Hubbry Logo
Religious skepticismReligious skepticismMain
Open search
Religious skepticism
Community hub
Religious skepticism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Religious skepticism
Religious skepticism
Religious skepticism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Religious skepticism is a type of skepticism relating to religion. Religious skeptics question religious authority and are not necessarily antireligious/clerical but rather are skeptical of either specific or all religious beliefs and/or practices. Socrates was one of the most prominent and first religious skeptics of whom there are records; he questioned the legitimacy of the beliefs of his time in the existence of the Greek gods. Religious skepticism is not the same as atheism or agnosticism, and some religious skeptics are deists (or theists who reject the prevailing organized religion they encounter, or even all organized religion).

Overview

[edit]

The word skeptic is derived from the Greek word skeptikos, meaning inquiring, which was used to refer to members of the Hellenistic philosophical school of Pyrrhonism which doubted the possibility of knowledge.[1] As such, religious skepticism generally refers to doubting or questioning something about religion. Although, as noted by Schellenberg the term is sometimes more generally applied to anyone that has a negative view of religion.[2]

The majority of skeptics are agnostics and atheists, but there are also a number of religious people that are skeptical of religion.[3] The religious are generally skeptical about claims of other religions, at least when the two denominations conflict concerning some stated belief. Some philosophers put forth the sheer diversity of religion as a justification for skepticism by theists and nontheists alike.[4] Theists are also generally skeptical of the claims put forth by atheists.[5]

Michael Shermer wrote that religious skepticism is a process for discovering the truth rather than general nonacceptance.[6] For this reason a religious skeptic might believe that Jesus existed while questioning claims that he was the messiah or performed miracles (see historicity of Jesus). Thomas Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, a literal cut and paste of the New Testament that removes anything supernatural, is a prominent example.

History

[edit]

Ancient history

[edit]

Ancient Greece was a polytheistic society in which the gods were not omnipotent and required sacrifice and ritual. The earliest beginnings of religious skepticism can be traced back to Xenophanes. He critiqued popular religion of his time, particularly false conceptions of the divine that are a byproduct of the human propensity to anthropomorphize deities. He took the scripture of his time to task for painting the gods in a negative light and promoted a more rational view of religion. He was very critical of religious people privileging their belief system over others without sound reason.[7][8]

Socrates' conception of the divine was that the gods were always benevolent, truthful, authoritative, and wise. Divinity was to operate within the standards of rationality.[9] This critique of established religion ultimately resulted in his trial for impiety and corruption as documented in The Apology. The historian Will Durant writes that Plato was "as skeptical of atheism as of any other dogma."[10][8]

Democritus was the father of materialism in the West, and there is no trace of a belief in any afterlife in his work. Specifically, in Those in Hades he refers to constituents of the soul as atoms that dissolve upon death.[11] This later inspired the philosopher Epicurus and the philosophy he founded, who held a materialist view and rejected any afterlife, while further claiming the gods were also uninterested in human affairs.[12] In the poem De rerum natura Lucretius proclaimed Epicurean philosophy, that the universe operates according to physical principles and guided by fortuna, or chance, instead of the Roman gods.[13]

In De Natura Deorum, the Academic Skeptic philosopher Cicero presented arguments against the Stoics calling into question the character of the gods, whether or not they participate in earthly affairs, and questions their existence. [14]

In ancient India, there was a materialist philosophical school called the Cārvāka, who were known as being skeptical of the religious claims of Vedic religion, its rituals and texts. A forerunner to the Charvaka school, philosopher Ajita Kesakambali, did not believe in reincarnation.[15]

Early modern history

[edit]

Thomas Hobbes took positions that strongly disagreed with orthodox Christian teachings. He argued repeatedly that there are no incorporeal substances, and that all things, even God, heaven, and hell are corporeal, matter in motion. He argued that "though Scripture acknowledge spirits, yet doth it nowhere say, that they are incorporeal, meaning thereby without dimensions and quantity".[16]

Voltaire, although himself a deist, was a forceful critic of religion and advocated for acceptance of all religions as well as separation of church and state.[17] In Japan, Yamagata Bantō (d. 1821) declared that "in this world there are no gods, Buddhas, or ghosts, nor are there strange or miraculous things".[15]

Modern religious skepticism

[edit]

The term has morphed into one that typically emphasizes scientific and historical methods of evidence. There are some skeptics that question whether religion is a viable topic for criticism given that it doesn't require proof for belief. Others, however, insist it is as much as any other knowledge, especially when it makes claims that contradict those made by science.[18][19]

There has been much work since the late 20th century by philosophers such as Schellenburg and Moser, and both have written numerous books pertaining to the topic.[20] Much of their work has focused on defining what religion is and specifically what people are skeptical of about it.[21][2] The work of others have argued for the viability of religious skepticism by appeal to higher-order evidence (evidence about our evidence and our capacities for evaluation),[22] what some call meta-evidence.[23]

There are still echoes of early Greek skepticism in the way some current thinkers question the intellectual viability of belief in the divine.[24] In modern times there is a certain amount of mistrust and lack of acceptance of religious skeptics, particularly towards those that are also atheists.[25][26][27] This is coupled with concerns many skeptics have about the government in countries, such as the US, where separation of church and state are central tenets.[28]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Religious skepticism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Religious skepticism constitutes a methodical applied to religious propositions, particularly those positing agents, , or revelations unverifiable by empirical means or rational standards. This stance prioritizes evidence-based assessment, rejecting claims that fail to meet criteria of , , or logical coherence independent of doctrinal authority. Originating in , it manifests in of Elis's advocacy for suspending judgment amid equipollent arguments, extending to religious assertions lacking decisive proof. Socrates exemplified early skeptical inquiry through elenchus, probing the foundations of popular and oracular pronouncements to reveal inconsistencies, thereby undermining unexamined religious convictions without outright denial. The Academic skeptics, such as and , systematized this by arguing against dogmatic certainty in any domain, including , influencing later Hellenistic and Roman thought. In modernity, advanced religious skepticism via , contending that reports violate uniform experience and thus warrant disbelief unless corroborated by superior evidence, while critiquing teleological arguments for divine design as anthropomorphic projections. This evidentialist framework aligns with scientific naturalism, where causal explanations grounded in observable patterns supersede appeals to faith, fostering ongoing tensions with institutional religion over and authority. Empirical studies further indicate that reflective cognitive styles correlate with diminished , suggesting skepticism's cognitive underpinnings.

Definition and Core Principles

Conceptual Foundations

Religious skepticism fundamentally challenges the justification of religious s by insisting that acceptance of doctrinal claims—such as the existence of deities, divine revelations, or events—requires proportional commensurate with their extraordinary nature. This stance aligns with , which holds that a is epistemically justified only insofar as it is supported by adequate , and that believing without such support is intellectually irresponsible. Philosopher W.K. Clifford encapsulated this in 1879, arguing that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient ," a principle that skeptics apply to religious propositions often advanced on the basis of , , or personal experience rather than verifiable data. In practice, this demands empirical testing, logical coherence, and for religious assertions, leading skeptics to withhold assent when such standards are unmet, as claims typically elude repeatable observation or controlled verification. At its core, religious skepticism inherits from broader skeptical traditions the practice of epochê, or , particularly on non-evident matters like the ultimate nature of reality or divine agency. Ancient Pyrrhonian skeptics, as described by around 200 CE, recommended suspending belief in theological claims due to equipollence—equal strength of opposing arguments—and the undecidability of criteria for truth beyond immediate appearances. This approach does not preclude practical adherence to cultural rituals but rejects dogmatic commitment to unproven religious cosmologies, viewing them as prone to error from anthropomorphic projections or , as critiqued by pre-Socratic thinker around 500 BCE. Modern extensions emphasize causal realism: religious explanations must compete with naturalistic accounts grounded in observable mechanisms, such as for moral intuitions or physics for cosmic origins, dismissing appeals to faith as epistemically circular. Critics of non-evidential religious epistemologies, like —which prioritizes faith over —argue that such positions undermine rational discourse by insulating beliefs from scrutiny, potentially fostering toward unverifiable authorities. Religious skeptics counter that extraordinary claims, absent robust , invite systematic doubt to guard against cognitive biases like or prevalent in communal belief systems. This foundational skepticism thus promotes methodological inquiry, akin to , where provisional acceptance yields to updated , ensuring beliefs align with rather than .

Distinctions from Atheism, Agnosticism, and Fideism

Religious skepticism entails a systematic application of to religious claims, doctrines, and institutions, demanding or rational justification before acceptance, in contrast to , which specifically denotes a lack of in deities or their outright . While religious skeptics often critique theistic assertions for failing evidential standards, such as the absence of verifiable or fulfilled prophecies, they do not inherently conclude non-existence; instead, they suspend assent pending better , allowing for potential theistic openness if arises. , by comparison, represents a doxastic stance—either negative (no due to lack of ) or positive (affirmative disbelief)—that may stem from skeptical but extends beyond it as a settled position on divine reality. In distinction from , religious skepticism actively interrogates religious tenets through methodological scrutiny, such as Bayesian evaluation of probabilistic evidence or tests, rather than merely asserting about 's existence or knowability. , originating with Thomas Huxley in 1869 as a commitment to ignorance claims—"I do not know" or "It is unknowable"—focuses narrowly on the God hypothesis without broader critique of scriptural reliability, ritual efficacy, or theological coherence. Religious skeptics, however, extend doubt to ancillary claims like events or divine intervention, often provisionally rejecting them due to historical inconsistencies or natural explanations, while agnostics may remain neutral across the board. This proactive positions skepticism as a tool for ongoing assessment, not indefinite abstention. Religious skepticism stands in opposition to , which posits faith as epistemically primary and independent of reason, often disparaging rational inquiry as insufficient for grasping divine truths. Fideists, from figures like to certain Reformed epistemologists, argue that religious belief justifies itself via non-evidential means, such as personal revelation or properly immune to skeptical challenge. Skeptics counter that such approaches evade accountability, insisting instead on fallibilist standards where faith claims must withstand counter-evidence, like the problem of non-resistant non-belief or inconsistent revelations across traditions. While "skeptical fideism" historically emerged—using to undermine reason and exalt faith—this hybrid subordinates skepticism to presupposed belief, inverting the skeptic's priority of evidence-led revision over unyielding commitment.

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Periods


In ancient Greece, religious skepticism emerged among pre-Socratic philosophers who critiqued anthropomorphic depictions of gods in Homeric poetry. Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 570–478 BCE) argued that mortals project human forms and behaviors onto deities, noting that Thracians envision gods as fair-haired and blue-eyed while Ethiopians see them as flat-nosed and snub-nosed, thereby questioning the validity of traditional theology. He proposed a singular, non-anthropomorphic divine entity characterized by omniscience and immobility, distinct from polytheistic narratives. By the fifth century BCE, overt challenges to religious orthodoxy intensified, exemplified by (fl. 415 BCE), labeled an atheist for mocking the and denying divine oversight in human affairs. His exile from underscores the perils faced by skeptics, as authorities viewed such views as threats to civic . (c. 469–399 BCE) faced similar accusations of for questioning state-sanctioned gods and promoting inquiry into divine matters via his daimonion, a personal inner voice, leading to his and execution in 399 BCE. While professed belief in divine influence, his method of elenchus exposed inconsistencies in religious claims, fostering about unexamined . Hellenistic philosophy advanced skeptical arguments against divine intervention. Epicurus (341–270 BCE) affirmed the existence of gods as blissful, atomic beings in distant realms but rejected fears of punishment or afterlife torments, asserting that natural explanations suffice for phenomena attributed to deities. His tetrapharmakos emphasized freedom from superstitious dread, influencing later materialist critiques. Pyrrhonist skeptics, originating with Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE), advocated suspension of judgment (epoché) on all dogmatic assertions, including religious ones, to achieve tranquility. In , Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99–55 BCE) propagated Epicurean skepticism in , decrying religion as a source of terror and moral corruption, such as human sacrifices, and attributing natural events to atomic swerves rather than godly will. He argued that superstitious piety hinders scientific understanding, urging reliance on empirical observation. Parallel developments occurred in ancient with the Cārvāka (Lokayata) school (c. 600 BCE onward), which rejected Vedic authority, karma, , and gods as unverifiable, positing that arises from material elements and only perceptual evidence yields knowledge. This materialist dismissed supernatural explanations, prioritizing sensory data and hedonistic over ritualistic religion.

Medieval to Enlightenment Eras

In the medieval period, religious skepticism manifested primarily through philosophical challenges to rational demonstrations of doctrine, amid a theological framework that subordinated reason to . (c. 1287–1347) contended that human reason could not demonstratively prove the immortality of the soul, the , or divine attributes such as unity and infinity, necessitating fideistic acceptance on scriptural authority alone. His nominalist emphasis on divine allowed to intervene arbitrarily, undermining causal necessities inferred by reason and fostering skepticism toward . Nicholas of Autrecourt (c. 1300–1369) advanced a more radical epistemic , asserting that no evident knowledge exists of substance, causality, or efficient production beyond immediate sensory intuition, which extended to rational supports for religious claims about creation and miracles. Condemned by the in 1346 for theses implying heresy, including the denial of demonstrable causal links, Autrecourt recanted in 1347, and his writings were burned, illustrating the era's intolerance for encroaching on orthodoxy. Popular-level also surfaced, as records from , (1486–1502), document 444 blasphemous declarations from diverse individuals, including denials of heaven and hell as mere fables to control the populace, rejections of during public outbursts, and assertions that non-Christians could attain without conversion. The revived ancient Pyrrhonian and via translations of (c. 160–210 CE), prompting critiques of dogmatic certainty in theology and science, though often reconciled with faith through . By the late 17th century, speculative became conceivable amid scientific and , marking a shift from isolated doubts to systematic questioning. In the Enlightenment, skepticism toward revealed intensified, prioritizing and reason over tradition. (1647–1706), in his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (1697), cataloged inconsistencies in religious histories and miracles, arguing that reason exposes contradictions in while defending on skeptical grounds that certainty eludes human faculties in . Though a fideist who upheld beyond reason, Bayle's erudite dismantling of orthodox narratives influenced deistic critiques of institutional . Voltaire (1694–1778), a deist skeptical of , lambasted intolerance and superstition in works like (1759), satirizing providential optimism and attributing religious wars to priestly rather than divine will. He advocated a rational stripped of miracles and , viewing organized as a source of error and tyranny exploitable by rulers. David Hume (1711–1776) delivered empiricist blows to natural religion, rejecting testimony for miracles in "Of Miracles" (1748) due to uniform experience favoring natural laws over violations thereof, and critiquing design arguments in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) by highlighting empirical inadequacies in analogizing universe to artifacts. Hume portrayed popular religion as fear-driven superstition yielding harmful passions, contrasting it with philosophical theism's mitigated skepticism, though he deemed even the latter unsubstantiated by evidence. These arguments eroded confidence in supernatural claims, paving the way for secular epistemologies.

19th to 20th Century Evolution

In the , religious skepticism intensified amid rapid scientific progress and materialist philosophies that prioritized observable mechanisms over explanations. Charles Darwin's (1859) proposed as the driver of biological complexity, undermining teleological arguments for divine design and prompting widespread reevaluation of scriptural accounts of creation among educated elites. Karl Marx's 1844 critique in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right framed religion as "the ," a compensatory that sustains class oppression by diverting attention from economic realities to illusory consolations. Friedrich Nietzsche's declaration in (1882) that "" diagnosed the erosion of Christian metaphysics in European culture, attributing it to the triumph of rational inquiry and , which he argued necessitated new, non-theistic value systems to avoid . The 20th century extended these challenges through psychoanalytic, logical, and existential frameworks, systematically dissecting religion's psychological and epistemological foundations. Sigmund Freud's (1927) portrayed religious belief as a defensive illusion rooted in infantile helplessness and paternal projections, destined to wane under scientific rationality's advance. Bertrand Russell's 1927 lecture "Why I Am Not a Christian" rejected theistic proofs as flawed—such as first-cause arguments—and condemned Christianity's ethical inconsistencies, like its endorsement of hellfire, as barriers to human progress. , formalized by the in the 1920s and articulated in A. J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic (1936), dismissed religious propositions as unverifiable and thus cognitively meaningless, confining meaningful discourse to empirical or tautological statements. Existential philosophers like built on Nietzschean , depicting existence as absurd and devoid of inherent divine purpose, compelling individuals to forge meaning through autonomous choice amid uncertainty. These developments correlated with measurable in , where weekly fell sharply; for example, in Protestant nations, rates among cohorts born after hovered below 10-20%, signaling 's integration into broader cultural norms over fideistic traditions. The devastation of the World Wars further eroded confidence in providential narratives, as mass suffering appeared incompatible with omnipotent benevolence, reinforcing causal analyses favoring naturalistic over theological interpretations of human affairs.

Philosophical Arguments and Methodology

Epistemological Challenges to Faith

Epistemological challenges to religious center on the justification and warrant for accepting propositions about divine realities without empirical verification or intersubjective evidence comparable to scientific claims. These critiques argue that , defined as belief held firm despite evidential deficits, violates standards of rational belief formation, such as , which requires beliefs to be proportionate to available evidence. In 1877, W.K. Clifford asserted in "The Ethics of Belief" that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence," extending this to religious convictions where assertions lack the rigorous testing demanded in other domains of inquiry. This position underscores a causal disconnect: religious beliefs often originate from testimony, tradition, or personal experience rather than causal chains traceable to observable phenomena, rendering them epistemically precarious. A prominent challenge arises from divine hiddenness, which questions why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent would permit reasonable nonbelief if personal relationship is valued. Philosopher J.L. Schellenberg formalized this in his 1993 work Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason, arguing that a loving would provide accessible sufficient to eliminate nonresistant unbelief, yet widespread skepticism persists among sincere seekers, implying either divine nonexistence or unwillingness to reveal. Empirical data supports this: surveys indicate that approximately 16% of the global population identifies as non-religious, with many citing evidential inadequacy rather than moral rebellion. The argument gains force from first-principles reasoning: if divine causation underpins reality, its effects should be discernible beyond subjective interpretation, but hiddenness suggests alternative naturalistic explanations for religious phenomenology, such as cognitive biases toward agency detection. Religious pluralism exacerbates these issues by presenting conflicting epistemological claims across traditions, each asserting privileged access to ultimate truth via or . With over 4,000 distinct religions historically documented, and core doctrines like versus irreconcilable, the parity of epistemic confidence among adherents implies that belief reliability correlates more with geographic and cultural contingencies than veridical insight. Critics contend this diversity undermines exclusivist faiths' warrant, as no neutral arbiter exists to adjudicate revelations, leading to a regress where justification loops back on unverifiable premises. Defenses like Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology, positing belief in God as "properly basic" akin to perceptual beliefs, encounter the "Great Pumpkin" objection: if require no , arbitrary fantasies could claim equal status, diluting epistemic standards without criteria. Such critiques highlight that while may yield psychological utility, it falters under scrutiny demanding causal accountability and intersubjective corroboration.

Empirical and Scientific Critiques

Empirical critiques of religious claims emphasize the absence of verifiable, reproducible for interventions, positing that naturalistic explanations suffice for phenomena once attributed to divine action. Scientific methodologies require hypotheses to be falsifiable and testable through controlled observation, criteria unmet by assertions of , , or creation ex nihilo. Where religious predictions have been experimentally probed, outcomes consistently align with null hypotheses, undermining claims of efficacy. For instance, the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory (STEP), a 2006 multicenter trial involving 1,802 cardiac surgery patients, found no reduction in complications from remote prayer by third parties, with patients aware of receiving prayer experiencing a 59% complication rate compared to 52% for those receiving it unbeknownst and 51% for controls. A of distant intercessory prayer studies similarly concluded no discernible effects beyond chance, attributing apparent positives in smaller trials to methodological flaws like or expectancy effects. In , the theory of evolution by provides a mechanistic account of supported by genetic, , and comparative anatomical data, rendering literal interpretations of creation narratives empirically untenable. Transitional s, such as Tiktaalik roseae (discovered 2004, bridging fish and tetrapods), and endogenous retroviruses shared across primates demonstrate rather than independent divine design. Creationist arguments invoking , as in bacterial flagella, fail under scrutiny, as evolutionary pathways—via and co-option—explain their assembly without invoking supernatural agency. Genomic evidence, including the 98-99% human-chimpanzee DNA similarity and conservation, further corroborates descent with modification over , with no peer-reviewed data supporting young-earth timelines (e.g., 6,000-10,000 years). Neuroscience elucidates religious experiences as emergent from brain function, diminishing appeals to transcendent origins. Functional MRI studies reveal that mystical states correlate with reduced activity in the (self-other boundary dissolution) and heightened engagement, akin to epileptic seizures or psychedelic effects, without requiring external spiritual input. Hyperactive agency detection, an evolved for attributing events to intentional agents, underpins anthropomorphic gods, as evidenced by showing children default to teleological explanations later overridden by evidence-based reasoning. Such findings suggest religious belief arises from adaptive heuristics—e.g., circuits projecting human-like onto nature—rather than veridical perception of , with no neural markers distinguishing "genuine" from . Cosmological and physical critiques highlight how standard models obviate divine fine-tuning or intervention. The Big Bang theory, corroborated by cosmic microwave background radiation (measured at 2.725 K uniformity by COBE satellite in 1992 and Planck in 2013), accounts for universe origins via quantum fluctuations and , without evidential gaps necessitating a creator. Apparent fine-tuning of constants (e.g., at 10^{-120}) is addressed by hypotheses or selection, testable via inflationary predictions, rather than untestable design. Religious claims of ongoing miracles, such as faith healings, lack controlled verification; regression to population means explains recoveries, as in analyses showing rates indistinguishable from . These critiques do not preclude deistic gods but eviscerate interventionist theism's empirical pretensions, privileging parsimonious naturalism.

Problem of Evil and Theodicy Responses

The problem of evil represents a cornerstone argument in religious skepticism, challenging the compatibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent with observed instances of suffering and moral wrongdoing. Its classical formulation, attributed to and preserved in later texts, questions whether a god who is willing but unable to prevent evil lacks power, or able but unwilling lacks goodness, leading skeptics to infer that no such exists. Modern logical versions, as articulated by in 1955, assert that the propositions "God is omnipotent," "God is wholly good," and "evil exists" form an inconsistent triad, as a being with unlimited power and benevolence would eliminate all evil. Skeptics maintain this logical tension persists despite theistic efforts to reconcile it, as proposed resolutions often rely on unverified assumptions about divine nature or human limitations. The evidential variant, advanced by William Rowe in , shifts focus from strict incompatibility to probabilistic disconfirmation: specific cases of seemingly gratuitous —such as a enduring prolonged, pointless agony from or —provide inductive against , as no greater good plausibly justifies them under theistic premises. 's fawn example, involving an animal's intense forest-fire without apparent purpose or , exemplifies this, arguing that if such evils lack justifying reasons discernible to rational observers, the hypothesis of a benevolent becomes less likely than naturalistic alternatives. Religious skeptics leverage empirical data on global scales—e.g., over 2.5 million deaths annually from preventable causes as of recent WHO estimates—to amplify this evidential force, contending that the volume and intensity of natural and moral evils exceed what first-principles reasoning would expect from an optimizing . Theistic theodicies seek to vindicate divine permission of by positing morally sufficient reasons. Alvin Plantinga's defense, formalized in 1974, counters the logical problem by arguing that cannot actualize a world with moral good (dependent on libertarian free choices) without permitting , as coerced undermines its value; thus, transworld depravity—essences prone to in any feasible world—renders evil's existence logically possible under . Skeptics rebut this by noting its failure to encompass natural evils (e.g., geological disasters predating human agency) and questioning why an omnipotent creator could not instantiate free beings predisposed to universal moral success without logical contradiction, as compatibilist or middle-knowledge models suggest. Empirical critiques highlight that does not necessitate observed excess suffering, such as genocides or pandemics, where divine intervention appears absent despite potential for minimal interference preserving agency. Other theodicies include Irenaean soul-making, which views evil as essential for character development toward perfection, and Leibnizian optimism, positing this as the balancing goods and evils. Skeptics dismiss these as , lacking empirical verification; for instance, soul-making fails to explain animal suffering irrelevant to moral growth, while optimism collides with evidence of suboptimal outcomes like evolutionary inefficiencies yielding without commensurate virtue. Skeptical theism, a non-theodicy response, invokes epistemic limits: just as children cannot grasp parental reasons for allowing , finite minds may miss divine justifications for apparent gratuities, neutralizing evidential inferences. Critics from skeptical traditions counter that this undercuts theistic broadly, as it symmetrically erodes confidence in religious experiences or fine-tuning arguments, where perceived evidences might similarly mask misleading appearances, rendering theism's positive claims unverifiable. Ultimately, religious skeptics regard the as unresolved by theodicies, sustaining or as more parsimonious given causal realities of suffering absent evident divine mitigation.

Key Figures and Intellectual Traditions

Pioneering Thinkers

of Colophon (c. 570–475 BCE) represents one of the earliest recorded systematic critiques of traditional religious conceptions, particularly the anthropomorphic depictions in Homeric and Hesiodic poetry. He argued that gods portrayed with human forms, emotions, and vices—such as thievery, , and mutual deception—reflected cultural projections rather than divine reality, famously noting that if oxen or horses possessed hands, they would fashion gods in their own likeness. posited that true divinity, if it exists, must transcend such limitations, being neither anthropomorphic nor subject to human-like changes, though he acknowledged human inability to fully ascertain divine truths, stating "clearly the gods did not reveal all things to mortals from the beginning, but in time, by seeking, they discover better." In the fifth century BCE, Protagoras of Abdera (c. 490–420 BCE) advanced agnosticism toward religious claims, declaring in his work On the Gods that "as to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or that they do not exist or what their forms are like," citing the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life as barriers to certain knowledge. This stance, preserved in Plato's Meno and Diogenes Laërtius, marked a pioneering suspension of judgment on divine existence, distinguishing it from outright denial while challenging dogmatic piety; Protagoras's books were publicly burned in Athens for impiety, reflecting the era's tensions. Diagoras of Melos (5th century BCE), dubbed "the Atheist" by ancient sources, exemplified bolder rejection of religious practices, reportedly ridiculing the by questioning divine intervention in storms—pointing to shipwrecks despite votive offerings—and disclosing sacred rites, which led to his indictment and flight from around 415 BCE. While fragments of his views are lost, accounts in and portray him arguing that observable natural events contradicted claims of providential gods, positioning him as an early proponent of empirical doubt against explanations; modern scholarship debates the extent of his but affirms his role in promoting irreligious critique. Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99–55 BCE), in his epic poem , extended Epicurean to dismantle religious , asserting that fear of divine wrath and the originated human as a maladaptive response to natural phenomena like thunder and , rather than genuine . He maintained that gods, if existent, inhabit distant intermundia without interfering in human affairs, rendering traditional rituals and prophecies futile and harmful, as they foster anxiety over tranquility achievable through rational understanding of atomistic causality. Lucretius's work, influenced by , systematically prioritized empirical observation over faith, influencing later skeptical traditions despite its limited circulation until rediscovered in the .

Modern Proponents and New Atheism

The New Atheism movement, which gained prominence in the mid-2000s, represented a assertive form of religious skepticism characterized by public intellectuals who critiqued religious belief as irrational and detrimental to society, advocating instead for a worldview grounded in science and evidence. This approach contrasted with more accommodationist forms of atheism by directly challenging the societal respect afforded to faith, arguing that religion's claims lack empirical support and often foster division or violence. The term "New Atheism" was popularized in a 2006 Wired magazine article by Gary Wolf, highlighting figures who rejected euphemisms for superstition and called for open confrontation with religious doctrines. Central to the movement were the so-called "Four Horsemen": evolutionary biologist , neuroscientist and philosopher , philosopher , and journalist and critic . Dawkins, in his 2006 book , contended that the God hypothesis is unnecessary and improbable, likening religious belief to a persistent propagated by cultural memes rather than , and criticized religious of children as abusive. Harris's 2004 book linked religious dogma to , particularly post-9/11 Islamist , asserting that faith-based reasoning evades rational scrutiny and endangers global stability, while proposing through decoupled from doctrine. Dennett's 2006 work Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon urged scientific investigation into religion's evolutionary origins, treating it as a byproduct of cognitive adaptations rather than divine , and warned against shielding from empirical analysis. Hitchens, in (2007), argued that religion poisons human morality and progress by inventing doctrines that justify cruelty, from inquisitions to modern fundamentalism, and maintained that ethical conduct arises independently of theistic claims. These proponents employed first-principles reasoning from , , and to dismantle theological arguments, emphasizing and over unfalsifiable assertions of . They participated in high-profile debates and a 2007 recorded discussion that amassed millions of views, amplifying through media and best-selling publications that collectively sold tens of millions of copies. Their critiques focused on causal links between religious tenets and historical harms, such as scriptural endorsements of , while dismissing accommodations like "moderate" as enablers of . The movement spurred growth in secular organizations, including the Foundation for Reason and Science (founded 2006), and contributed to atheism's rising visibility, with U.S. "nones" increasing from 16% in 2007 to 29% by 2021 per Pew Research surveys. However, by the 2010s, faced internal divisions over issues like gender dynamics and political alignments, and external critiques for underemphasizing religion's social benefits or overgeneralizing from outliers, though its core insistence on evidence-based discourse persists in ongoing works by survivors like Dawkins and Harris. Dennett died in 2024, and Hitchens in 2011, marking the end of the original quartet's collaborative phase.

Organized Skepticism and Movements

Secular Organizations and Societies

The (FFRF), co-founded in 1976 by and her daughter and formally incorporated in 1978, operates as the largest association in the United States, with more than 39,000 members comprising atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. The organization litigates against government endorsement of religion, such as public funding for religious displays or prayers at official events, and conducts public awareness campaigns to highlight nontheistic perspectives, including billboards and advertisements challenging religious privileges. American Atheists, established in 1963 by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Abington School District v. Schempp ruling that prohibited mandatory Bible reading and prayer in public schools, advocates for strict church-state separation through lawsuits, lobbying, and media outreach. The group has pursued over 50 years of legal challenges against religious intrusions in public institutions, such as military chaplains' roles and Ten Commandments monuments on government property, while publishing resources to normalize and critique faith-based claims. The Center for Inquiry (CFI), encompassing the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)—originally founded in 1976 as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal—applies empirical methods to scrutinize religious assertions alongside and beliefs. CFI's initiatives include publishing the magazine, which features peer-reviewed analyses questioning elements in , and hosting conferences that dissect faith-based epistemologies in favor of evidence-based reasoning. Through its for Secular Humanism, CFI promotes ethical frameworks independent of religious doctrine, influencing policy debates on issues like end-of-life choices and education standards. Internationally, serves as the umbrella body for over 120 member organizations spanning more than 60 countries, coordinating advocacy for that rejects religious in and . It supports persecuted nonbelievers in regions with laws, lobbies at bodies like the for protections against , and funds projects to build secular communities, emphasizing rational ethics over theistic authority. These groups collectively report millions in annual budgets for legal and educational efforts, though their influence remains contested amid claims of overemphasizing confrontation over dialogue with religious institutions.

Influence on Culture and Policy

Religious skepticism, through organized movements and advocacy, has contributed to the normalization of secular worldviews in Western media and education. Books by New Atheist figures such as ' The God Delusion (2006) and ' The End of Faith (2004) became international bestsellers, selling millions of copies and sparking widespread public debates that elevated skeptical critiques of religion from academic margins to mainstream discourse. These works popularized arguments against religious influence in society, influencing online communities and media portrayals that increasingly frame faith as incompatible with scientific rationality, thereby fostering a cultural shift toward viewing as a marker of intellectual sophistication. In education, skeptical organizations have pushed curricula emphasizing over doctrinal teachings; for instance, campaigns by groups like the Center for Inquiry have advocated for science-based instruction in public schools, reducing the prevalence of in U.S. biology classes following legal victories in the 1980s and 2000s. On policy, organized religious skeptics have leveraged litigation to enforce strict interpretations of church-state separation, particularly in the United States under the First Amendment's . The (FFRF), founded in 1976, has initiated over 1,000 lawsuits challenging government endorsement of religion, including successful actions to remove monuments from public property and halt school-sponsored prayers. In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007), the U.S. addressed FFRF's challenge to taxpayer-funded conferences promoting President George W. Bush's faith-based initiatives, ruling on standing but highlighting ongoing tensions over public funding for religious organizations over secular alternatives. Such efforts have influenced broader policy trends, including the 2017 dismissal of FFRF's suit against a Trump expanding religious exemptions in healthcare, underscoring skeptics' role in contesting policies perceived as privileging faith-based providers. Internationally, skeptical advocacy has supported secular laws, as seen in France's 1905 law on , rooted partly in Enlightenment-era critiques that diminished clerical influence on . These actions reflect a causal push toward policies prioritizing empirical neutrality, though critics argue they sometimes overextend into restricting voluntary religious expression.

Criticisms and Limitations

Overreach in Dismissing Non-Empirical Knowledge

Critics of religious skepticism contend that an exclusive emphasis on constitutes an overreach by invalidating non-empirical epistemic warrant, such as a priori reasoning and foundational beliefs not derived from sensory data. This evidentialist demand, often rooted in classical , requires all beliefs to be supported by evidence or further beliefs tracing back to self-evident truths or sensory experiences, yet fails to account for the rational status of beliefs like the existence of other minds, which are inferred analogically rather than directly observed. critiques this as self-referentially inconsistent, arguing that lacks evidence for its own principle and imposes an arbitrary standard not met by everyday cognition. Reformed epistemology, advanced by Plantinga, posits that theistic belief can be properly basic—rationally held without propositional evidence—much like perceptual beliefs or memory recollections, which skeptics accept despite lacking empirical justification for their reliability. Plantinga's model draws on the , a faculty yielding direct awareness of , warranting belief in suitable conditions without needing external validation. Dismissing such non-inferential justification risks epistemic parochialism, as it privileges empirical modes while overlooking deductive arguments, such as those concerning necessary being or causal principles, which underpin cosmology and metaphysics independent of experimentation. This stance often aligns with , asserting that only scientific inquiry yields genuine knowledge, a thesis undermined by its own non-empirical origin. Proponents like highlight that scientism cannot be falsified or confirmed through observation, rendering it philosophically circular and incapable of addressing domains like , logic, or , where empirical methods falter. Such overreach manifests in double standards: skeptics rely on unobservable entities like electrons or multiverses inferred from indirect data, yet reject religious testimony or cumulative philosophical cases for lacking repeatable lab results. This selective , critics argue, conflates methodological naturalism with ontological claims, sidelining rational inquiry into ultimate explanations.

Psychological and Sociological Biases in Skeptics

Despite self-perceptions of superior , religious skeptics exhibit myside , a form of where individuals evaluate arguments more critically when they oppose their preexisting views than when they support them. A 2017 study analyzing 228 Slovakian participants found that non-believers, including atheists, displayed higher levels of myside compared to religious believers, despite lower self-reported dogmatism; this persisted even after controlling for and cognitive ability, suggesting it undermines claims of unyielding objectivity in dismissing religious arguments. Myside correlates weakly or not at all with general , implying that intellectually capable skeptics remain prone to partisan reasoning when assessing for or against supernatural claims. Confirmation bias similarly afflicts skeptics, manifesting as a selective focus on disconfirming evidence for religious doctrines while overlooking philosophical or experiential supports for , such as arguments from contingency or reported . indicates this operates universally, with skeptics reinforcing naturalistic worldviews by prioritizing empirical anomalies in religious texts over holistic evaluations, akin to how believers might favor scriptural harmony. The exacerbates this, as individuals across ideologies, including skeptics, perceive themselves as less susceptible to distortion than others, leading to overconfidence in antireligious conclusions derived from incomplete scrutiny. Sociologically, skeptic communities foster , where pressures suppress nuanced engagement with religious perspectives, mirroring dynamics in ideological enclaves. Analysis of atheist and humanist organizations reveals a shift from open inquiry to ideological rigidity, with members increasingly aligning on politically charged dismissals of , such as equating with without proportional of secular dogmas like unchecked . This echo-chamber effect intensifies among educated urban demographics overrepresented in , where higher correlates with entrenched myside thinking rather than dispassionate , perpetuating a cultural disdain for that privileges materialist explanations irrespective of evidential gaps. Such biases contribute to polarized debates, as skeptics undervalue the social cohesion and moral frameworks provides, evidenced by studies showing non-religious groups' reputational incentives to signal prosociality amid stereotypes of .

Religious Counterarguments and Evidence

Historical and Experiential Validations of Faith

Proponents of religious faith point to the as a pivotal historical event supported by multiple lines of , including the , post-mortem appearances to skeptics and disciples, and the rapid transformation of early followers from fearful deserters to bold proclaimers willing to die for their testimony. Scholar has documented over 1,400 scholarly publications since 1975 analyzing the death, burial, and , with a consensus among critical scholars on facts such as Jesus' under around 30-33 CE, the disciples' experiences of seeing the risen , and the conversion of skeptics like Paul and James. These elements, drawn from sources within decades of the events, defy naturalistic explanations like or theft of the body, as they occurred to groups over 40 days and prompted the explosive growth of despite . Biblical prophecies offer another historical validation, with texts like (written circa 700 BCE) detailing a servant pierced for transgressions and buried with the rich—details fulfilled in ' crucifixion and tomb provided by , as corroborated by non-Christian historians and . Archaeological finds, such as the confirming Pontius Pilate's prefecture in from 26-36 CE and the linking to the involved in ' trial, bolster the of these fulfillments. Estimates suggest around 2,000 of the Bible's 2,500 prophecies have been verified through historical records, including the fall of Tyre (Ezekiel 26, fulfilled by in 332 BCE) and the destruction of (Isaiah 13, completed by 539 BCE), events improbable without divine foreknowledge given their specificity and pre-dating fulfillment by centuries. Experientially, documented miracles at , , since 1858 provide empirical challenges to skepticism, with the Lourdes Medical Bureau—a panel of physicians including non-Catholics—certifying 70 cures as scientifically inexplicable after rigorous scrutiny involving medical records, biopsies, and long-term follow-up. For instance, the 1902 healing of Marie Bailly from tuberculous peritonitis, verified by multiple doctors including Nobel laureate , showed rapid resolution of advanced pathology defying known treatments of the era. A 2013 review of cures up to 1976 confirmed their exceptional nature, with no relapses and pathologies incompatible with rates below 1%. Near-death experiences (NDEs) further validate transcendent realities, as studies of over 2,000 cases reveal consistent veridical perceptions—such as accurate details of efforts during —correlating with heightened belief in an across cultures, independent of prior religious affiliation. Philosopher Antony Flew's late-life shift from to in 2004, after decades advocating , underscores experiential reevaluation driven by scientific data on cosmic fine-tuning and DNA's informational complexity, which he argued necessitated an intelligent cause over unguided processes. This transition, detailed in his book There Is a God, reflects a broader pattern where empirical observations of order in and physics lead former skeptics toward acknowledging a designing intelligence, though Flew stopped short of personal commitments. Such cases highlight how direct engagement with evidence can validate foundational religious postulates against presumptive dismissal.

Compatibility of Reason and Revelation

Theological traditions, particularly within , have long maintained that reason and operate in , with the former illuminating natural truths accessible to and the latter disclosing realities that transcend but do not contradict rational inquiry. This view posits a unified truth originating from a divine source, where apparent conflicts arise from misinterpretation rather than inherent opposition. Proponents argue that reason serves as a preparatory tool, demonstrating foundational propositions like the existence of a necessary being, which align with revealed doctrines without supplanting them. In the 13th century, systematized this compatibility in works such as the , distinguishing between truths knowable by reason alone—such as God's existence proved through the Five Ways (arguments from motion, causation, contingency, degrees of , and )—and mysteries of like the or , which exceed rational demonstration yet remain consistent with logical principles. held that God, as author of both nature (explored by reason) and scripture (conveying revelation), ensures no genuine discord, with perfecting reason by directing it toward ultimate ends. He rejected , which subordinates reason entirely, and , which denies revelation's necessity, insisting instead that philosophical tools aid while revelation resolves reason's limitations in grasping divine essence. This framework influenced medieval , fostering advancements in logic and that presupposed rational order in creation as evidence of divine intellect. Modern defenses extend this tradition through , as articulated by in the late 20th century. Plantinga argues that belief in can be "properly basic"—rationally warranted without requiring evidential support from reason, akin to perceptual beliefs—yet fully compatible with rational scrutiny, as the Holy Spirit's internal testimony provides cognitive reliability without violating epistemic norms. In Warranted Christian Belief (2000), he contends that Christian theism, when true, yields that withstands de jure objections from skeptics demanding propositional evidence, emphasizing that faith restores rather than undermines reason's proper function. Critics of , Plantinga notes, overlook how non-inferential beliefs underpin all , allowing to integrate seamlessly with rational faculties. Empirical alignments further illustrate this compatibility, as seen in historical instances where rational investigation corroborated revelatory claims. For example, the , rooted in medieval and refined by Aquinas, posits that the universe's finite past aligns with Genesis's depiction of creation ex nihilo, a view retrospectively supported by 20th-century cosmology positing a temporal beginning around 13.8 billion years ago. Such convergences suggest anticipates rational discoveries, countering skeptical dismissals by demonstrating causal coherence between divine disclosure and observable order. However, compatibility requires interpretive humility, as dogmatic literalism has occasionally clashed with scientific progress, underscoring the need for reason to refine understandings of without negating its authority.

Contemporary Dynamics

Global Rise of Non-Religious Identities

The global population identifying as religiously unaffiliated—encompassing atheists, agnostics, and those with no particular religious affiliation—increased from approximately 1.6 billion in 2010 to 1.9 billion in 2020, representing a 17% growth and accounting for about 24% of the world's population by the latter year. This numerical expansion occurred amid overall world population growth, with the unaffiliated share rising modestly as the proportion affiliated with any religion declined by nearly 1 percentage point, from 76.7% to around 75.8%. However, this trend was uneven geographically: declines in religious affiliation of at least 5 percentage points materialized in 35 countries between 2010 and 2020, predominantly in Europe, North America, and parts of East Asia, while high-fertility regions in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East sustained religious growth through demographic momentum. Regional data underscores the concentration of non-religious growth in secularizing societies. In Western Europe, countries like the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom reported unaffiliated populations exceeding 50% by the early 2020s, with the UK surpassing theists in atheist numbers according to a 2024 analysis attributing rises to analytical thinking and weakened institutional trust. In East Asia, China's state-enforced secularism contributed to an estimated 79% atheist or agnostic proportion in 2020 estimates, bolstering global figures. North America mirrored this, with U.S. unaffiliated adults reaching 28% by 2023, driven by generational shifts where younger cohorts disaffiliate at rates over 35% from their upbringing. Conversely, in Latin America and Africa, religious retention remained robust, with Islam's rapid expansion—fueled by higher birth rates—outpacing unaffiliated gains in those areas. Factors correlated with this rise include rising levels, , and exposure to scientific frameworks, which empirical studies link to diminished religious adherence in industrialized contexts, though causation remains debated given variables like cultural inheritance. Notably, many unaffiliated individuals retain spiritual or beliefs, such as in an , with surveys across 22 countries in 2025 revealing that a majority of "nones" endorse at least some non-empirical convictions, complicating strict categorizations of or pure . Projections suggest continued numerical growth for the unaffiliated through 2050, potentially reaching 2.5 billion, but stabilizing as a global share below 25% due to fertility differentials favoring religious groups.

Backlash, Conversions, and Ongoing Debates

Religious skepticism, particularly the assertive forms associated with in the early 2000s, encountered significant backlash from both philosophical communities and within secular circles for its perceived superficial engagement with theological arguments and overreliance on . Philosophers critiqued figures like and for bypassing rigorous metaphysical debates, treating religious belief as merely a scientific testable by empirical means alone, which ignored longstanding philosophical defenses of faith such as those rooted in or . Internal divisions exacerbated this, as the movement fractured over issues like denial—contradicting everyday intuitions of —and failure to address in without divine foundations. By the mid-2010s, New Atheism's influence waned, with observers noting its collapse amid scandals involving leaders and inability to sustain broad appeal beyond polemics. Conversions from skepticism to religious belief, though not statistically dominant, provide empirical counterpoints, often driven by intellectual reevaluations of evidence like the universe's fine-tuning or historical claims of miracles. Philosopher Antony Flew, a longtime atheist, shifted to deism in 2004 after concluding that the complexity of DNA and cosmic constants pointed to an intelligent designer, as detailed in his book There Is a God. In 2023, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a prominent ex-Muslim atheist and critic of religion, announced her conversion to Christianity, citing its role in providing civilizational resilience against authoritarianism and personal fulfillment amid mental health struggles—contrasting her prior endorsement of New Atheist scientism. Research by Jana Harmon, interviewing 50 former atheists who embraced Christianity, identified common pathways: relational influences (e.g., friendships exposing experiential faith), intellectual evidence (e.g., resurrection historicity), and existential crises revealing skepticism's inadequacy for meaning-making, with conversions occurring across demographics but often after prolonged doubt. These cases challenge the notion of irreversible skepticism, as converts reported causal shifts from evidential scrutiny rather than mere emotionalism. Ongoing debates center on whether empirical evidence can adjudicate faith claims, with skeptics demanding repeatable lab data for miracles while proponents highlight historical testimonies and Bayesian analyses of events like Jesus' resurrection, which converted initial doubters such as his apostles despite risks of persecution. Contemporary discussions, as in 2025 forums, emphasize fine-tuning arguments—where physical constants' precision (e.g., gravitational constant varying by 1 in 10^60 would preclude life)—as probabilistic evidence favoring design over multiverse speculation, prompting some skeptics to reconsider. Critics of skepticism argue it exhibits bias by dismissing non-falsifiable experiential knowledge (e.g., answered prayers' cumulative patterns), akin to rejecting dark matter for lack of direct observation yet inferring it from gravitational effects. Conversely, skeptics counter that faith's reliance on revelation undermines causal realism, prioritizing subjective priors over Occam's razor. These exchanges persist in podcasts and academic papers, underscoring no consensus on whether skepticism's evidentiary bar excludes valid non-empirical rationales for belief.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/
  2. https://iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/
  3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/
  4. https://iep.utm.edu/ancient-greek-skepticism/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4824409/
  6. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265875791_Religious_Skepticism
  8. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/
  10. https://iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/
  12. https://iep.utm.edu/xenoph/
  13. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.08.36/
  14. https://iep.utm.edu/socrates/
  15. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/
  16. https://iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lucretius/
  18. https://iep.utm.edu/indmat/
  19. https://iep.utm.edu/ockham/
  20. https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2017/12/07/science-religion-and-secularism-part-xiii-william-of-ockham-and-the-origins-of-nominalism/
  21. https://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/blackwell-proofs/MP_C17.pdf
  22. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789047412106/Bej.9789004170612.i-238_006.pdf
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/650920
  24. https://mappingignorance.org/2015/08/31/skepticism-a-short-uncertain-story-4-the-renaissance-of-skepticism/
  25. https://philarchive.org/archive/HICTRO-8
  26. https://philpapers.org/rec/HICTRO-7
  27. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/115727/REPUB_115727_OA.pdf
  28. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/voltaire-religious-intolerance
  29. https://elonuniversity.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p15446coll7/id/218/download
  30. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/227659/pdf
  31. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/harpham-reflections-hume-religion
  32. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/religion/what-did-darwin-believe
  33. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
  34. https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism/Skepticism-from-the-19th-century-to-the-present
  35. https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2006/10/from-the-archive-psychoanalysing-god-sigmund-freud-on-religion/
  36. https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
  37. https://www.journalofacademicperspectives.com/app/download/969934983/Dreher.pdf
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259938765_The_End_of_Secularization_in_Europe_A_Socio-Demographic_Perspective
  39. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-modern-european-thought/history-tradition-and-skepticism-the-patterns-of-nineteenthcentury-theology/1BB3FA732B2E1D3C0F427CD49F220A3E
  40. https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf
  41. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/
  42. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
  43. https://iep.utm.edu/rel-plur/
  44. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=faithandphilosophy
  45. https://iep.utm.edu/ref-epis/
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17487575/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2267227/
  49. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
  50. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0811717106
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3968360/
  52. https://jamesdholt.com/resources-for-teaching-religious-studies/philosophy-of-religion/atheism-and-agnosticism/the-scientific-critique-of-religion/
  53. https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/epicurus-quadrilemma-and-the-logical-problem-of-evil
  54. https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/mcgill/201/mackie-evil.html
  55. https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Rowe.pdf
  56. https://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/plantinga-free-will-defence.html
  57. https://philpapers.org/rec/BERSTA
  58. https://commons.nmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=conspectus_borealis
  59. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/protagoras/
  60. https://iep.utm.edu/protagor/
  61. https://iep.utm.edu/new-atheism/
  62. https://www.samharris.org/books/the-end-of-faith
  63. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
  64. https://ffrf.org/about/welcome-to-the-freedom-from-religion-foundation/
  65. https://www.freethoughttoday.com/free/the-inside-story-of-ffrfs-founding/
  66. https://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/
  67. https://www.atheists.org/about/history/
  68. https://www.atheists.org/about/
  69. https://centerforinquiry.org/
  70. https://secular.org/organization/center-for-inquiry/
  71. https://humanists.international/about/
  72. https://humanists.international/what-we-do/
  73. https://secular.org/resources-for-local-secular-communities/
  74. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2021/09/14/the-strange-online-legacy-of-new-atheism
  75. https://www.freethinkersinternational.net/impact-of-new-atheism/
  76. https://ffrf.org/category/legal/ongoing-lawsuits/
  77. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/587/
  78. https://www.courthousenews.com/atheist-group-drops-fight-over-religious-freedom-order/
  79. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=wmlr
  80. https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/secularism-its-discontents
  81. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/theistic-critiques-of-atheism
  82. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-scientism-self-refuting
  83. https://www.jpmoreland.com/2018/10/03/why-strong-scientism-is-self-refuting/
  84. https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/reason-and-belief-in-an-age-of-empirical-science
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917303070
  86. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721413480174
  87. https://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/christians-atheists-and-confirmation-bias/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7546453/
  89. https://theconversation.com/why-atheists-are-not-as-rational-as-some-like-to-think-103563
  90. https://theequianoproject.substack.com/p/from-free-thought-to-groupthink-how
  91. https://www.skeptic.com/article/can-we-separate-bias-from-ideology/
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103116307910
  93. https://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
  94. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
  95. https://www.icr.org/content/archaeological-evidence-prophet-isaiah
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3854941/
  97. https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/miracles-at-lourdes
  98. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/2/156
  99. https://www.discovery.org/a/5611/
  100. https://www.str.org/w/unified-truth-faith-and-reason
  101. https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/how-i-fell-in-love-with-st-thomas-aquinas/
  102. https://www.ncregister.com/news/st-thomas-aquinas-harmony-between-faith-and-reason
  103. https://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/thomas-aquinas-and-the-role-of-reason-an-epistemology-of-faith/
  104. https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/VentureyraS11.pdf
  105. https://www.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/Plantinga_Reformed_Epistemology.pdf
  106. https://www.hprweb.com/2014/04/faith-needs-philosophy-a-primer-on-the-relationship-between-reason-and-revelation/
  107. https://iep.utm.edu/faith-re/
  108. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/religiously-unaffiliated-population-change/
  109. https://www.facebook.com/theprintindia/posts/between-2010-and-2020-the-worlds-religious-composition-changed-dramatically-acco/753942123902671/
  110. https://www.faithinvest.org/post/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020
  111. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/02/how-religion-declines-around-the-world/
  112. https://colinmathers.com/2020/09/30/global-trends-in-religiosity-and-atheism-1980-to-2020/
  113. https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Study-explains-global-rise-in-atheism-and-shows-that-atheists-now-outnumber-theists-in-the-UK
  114. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/24/1226371734/religious-nones-are-now-the-largest-single-group-in-the-u-s
  115. https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/10/islam-is-the-fastest-growing-religion-in-the-world-pew-study-says/
  116. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/09/04/many-religious-nones-around-the-world-hold-spiritual-beliefs/
  117. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
  118. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/cxyhq4/why_do_philosophers_dislike_new_atheism/
  119. https://hc.edu/news-and-events/2015/12/18/wrong-new-atheism/
  120. https://www.premierchristianity.com/new-atheism-has-collapsed-the-tide-is-turning-on-belief-in-god/16350.article
  121. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2023/08/new-atheism-is-dead/
  122. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2024/04/23/what-is-happening-to-all-the-atheists/
  123. https://www.mercatornet.com/one_of_the_world_s_most_famous_atheists_becomes_a_christian
  124. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2023/06/atheists-finding-god-jana-harmon-stories-faith/
  125. https://churchofchristborger.com/2025/04/12/evidence-for-our-faith-conversion-of-skeptics/
  126. https://jashow.ca/the-evidence-for-the-resurrection-from-skepticism-to-belief-part-1/
  127. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtX3bu23qc
  128. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UqTii697ws
  129. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/conversion-causes-and-closedmindedness/3C24B2346AF8512C916E3146CFB0673F
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.