Jeff Lowder just sent me a link to an article titled “Evidence for the Romans 1 Suppression Thesis” from a blog called Investigative Apologetics. As you might have guessed, what the “Investigative Apologist” refers to as the “Suppression Thesis” is what I refer to as the “Rebellion Thesis.” In short, it is the idea that atheists are actively suppressing their natural knowledge of God and are thus in rebellion against God. (The main difference is that the Investigative Apologist defends the Rebellion/Suppression Thesis whereas I reject it.)
The Investigative Apologist begins by pointing out that he/she has observed that atheists frequently exhibit “hypocritical double-standards and selective hyper-skepticism” that favor their beliefs. Having established that point, in the following passage the Investigative Apologist lays out the core of the argument:
“I note that the ‘Suppression Thesis’, an idea born out of Romans 1, is the claim that unbelievers know that God exists and yet suppress this truth for moral rather than rational reasons, and in contemplating this idea, and in remembering that some fact or observation counts as evidence for one hypothesis (H1) over another (H2) if that fact or observation is more likely / more expected on the first hypothesis (H1) rather than the second (H2), I would like to argue that I believe that one piece of evidence for the Suppression Thesis is the fact that, as stated earlier, many atheists and other non-believers routinely use those hypocritical double-standards and selective hyper-skepticism to argue for their own position and against theism, which is, I contend, precisely what would be expected if the Suppression Thesis were true (for it would be expected that unbelievers wold use any means necessary to suppress the truth in such a case) but not what would be expected if the Suppression Thesis was not true….”
In reply, I’d like to offer the ‘Smear Thesis’:
I note that the ‘Smear Thesis’, an idea born out of my book Is the Atheist My Neighbor?, is the claim that believers impute the Suppression/Rebellion Thesis to atheists on the flimsiest of evidence because of a dislike of atheists and a desire to marginalize them and their opinions, and in contemplating this idea, and in remembering that some fact or observation counts as evidence for one hypothesis (H1) over another (H2) if that fact or observation is more likely / more expected on the first hypothesis (H1) rather than the second (H2), I would like to argue that I believe that one piece of evidence for the Smear Thesis is the fact that, as I establish in my book You’re not as Crazy as I Think, many evangelicals and other believers routinely use those hypocritical double-standards and selective hyper-skepticism to argue for their own position and against atheism, which is, I contend, precisely what would be expected if the Smear Thesis were true (for it would be expected that believers wold use any means necessary to suppress the truth in such a case) but not what would be expected if the Smear Thesis was not true….” (Paraphrased with appropriate substitutions from the article “Evidence for the Romans 1 Suppression Thesis”)
