The Groundless Faith of Atheism: Why It Can’t Justify Logic or Science

By Joel Settecase*

The debate between Christianity and atheism is never just about evidence, facts, or feelings. It’s about foundations. In my recent exchange with atheist Mark Reid, we peeled back the layers of naturalism and secular humanism to expose a fatal flaw at their core: they borrow the tools of Christian theism while denying the Source.

Atheism, like a child running off with his father’s tools while denying he has a father, borrows logic, science, morality, and the uniformity of nature from Christianity—but cannot account for them.

The Issue of Worldviews

Mark began by stating that atheism is not a worldview—just a lack of belief in God. But that’s like saying, “I don’t believe in bridges,” while driving on one. Everyone operates from a worldview—a lens through which they interpret reality, knowledge, and ethics.

So I asked him: What is ultimate reality? What is metaphysically primary in your view?

He answered: quantum fields. Everything, he claimed—including himself—is made up of quantum fields. No explanation for where they came from. Just, “They’re there.”

That’s metaphysical monism—radical unity without diversity. And that position raises a crucial question: if all is one, how do you account for the meaningful distinctions we experience—truth vs. falsehood, good vs. evil, logic vs. contradiction?

It’s the same pendulum swing we see throughout history—Plato emphasizing forms (unity), Aristotle emphasizing substances (diversity). But Christianity alone holds unity and diversity together in the Trinity: one God, three persons. Unity and diversity eternally reconciled.

Can Atheism Account for Science?

When pressed, Mark described science as a method based on observation, hypotheses, and replication—methodological naturalism. But here’s the problem: that methodology assumes certain immaterial truths before it even begins.

I asked him: what assumptions must be in place to do science?

He mentioned empiricism and methodological naturalism—but never stopped to ask where these assumptions come from or whether they can be justified within his worldview.

You don’t get the rules of science from science itself. They are preconditions—presuppositions—that must be in place before a single observation can be made. And atheism cannot account for them.

Let’s list just a few:

• Uniformity in nature (the future will resemble the past).

• Validity of sense perception (our five senses give us true data).

• Reliability of human reasoning (our minds can make sense of the world).

• The existence and applicability of logic (laws of logic govern thought and reality).

• Ethical norms for reporting data truthfully.

All of these are assumed in every scientific experiment. But none of them can be derived from quantum fields, evolutionary naturalism, or materialist empiricism.

Induction and the Image of God

Mark claimed that induction—the belief that the future will be like the past—just “works.”

That’s not an argument. That’s a statement of blind trust. It’s begging the question. As David Hume pointed out centuries ago, you can’t use past experience to justify future expectations without assuming what you're trying to prove.

But as a Christian, I can account for induction: the same God who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3) is faithful and unchanging (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). He created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) with rational faculties and placed us in an ordered cosmos. Induction works because Christ upholds the world in a consistent way.

The Problem of Ethics

Mark appealed to secular humanism to explain his moral convictions—but this only pushed the problem back a step. Secular humanism is just a fancy name for building a moral house without a foundation.

I asked him: Why shouldn’t a scientist lie if it helps their results or furthers a political goal?

He had no ultimate answer—just an appeal to convention: “we all agree” or “we want to play by the same rules.”

But what if someone doesn’t? What if a rogue scientist doesn’t care about human flourishing or truth?

Only the Christian worldview provides an absolute moral standard: “You shall not bear false witness” (Exodus 20:16). And why? Because lying is sin. It violates God’s nature (Titus 1:2), and sin brings judgment (Romans 6:23).

Laws of Logic: Conceptual and Transcendent

Perhaps the most revealing moment came when Mark admitted that the laws of logic—identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle—are not discovered through science. They are conceptual.

That’s huge.

Concepts exist in minds. They are not physical. If everything is ultimately matter, where do conceptual, immaterial, invariant laws come from?

He tried to wiggle out by saying we “invented” the laws of logic—like math—but they “correspond to reality.”

So are they conventional or real? Are they invented or discovered?

If they are real and universally binding, then we’re not talking about human inventions. We’re talking about transcendent truths—things that are always true, in every possible world. That requires a transcendent Mind.

The Bible says: “In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Logic is grounded in the unchanging nature of God.

The Impossibility of the Contrary

Mark repeatedly accused me of “begging the question” by appealing to God as the foundation for knowledge, logic, science, and morality.

But here’s the thing: everyone has a starting point. The difference is, the Christian starting point—God’s revelation—actually makes the world intelligible.

The atheistic starting point does not.

The transcendental argument for God (TAG) is not just “God exists because I say so.” It is this: Without the God of the Bible, you cannot make sense of anything at all.

Try building a house with no foundation. That’s what atheism does. You can nail boards together, but the whole thing collapses.

At one point Mark I asked Mark, “What’s wrong with begging the question?” Obviously, from a Christian perspective, logical fallacies such as question-begging are wrong. Logic is an expression of God’s character, and we are to represent Him well (fallacies misrepresent Him). But could Mark’s atheism explain why begging the question is actually wrong? No. If there’s nothing wrong with circular reasoning, then rational dialogue is dead. That is the destination to which atheism—consistently applied—should lead. And that’s the point: Mark wanted to use the laws of logic while simultaneously undermining their validity.

That’s worldview theft—and it destroys the atheist’s ability to argue against God.

Final Appeal: Come to Christ

This debate is not ultimately about winning an argument. It’s about souls. Mark, and everyone like him, is living in God’s world, using God’s tools, breathing God’s air, and suppressing the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18–21).

My final words to him were simple: Repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ. Because it is Jesus who died for sinners like Mark and me, it is Jesus who was buried and raised again on the third day, and the fear of the Lord is not just the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). It’s the only foundation that makes sense of the world.

*This article was adapted by ChatGPT (with my oversight) from the transcript of my debate with Mark Reid.

WATCH THE FULL DEBATE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Cfq_ytCJA

JOIN THE HAMMER & ANVIL SOCIETY — The ultimate discipleship community for Christian men who want to become worldview leaders in their homes and churches: https://thethink.institute/society