Why This "Return of God" Argument is a Recycled Apologetic Flop

Andrew Likoudis, in his article “The Return of God? A Critique of Pure Atheism,” starts with a bold claim: proving or disproving God is "predominantly a matter for reason, rather than for scientific enquiry."

Ah, reason—that versatile tool often celebrated for its ability to explore profound questions, yet here seemingly stretched beyond its logical limits. Because who needs tangible proof when you have faith to fill the gaps? Likoudis suggests it’s an “error” to rely on empiricism (read: science) alone. Apparently, atheists are so obsessed with test tubes and microscopes that we’re blind to “higher truths,” which he assures us are obvious to everyone else. Here’s a thought: if those “higher truths” can’t be observed, measured, or demonstrated, they’re about as credible as Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot—an idea introduced to illustrate the burden of proof for unfalsifiable claims.

Then, the classic: God exists “outside the universe.” How convenient. Everything we know about the universe suggests it’s a closed system, governed by principles like the laws of thermodynamics, yet we’re expected to accept the existence of a realm beyond space and time where an omnipotent being resides—an idea often defended with philosophical arguments and claims of evidence that remain highly contentious. Sure, why not?

But the real showstopper is this: “God’s intelligence is reflected in his creation, but is not always perceived, or able to be used as verifiable evidence.” Translation: God’s supposed intelligence is unverifiable. That’s akin to saying, “I have a million dollars in a secret bank account, but no one can ever verify its existence.” It’s a claim that demands trust without evidence.

And, of course, no theological argument is complete without a nod to Aquinas. Likoudis leans heavily on this 13th-century philosopher, reminding us that God is “totally other”—a notion that might resonate with some because it emphasizes the transcendence and uniqueness of the divine. For theists, this framing can make God’s nature seem awe-inspiring and beyond human comprehension, aligning with the idea of a deity that transcends ordinary existence. However, this very attribute also makes the claim conveniently immune to scrutiny, as it implies God is beyond the grasp of reason or classification by human standards. Critics like Immanuel Kant have pointed out that defining God as unknowable undermines the possibility of meaningful discussion or evidence-based belief. It’s like saying, “You’re playing a game where I make the rules, but I’m not going to tell you what they are.”

Let’s not forget the irony. Likoudis admits that “human limitations” make it hard to grasp these “higher truths,” but then expects us to comprehend God as “pure perfect intelligence.” First of all, “pure perfect intelligence” sounds more like a shampoo tagline than a theological concept. And if God’s creation is a reflection of this perfection, why is the world riddled with disease, natural disasters, and…well, Donald Trump? Flaws like these seem incompatible with a flawless designer.

This whole “personal creator” argument reeks of anthropomorphism. Humans struggle with abstract concepts, so we project our own traits onto the universe. Enter the “big guy in the sky” who created everything. Never mind that there’s no evidence for such a being—it’s comforting, so it must be true.

Then there’s this gem: “If [God] were only sub-optimally intelligent, then he would not be infinite, and so not God.” Is there a cosmic IQ test for deity status? What happens if you score below average? Do you get demoted to “minor deity”?

Likoudis’ reasoning boils down to circular logic and special pleading. He assumes God exists, then defines him in ways that conveniently fit that assumption. It’s like arguing, “Unicorns are real because they’re magical, and they’re magical because they’re unicorns.” Brilliant.

And now for the pièce de résistance: God is “the ground of being itself,” whatever that means. Translation: God is conveniently beyond any objective investigation. Likoudis accuses atheists of making a “category error” by trying to “box God into empirical data.” But if God has any impact on the universe, that impact should be measurable. Otherwise, we’re just talking about a hypothetical concept with no real-world relevance.

Likoudis insists we rely on “intellect and critical thinking” instead of science, as though these approaches were mutually exclusive. In reality, science is deeply rooted in critical thinking—it applies rigorous methodologies to test and refine intellectual ideas, often leading to discoveries that challenge preconceived notions. By working in tandem, science and critical thinking can provide a more comprehensive understanding of existential questions, rather than creating a false dichotomy between the two. In truth, science and critical thinking are deeply intertwined, with science providing a structured methodology to rigorously test and refine ideas born of intellect. Separating the two is not only counterproductive but also undermines the potential for a holistic understanding of existential questions. But intellect is only as reliable as the information it’s working with. Starting with the assumption that God exists makes the process inherently biased—like trying to solve a math problem when you’ve already decided what the answer should be.

He cites the usual suspects: moral, cosmological, and ontological arguments. These have been debated and refuted for centuries with no consensus. So, what’s Likoudis’ solution? To accept flawed philosophical arguments over scientific inquiry. Sounds more like a leap of faith than a logical conclusion.

He even claims atheists resort to “blind faith” when science fails to answer the God question. That’s rich coming from someone whose entire argument rests on faith. He equates disbelief in God to “defiance of logic and reason,” yet provides no logic or reason to back his own claims. Believing in an invisible dragon in someone’s garage, a concept popularized by Carl Sagan to illustrate the flaws in unfalsifiable claims, is as “rational” as his arguments for God.

And finally, he doubles down, claiming there’s “overwhelming philosophical and historical evidence” for God. This “evidence” has failed to convince philosophers and historians for centuries, but somehow we’re supposed to accept it at face value. Likoudis also bemoans “lopsided scientism” that devalues the “truths of beauty and morality.” Sure, those things matter, but they don’t require a deity to exist.

The cherry on top? Likoudis tries to redefine atheism as an unreasonable position requiring more faith than belief in God. Wrong. Atheism simply lacks belief in God due to insufficient evidence. The burden of proof lies with theists. Until there’s compelling evidence, atheism remains the more reasonable stance.

In conclusion, Likoudis’ argument amounts to a repackaging of old apologetics dressed up as “rational.” But rationality demands evidence, not philosophical gymnastics. If belief in God rests on faith, just say so. Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending it’s anything else.