistic materialism or atheistic naturalism in such a way that it can be seen as silly to those who do not already accept atheistic materialism and naturalism as an interpretation of the world. But that's true of every belief system. Every belief system can be viewed or is viewed as {quote} silly by many people who do not hold that belief system. And certainly that is the case with Catholicism or with Christianity more generally. There are many people that view it as silly. And the challenge of the apologist is not to play into this polarization, this uncharitable dismissing of alternative perspectives, but rather to inculcate a mutual um generosity for opposing perspectives that in hopes that that person then will likewise extend that back to your beliefs.

[00:05:02]I want to conclude by saying a few comments.

[00:05:05]Uh first of all about the idea of a plausibility structure or a plausibility framework.

[00:05:12]So this was this idea was touched on famously by William James in his essay on the will to believe 150 years ago or thereabouts where he talked about uh beliefs or or truth claims that are live options for people.

[00:05:31]And today one way to look at what he was saying when he was saying that something is a live option would be that you're not completely dismissive of it or incredulous toward it.

[00:05:41]Uh it's within and what you would say today is it's within your plausibility framework to consider that. It's not does not immediately strike you as absurd or implausible.

[00:05:52]Um whereas some beliefs may strike you as absurd or implausible on their face or silly. Uh and those beliefs then are beliefs that are outside of your plausibility framework.

[00:06:05]And Christians and atheistic naturalists or atheistic materialists generally have significantly different plausibility frameworks. Now, not always cuz there's a lot of diversity among Christians themselves and also among atheistic naturalists and materialists.

[00:06:22]But it's also generally the case that Christians and atheistic materialists or naturalists do have a somewhat different plausibility frameworks.

[00:06:32]And thus it's to be expected that each side is going to be inclined to view the beliefs of others not only then as outside their plausibility framework or not a live option of belief, but indeed as potentially silly.

[00:06:46]And the challenge again, I think for the apologist then is not to play into that and to build up the barriers and retrench your Christians behind a wall of incredulity to other perspectives, but rather to knock down those walls and to build bridges and to help people on both sides or different sides to begin to understand how a person can see the world differently than you do, how they can have a different plausibility framework and thus how beliefs that you might be inclined to dismiss as silly may in fact from their perspective and experience be a reasonable interpretation of the world.

[00:07:21]Now, the last thing I want to say before I conclude is that each one of these views, let's say a Christian interpretation of reality or an atheistic naturalist or materialist interpretation of reality, uh I I like to point out that they can be viewed first of all as theories. So, a theory is an interpretive framework to account for data or to explain data.

[00:07:47]And Christianity, atheistic materialism, or naturalism offer different overarching theoretical interpretations of a whole range of data including things like metaphysics, natural science, ethics, politics, economics, etc. Uh each one offers a different theoretical interpretation of how to make sense of all of these things.

[00:08:09]Um And what's important to appreciate is that theories typically are not like falsified in a very simple way because of their very nature as broad, encompassing interpretive frameworks, these macro theoretical interpretational frameworks like a worldview or religious system or a uh non-religious philosophical system, what have you. Because of their very nature, uh they're not typically going to be overturned by a single data point.

[00:08:39]It's not like they're easy to falsify.

[00:08:41]Rather, what happens is when some apparent evidence comes in that appears to falsify or be inconsistent with that theoretical interpretive framework like Christianity or materialistic atheism or naturalism, what is going to happen is the person who has this apparent defeater or this piece of evidence that is recalcitrant to their theory, not easily explained by their theory, they can now have a decision of potentially to revise their theory.

[00:09:11]Uh and if you if you keep on revising your theory as new evidence comes in, you can endlessly modify a theory in principle.

[00:09:21]And the illustration I always like to give here are the famous cars of Cuba, right? There are all these cars that were made in the 1950s before the embargo against Cuba, I think in 1959.

[00:09:33]Uh and many of those vehicles have been kept on the road for 70 years, 80 years, whatever it is.

[00:09:40]Uh now, they've had engine replacements and pretty much every component in the car that could be replaced has been replaced over decades, and yet many of those cars are still on the road being driven.

[00:09:53]And that's an analogy for a theory that as new evidence comes in that appears to be recalcitrant or inconsistent with the theory or potentially to falsify the theory, the theory itself can be modified, changed in different ways to encompass and explain this incoming data that appears to be inconsistent with the theory.

[00:10:13]And that's often how Christianity develops and changes, and also how a theory like a materialistic naturalism atheism or atheistic naturalism or materialism can change and develop over time.

[00:10:26]So, for example, you might have a materialism that begins with just all that exists is matter in motion.

[00:10:33]And then a person says, well, what about consciousness? Consciousness does not appear to be matter in motion. So, then you might modify the theory and say, okay, all that exists is matter and motion and whatever supervenes on matter in motion, but is ultimately dependent upon it.

[00:10:51]And you've now modified your theory in order to explain some data that was against it. Similarly, when a Christian faces like some something like the problem of evil, they might say, okay, yes, I said God is perfectly good and all powerful, but maybe his his maximal power or his omnipotence is to some degree degree constrained by the desire to have libertarian free creatures.

[00:11:17]And so, God is now some to some degree constrained, and that suffering and evil that flows from the actions of libertarian free creatures can be explained because I've modified or clarified what it means for God to be all powerful. And in each way, the atheistic, naturalist, or materialist, or the Christian modifies their theory to account for new data. And each one of these views can be in principle endlessly modified.

[00:11:45]Um with this in mind, if you don't already buy into it, if it's not part of your plausibility framework, then another theory that is being seemingly endlessly modified as it encompasses and seeks to explain incoming new data, that might seem to you like a fool's errand or a truly perverse game. Like, why would you bother propping up this theory, which is so obviously false?

[00:12:10]But that, of course, is because you yourself do not hold that theory.

[00:12:14]And that is a perspective that the Christian should remember when they are inclined, as I think Matt uh Fradd and J. Budziszewski are somewhat here dismissive of atheistic materialism and dismissing it as silly.

[00:12:27]Well, that's they don't buy into that as their plausibility framework. So, it's not surprising that they're going to be dismissive of it.

[00:12:35]But likewise, a an atheistic materialist who does not buy into a Christian belief system, that's not part of their plausibility framework, they will find the exercise of a Matt Fradd or a J.

[00:12:46]Budziszewski to explain transubstantiation or the doctrine of the Trinity or divine providence as perverse, as a fool's errand. Because in each case, they have a different perspective as to what is plausible in an interpretation of reality. And what I wish apologists did more, from all camps, is to seek to help build understanding between people in this way, rather than to dismiss other views as silly, which just plays into the binary tribalism that my group is smart, your group is stupid, my group is good, your group is bad.

[00:13:25]All right, to conclude, if you're interested in hearing more of my thoughts on these kinds of issues, more of my philosophy when it comes to some of these matters, I've linked two of my books below, Conversations with My Inner Atheist and The Doubter's Creed.