If There's a God, Why Are There Atheists?

by R.C. Sproul

A common charge levelled against people with religious beliefs in general, and with Christian convictions in particular, is that their beliefs are motivated not by reasonable evidence but by psychological needs. In fact, many respected people,accepting the arguments of atheist thinkers, believe that psychology and the social sciences have explained away religion.   In this thoroughly revised and updated edition of If There’s a God, Why are There Atheists? , R.C. Sproul examines the arguments of four prominent atheists:   –       Sigmund Freud: religion arises out of guilt and the fear of nature. –       Karl Marx: religion is used to keep the lower classes happy. –       Ludwig Feuerbach: religion is only wish–fulfilment. –       Friedrich Nietzsche: religion is rooted in man’s weakness.   Engaging with these thinkers’ works on a psychological as well as theological basis, Sproul shows that there are as many psychological and sociological explanations for unbelief as for belief – and that atheistic conclusions should not be accepted blindly.   For the believer who is troubled by doubts or who wants to respond intelligently to unbelievers, it offers clear, thought–provoking analysis. For the unbeliever who has an open mind, it offers stimulating debate, worthy of time and thought.

Genres: Christian, Theology, Atheism, Christianity, Faith, Psychology, Religion

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

Dr. R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was founding pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.

Ligonier Ministries began in 1971 as the Ligonier Valley Study Center in Ligonier, Pa. In an effort to respond more effectively to the growing demand for Dr. Sproul’s teachings and the ministry’s other educational resources, the general offices were moved to Orlando in 1984, and the ministry was renamed.

Dr. Sproul’s radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. Dr. Sproul produced hundreds of lecture series and recorded numerous video series on subjects such as the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, and Christian living.

He contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, spoke at conferences, churches, and academic institutions around the world, and wrote more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He signed the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and wrote a commentary on that document. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible, previously known as the New Geneva Study Bible.

Dr. Sproul had a distinguished academic teaching career at various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and Jackson, Miss. He was ordained as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.

Reviews

[Don Incognito · Rating 4 out of 5]

Note: This book was published first under the title The Psychology of Atheism, then later republished as If there's a God, why are there atheists? I read the earlier edition.

This is probably the most interesting book I've read to this point in 2016, but the title does not serve it very well. It should probably have the more general title "the psychology of unbelief" or perhaps "psychological reasons for unbelief."

It starts out by observing for a number of pages the prevalence and stubbornness of man's refusal to believe in God. Since I already understood that, I found much of roughly the first half of the book relatively boring, and wondered how much I would learn from it.

The book becomes much more interesting and valuable near the end. With extensive discussion of certain philosophers and theologians, many of whom were explicitly and rabidly anti-Christian, the author explains many interesting aspects of man's unbelief, idolatry, and rationalization. One would not expect a Christian theologian to give great attention to the thought of Nietzsche and Sartre, but Sproul does here; he notes that some of it contains insights very helpful to an understanding of human unbelief and attitudes toward God; and it indicates Sproul must be willing to learn from any thinker, even one dismissive of the theistic worldview. Having gained the bulk of my information on Sartre from a secondary source whose conclusions were entirely negative, I had always considered Sartre a babbling philosophical mountebank that I could never learn anything from. R.C. Sproul taught me a lesson in open-mindedness. I have found Sproul's explanation of aspects of Sartrean existentialism (mainly man's visceral aversion to "the look") so interesting that I want to reread Sartre's play No Exit, which illustrates how intolerable "the look" can be.

The Psychology of Atheism is a short but challenging book, especially the second half. When I reread it, trying to process it was a waste of time if I felt tired.

[Taylor Phillips · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall this is a pretty good read!

I read several reviews on this book that said they didn’t like the title because the author didn’t talk about how God exists. My response to that negative comment would be this: R.C. Sproul did not write this book to prove God exists.

To quote,” My task with this brief work has been to examine the underlying motives that lead some to deny the existence of God. It has not been to prove that God does in fact exist. It has neither been to persuade others to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor to demonstrate the truthfulness of God’s Word.” Page 192

This book is a resource for Christians to see why an atheist would not believe in God. Essentially, it comes down to biases against belief.

He points out that a hypothesis for why some believe in God is not an argument for God’s not existing. This is typical among many atheists on the internet who quote Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. These men have provided a work on why some choose to believe but these men do not take on the task of disproving God’s existence.

R.C. Sproul then takes the time to (very simply) lay out popular (negative) arguments for why people believe in God and points out their limitations.

After this, a brief exposition of Romans 1 shows the Christian why atheists don’t believe in God.

I really enjoyed this book, chapter seven being my favorite. It was very insightful. This book, like I said before, is not an apologetics book. It can offer someone approaching the subject with some good information. It is a very introductory work. Some passages I had to re read due to the authors writing style, other than that the content was very good. Great read!

[Craig Hayes · Rating 4 out of 5]

R.C. Sproul is prolific in his analysis of the various aspects and teaching of both Atheism and Theism, bring both into proper context of Scripture and what both espouse. An accessible read for amateurs without sacrificing any depth. This is a necessary addition to the Christian's bookshelf.

[Jimmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is not a refutation of atheism per se, but a biblical treatment on the larger topic of unbelief using psychological categories. I've thoroughly enjoyed the book. This book was written before the phenomenon of the New Atheists (which I don't see as new in content nor even in it's fury against God, contrary to what some observers might say about this movement's attitude; it's just repackaged and marketed as new that's all). Nevertheless, it's still relevant. One thing that I took away from this book is that the author pointed out how a lot of the philosophers' argument against God has been psychological in nature. Freud's argument against God is an attempt to explain the origin of man's religiosity as the result of fear of the unknown. Marx thought of religion as the opiate of the masses. Nietzsche saw religion as the crutch of the weak to impose against the strong. Yet, in all of this Sproul makes the observation that just because one gives a possible psychological motive for religion, it is not in essence a refutation or an argument against God's existence. The book also has a very good chapter that features an exposition of Romans 1 concerning unbelief. As I was reading it I had to wonder why Sproul is not Presuppositional in his apologetics. The other chapter that stand out in this book was the one on the Trauma of God and the Holy. It was excellent, bringing out the discussion of how the idea of meeting God is painted in Scripture as being so aweful (full of awe) that it is dreadful for mankind. It also has an interesting discussion about being seen, gazing, staring and also nakedness in theological perspective. Excellent book in developing a theology of unbelief.

[Dana · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title makes this book sound not very exciting but I found it to be a fascinating book. I actually picked it up at the National Ligonier's conference in Orlando this year and chose it because of the good price and the chapters intrieged me. I don't know why but I find unbeleif very interesting and this book, speaking on the psychology of unbelief, provided much to chew on and was chock full of Scripture. It is one of those books that I want to read again in the future.

[Jeremy]

I used part of Ch. 3 to help me think through my mid-term for Dr. Harvey's course (History of Christian Theology III) in Fall 2013 at Baylor.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FAMED THEOLOGIAN LOOKS AT NIETZSCHE, SARTRE, FREUD, ETC.

Robert Charles Sproul, (born 1939) is an American Calvinist theologian, author, radio host, and founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries. He has written many books, such as 'Objections answered,' 'Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity,' 'Chosen by God,' 'The Invisible Hand,' etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1974 book, "The central thesis of this book is this: The 'attractive' features of the Christian God that might incline a person to project His existence as a bromide or narcotic to help him face the threatening character of life are not only equalized and neutralized by the threatening features of God but are overwhelmingly outweighed by the traumatic experience of encountering God. Though man may desire and create for himself a deity who meets his needs and provides him with innumerable benefits, he will not desire a God who is holy, omniscient, and sovereign." (Pg. 10)

He points out, "there is a woeful ignorance of a theoretical basis for the psychology of atheism... the New Testament maintains that unbelief is generated not so much by intellectual causes as by moral and psychological ones. The problem is not that there is insufficient evidence to convince rational beings that there is a God, but that rational beings have an antipathy to the being of God. In a word, the nature of God... is repugnant to man and is not the focus of desire or wish-projection." (Pg. 56-57)

He states, "Throughout the history of the church the glory of God has remained as a focal point of praise and adoration. To the non-Christian, however, it has been the focus of cosmic claustrophobia. That is, the weightiness and heaviness of God have been felt as a crushing power which men would prefer to 'make light of.' The mocking of God is seen Biblically as a failure to take seriously His dignity... Thus the weightiness of God's glory is an integral part of the trauma of holiness." (Pg. 106)

He argues, "In Biblical categories of volition, man is created within a framework of freedom, but not autonomy. Man is given freedom, but is refused autonomy. Autonomy belongs to God alone. Man's freedom is within limits. In the Paradise situation he enjoys freedom in the garden but not unlimited freedom." (Pg. 146) He adds, "If ever there is a genuine paradox to be found in Holy Writ, it is at the point of freedom and bondage. The paradox is this: When one seeks to rebel from God, he gains only bondage. When he becomes a slave to God, he becomes free. Liberty is found in obedience." (Pg. 150-151)

He concludes, "The writer is grateful to the labor of Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Sartre, Feuerbach, etc., for their exposé of the idols fabricated by men. In this respect they have done a worthy service to Christianity... Does the question of the existence of God present problems that are ultimately intellectual or moral?... I must always ask myself, 'Do I believe what I believe because I am honestly persuaded by cogent reasoning that it is true, or do I believe what I believe merely because in the final analysis that's what I want to believe?'... Do I believe in the God who is, or do I believe in a god of my own creation?" (Pg. 155)

This book is an interesting complement to Sproul's more "answer-oriented" apologetics books, and will be of keen interest to any students of apologetics (particularly with a Reformed/Calvinist orientation).

[Flo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hier ist Sproul natürlich genau in seinem Element. Sehr gut. (mit Accelerate gelesen.)

Interessantester Gedanke: Das nicht das Christentum aus psychologischen Gründen erfunden wurde, sondern der Atheismus aus psychologischen Gründen aufkam, die durch den Sündenfall entstanden sind. (vgl. Römer 1, worauf auch die psychologischen Kategorien von Trauma, Verdrängung und Substitution gegründet werden können)

Einige Zitate:

“Though man may desire and create for himself a deity who meets his needs and provides him with innumerable benefits, he will not instinctively desire a God who is holy, omniscient, and sovereign.” (p. 10)

“It is one thing to affirm the existence of an ‘unknown’ god who makes no ultimate demands upon one’s life. It is quite another matter to affirm the existence of a God who makes an absolute claim on life, who holds people accountable for every deed and thought, and who threatens a person with everlasting torment if he refuses to obey Him.” (p. 22)

“What is true can never be determined by an analysis of what men desire or do not desire to be the truth.” (p. 63)

“Unbelieving man...wants, simultaneously, to live in a world in which he will not have to give an account to a holy God for his own moral failings, but also in a world with meaning, purpose, and safety from the moral failings of others.” (p. 66)

“The problem is not that there is insufficient evidence to convince rational beings that there is a God, but that rational beings have a natural hostility to the being of God.” (p. 79)

“Any reasoning process that begins with a denial of the known and proceeds on the basis of prejudice can hardly produce light, no matter how lucid and cogent the argument may proceed after the initial error is made." (p. 90)

“Being known of God is not the loss of humanity, but the glory of it.” (p. 160)

“The quest for autonomy produces not liberation, but the loss of freedom... When one seeks to rebel from God, he gains only bondage. When he becomes a slave to God, he becomes free. Liberty is found in obedience.” (p. 185–186)

“Truth, while it is not always easy to discern, is knowable. To deny this is to affirm it. That is, ‘Truth is not knowable’ is itself a truth claim.” (p. 191)

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book I would recommend to all atheists. Sproul is responding to the psychological objections brought against Christianity in the 19th century, mainly by Freud. Belief in God is said to be a fear rooted in the unknown forces of nature. We made nature personal to appease our fears, we can bribe persons (prayer) but not something impersonal (nature). God is simply a crutch we use to escape the existential dread and allow us to sleep at night. Once this is understood, man is liberated, or so they say. In response, Sproul simply puts the shoe on the other foot, noting that if one can just claim that putting your trust in God is due to a deep rooted psychological need for a father figure, why can't the theist do some psychoanalysis with the same ease? Isn't the atheist just scared of a father figure who punishes them? Of course, just making simplistic claims like that on both is to be intellectually lazy, hence why this objection is so prevalent in our culture, but what if there is something to this on the theists' side? Sproul goes onto show that not only can the theist be on the same footing, but the theist actually has a better case for believing there is a deep rooted psychological repression in unbelief and there are some serious anomalies in the Freudian critique, not only in scripture itself, but in various psychological phenomena. Drawing on the work of Rudolph Otto, a renowned scholar of comparative religion of the early 1900s and a brilliant exposition of Romans 1, it all comes together. This is not your typical "you really believe in God but and you just hate him" response to an atheist, but a serious study of the psychological reasons for why one would come to atheism if God exists. Part of Sproul's response is to ask, if there is no God, why is there religion? Why is man so inescapably religious? (homo religiosus).

This book will profoundly open your eyes to the process that goes into why and how we reject God, particularly through Romans 1.

[Douglas Hughes · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book seems to be mis titled. From the back page: "A common charge leveled against people with religious beliefs in general, and with Christian convictions in particular, is that their beliefs are motivated not by reasonable evidence but by psychological needs. In fact, many respected people, accepting the arguments of atheist thinkers, believe that psychology and the social sciences have explained away religion. Sproul shows that there are as many psychological and sociological explanations for unbelief as for belief - and that atheistic conclusions should not be accepted blindly." This was a hard read for this hard scientist who finds the soft sciences almost too silly for expending time and effort. The bottom line is still faith. A key subsection, IMHO, was BIBLICAL VIEW OF FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY, starting on page 180.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful

[Jesse Hall · Rating 1 out of 5]

First, the book title is completely inaccurate. The tile should be, ‘There are many psychologically desirable reasons for belief in a god, but there are also many undesirable consequences for specifically believing in the Christian god.’ The author attempts to show that while some have argued belief in a god is simply a psychological way for people to cope with life’s problems, a specific belief in the Christian god is actually more psychologically challenging than disbelief.

Second, the book is broken up into two parts. Part one is called, The Battlefield: Belief and Unbelief; part two is called, The Psychology of Unbelief. Part one is sort of interesting as it establishes (although very generally) the historical arguments about the psychology of belief (and unbelief) in a god. Part two is outrageously poorly written as it utterly fails to offer any evidence or supporting proof for the author’s argument; it is full of conjecture and conclusory statements; it offers no logical analysis or any argument able to be tested because the argument is based on subjective feelings. Part two is a complete waste of time to read if the reader is looking for rational analysis of the author’s thesis.

Throughout, the author does a mediocre analysis of many philosophical thinkers – such as Freud, Heidegger, Kant, Marx, Descartes, Dostoyevsky, Hume, Kierkegaard, J. S. Mill, Pascal, Sartre, Nietzsche, Socrates, et cetera. The problem is the author (who is a theologian and philosopher) takes on too large of task in an area not within his expertise (psychology). The book is simply too short to thoroughly cover what needs to be covered to support his thesis. And, like I said, this is more about psychology, which is (self-admittedly by the author) not in his area of expertise. (An aside, it’s very annoying the book misspells the names of some of the philosophers, which may be more of a problem with the editors, but it is still distracting.)

One positive comment I have about the book is the author continually shows respect for those philosophical thinkers who contradict what the author is arguing. The author even praises such thinkers (as any reasonable philosopher should) for their contribution to this area of analysis. The author recognizes the value in dialoguing over an area of disagreement. For that, I am impressed.

One offensive part of this book (and probably evidence it was written in the early 1970s) is the author’s use of racial stereotypes in his writing and his use of male-only prose. On page 32, the author mentions ‘a black urban’ man and then quotes the person as saying, ‘Man, I ain’t learned nothin’!’ – casting this person as a sort of uneducated speaker with an accent indicative of what the author describes as ‘black urban’. This type of stereotyping is irrelevant to the writing and shows the weakness of the author to put aside his own typecasting of racial minorities. Also, the generic use of ‘he’, ‘his’, and ‘man’ are part of the author’s more general problem of contributing to women's invisibility in philosophic discourse.

In conclusion, I would say because the title of this book is so inaccurate, many readers will find the book disappointing because it is not about what it purports to be about. As a prior, formal student of philosophy I found the author’s overviews of philosophical perspectives a bit generalized and watered down (though I admit it would be impossible to do justice to each perspective in a book this short). The author does a decent job of comparing and contrasting his ideas with those of other thinkers. All of this is done in part one of the book. Part two of the book is a complete waste of time if you’re looking for logical, reasoned analysis; it reads more like a religious devotional book than a philosophical critique. The concluding chapter of the book, titled, ‘Conclusion: The Never-Ending Bias,’ is actually quite well written. It basically summarizes the arguments for the author’s thesis. If you’re on the fence about reading this book, then just the Conclusion; if you like it, read part one of the book. Also, keep in mind the book is a quick and easy read, which for a book analyzing psychology, philosophy, and theology is quite a feat. That said, it’s also one of the problems with the book: it can’t possibly do justice to the author’s thesis in such a short writing.

[Timothy Dragan · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this captivating and succinct book, R.C. Sproul presents a compelling argument against the notion that religion solely stems from psychological inclinations.

Challenging the perspective of atheists, the book asserts that psychological analyses alone cannot ascertain the existence or non-existence of God, as the existence of God transcends subjective experiences. His existence is objective: either he exists or does not exist regardless of psychological whims.

Additionally, it explores how atheism can also be attributed to a psychological longing for moral evasion, akin to a crutch, essentially reversing the argument normally made against Christians with faith being a crutch.

With clarity, conciseness, and cogency, Sproul effectively presents his case. This insightful read has equipped me with valuable tools to engage with atheists, making it a highly recommended book for all seeking a deeper understanding of this subject matter.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Easily accessible and smooth flowing, this book considers the psychology of unbelief/atheism expounding four possible causes. Using the writing of unbelieving philosophers themselves, the text of Scripture, and various other sources, Sproul discusses "The Flight from an Indignant God," "The Trauma of Holiness," "God and the Fear of Nakedness," and "The Human Quest for Autonomy." He argues that any of these four can function as a psychological reason to prefer disbelief over theism.

Being a fast read, this book rewarded me well for my time spent, though the basic content was by no means groundbreaking.

[Natasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really good overview of the psychology behind why people may choose not to believe in the God of the Bible. A worthwhile read for Christians with atheist friends to help understand them better and engage in a good discussion.

[Dr. Paul T. Blake · Rating 3 out of 5]

He had a few sections that were quite interesting, including a Biblical study on nakedness/shame as related to sin.