The Pursuit of Answers: Why Atheism Evades and Theism Engages

The Pursuit of Answers: Why Atheism Evades and Theism Engages

The Question That Demands an Answer

One of the most profound and fundamental questions in philosophy, science, and theology is: Why does anything exist at all? It is the cornerstone of existential inquiry and the foundation upon which all worldviews must build their explanatory frameworks. Some claim that not everything requires an answer or that certain questions may be beyond human comprehension. However, the refusal to engage with this question is not an argument—it is a retreat.

Atheism often dismisses this inquiry, asserting that the absence of an answer is itself an answer or that the question is meaningless. Theism, by contrast, does not evade the question but rather directly confronts it, providing a structured, logical, and metaphysical framework that accounts for existence. In this essay, we will explore why theism—not atheism—engages with the fundamental question of existence, why the "we may never know" response is insufficient, and how rejecting answers simply because they are uncomfortable does not advance intellectual discourse.

The Need for an Answer: The Principle of Sufficient Reason

The claim that not everything requires an answer runs counter to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), a foundational concept in logic and metaphysics that states that everything that exists must have a reason or explanation for its existence. This principle undergirds not only theistic arguments but also scientific inquiry, rational discourse, and even everyday decision-making. If we abandon the pursuit of answers, we abandon reason itself.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, one of history’s greatest polymaths, articulated this clearly:

“The first question which we have a right to ask will be: ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’”

Theists answer this question by positing that existence is not a brute fact, but rather grounded in a necessary being—one that exists by the necessity of its own nature. This is the classical argument from contingency, which has been rigorously defended by thinkers from Aquinas to modern scholars like Edward Feser and William Lane Craig.

Atheism, however, offers no explanatory framework beyond deflection. The common assertion “we may never know” is not a rebuttal; it is an intellectual resignation. But if we truly commit ourselves to the pursuit of truth, we must ask: Is it better to have an explanation we can evaluate, critique, and refine, or to settle for no explanation at all?

> “The fact that something is unknown does not mean it is unknowable.”

—Aristotle

The rejection of the PSR leaves atheism in an uncomfortable position: if the universe just exists without reason, then all rational inquiry collapses into absurdity. The very foundations of science, logic, and philosophy rely on the premise that things have explanations. To deny this when it comes to the ultimate question of existence is to apply an arbitrary double standard.

Does Theism Just “Make Up” an Answer?

A common atheist critique is that theists merely invent answers because “any answer is better than none.” This is a misrepresentation of the theistic position. Theists do not construct arbitrary explanations; they construct rational, philosophical, and metaphysical ones based on the best available reasoning.

For example, the contingency argument states that contingent things (things that do not have to exist) must ultimately depend on something that exists necessarily. This conclusion is not fabricated; it follows logically from premises that are nearly universally accepted. Even atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russell and J.L. Mackie acknowledged the strength of the argument, though they personally rejected its conclusion.

The theistic response to why anything exists at all is that existence is grounded in something non-contingent, eternal, and necessary—qualities that align with what we call God. This is not a case of making something up but rather following reason where it leads.

The alternative? Atheism simply shrugs. Instead of engaging with the question, it defaults to:

“We don’t need an answer.”

“Science will figure it out one day.”

“The question is meaningless.”

This is not intellectual rigor. This is evasion.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

—Aristotle

Theists at least attempt to engage with the question. Atheism, by contrast, merely rejects theistic answers without offering a coherent alternative. If one is to dismiss theistic reasoning, one must provide a better answer—not simply walk away from the question altogether.

The Flawed Retreat to Ignorance

Some argue that atheism is more honest because it admits ignorance rather than imposing an answer. However, intellectual humility is not the same as intellectual avoidance. There is a difference between acknowledging an unknown while searching for an answer and using ignorance as a shield against further inquiry.

Atheism’s position is not merely, "We don’t know," but often, "We don’t have to know." But why should the most fundamental question of all—why anything exists—be the one question that we conveniently do not pursue? Every other mystery in science, philosophy, and cosmology is approached with curiosity, yet when it comes to existence itself, some atheists suddenly abandon the pursuit altogether.

Fyodor Dostoevsky warned of this intellectual stagnation:

“The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for.”

By refusing to engage with the fundamental question of existence, atheism denies itself the very foundation upon which meaning and purpose could be built.

Epistemically Critical: Seeking, Not Evading, the Truth

To claim that not everything needs an answer is not an argument—it is an excuse to avoid the implications of an answer. The question “Why does anything exist at all?” is one that demands engagement, and theism is the only worldview that provides a structured, rational, and coherent attempt to address it.

Atheism, by contrast, does not simply lack an answer—it actively rejects the need for one. It substitutes curiosity with indifference, inquiry with deflection, and explanation with dismissal. If atheism were truly about the pursuit of truth, it would engage with this question rather than waving it away.

“Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”

—Giordano Bruno

To those who claim that “we may never know”—perhaps. But that does not absolve us of the responsibility to seek. Atheism may choose to be content with unanswered questions. Theists choose to pursue truth wherever it leads.

“Seek and you shall find.”

—Matthew 7:7

The choice is simple: Do we search for the answers, or do we pretend they do not matter?