ILLOGICAL ATHEISTS

I can understand agnostics who try to keep an open mind on the subject of God, even though they usually demand an inordinate amount of hard proof before they are willing to commit themselves on the subject. I can also understand people who are so focused on issues in the here-and-now that they just aren't interested in any deeper subjects. I can even sympathize with those who have been so turned off by the actions of some Christians that they don't want anything to do with God anymore. But the one group I cannot relate to at all are the atheists because the more I read the pronouncement they make, the more I am amazed at their lack of simple logic.

Carl Sagan is famous for saying, “The Cosmos is all that is is or all that was or ever will be.” Penn Jillette, the magician and atheist of the team Penn and Teller is quoted as stating there is no God, and that's a fact. In fact, both of those are just statements of belief, not arguments in themselves. When Penn gets to the argument summarized below, I find that I actually agree with most of what he says, but it certainly doesn't prove the point he is trying to make.

1. He first states correctly that if all trace of a religion were wiped out, it would never be reconstructed in the exact same way, and that includes the Bible. Of course, that is why God needed to reveal certain truths that man could not figure out on his own. In addition, it ignores the possibility of God making sure that the Bible did get re-written in exactly the same way.

2. He is also correct in saying that if you wiped out all scientific truth, man would eventually reconstruct it. Exactly, and that is why communication of scientific truth in the Bible is a much lower priority than teaching spiritual truth. We can figure out most of the workings of the physical universe using the intellect God has given us without any special revelation.

So his two facts do not at all prove the absence of God. In fact, these two observations go a long way toward explaining the very nature of the Bible and why its propositions differ so much from those derived by scientific investigation.

One of the most commonly cited objections to belief is the presence of hypocrites in the church. This objection boils down to a question of definition. Many people misuse the term “hypocrite” to include anyone who is not perfect morally, and which of us is. Critics sometimes try to compare side-by-side the actions of a particular atheist with those of a particular Christian. But, the atheist may be naturally a very decent person (I have known many) while the Christian may have had many flaws before being saved but is now trying with God's help to overcome them, even if he has a long way to go yet (and I have known many of those also, including myself).

Here is an anonymous quote from the internet that I happen to like: “Don't expect perfection from humans. Christians aren't perfect and they don't claim to be. They're just like everyone else. The only difference is they're trying by following God. Give them credit for trying.” If you meet someone with that particular definition of a hypocrite, this catchy sentence may not be strictly logical but I still like it: “If hypocrites are standing between you and God, then that means they are closer to Him than you are.”

The real definition of a hypocrite is a pretender; a person who claims to have values, principles or beliefs which he or she does not actually possess; someone who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion; a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs. Basically, it is one playing a part (the original Greek meaning of hupocrites), living a lie by pretending to be someone they aren't. If atheists are rejecting Christianity on the basis of this accepted definition of hypocrite, then this is the conclusion that their reasoning logically leads to:

1. Hypocrites in the church are not true Christians.

2. Someone who rejects Christianity because of the actions of non-Christians is being totally illogical.

3. Being illogical is not living up to the rational basis of atheism.

4. Atheists who do this are hypocrites.

5. Therefore, by their own argument, we should reject atheism since it contains hypocrites.

A variation on the hypocrisy accusation is to take examples from past history as a reason to reject Christianity. Let's start out with that noted philosopher and historian Gwyneth Paltrow. I shouldn't make fun of her since she is a very good actress and almost as beautiful as her mother Blythe Danner. She was first quoted as stating categorically that religion is the cause of all the problems in the world and that she didn't believe in organized religion at all. This is rather interesting since later after discovering how deep her Jewish roots went in a 2011 TV genealogy program, she announced that she had decided to raise her two sons in the Jewish faith. Thus, after rejecting all organized religions on the basis of past world history (incorrectly understood), she decided to raise her children in one of those same religions on the basis of past family history rather than due to any sort of religious conversion.

She also earlier stated that religion causes wars, and more people have died because of religious conflict than from any other cause. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and exempting deaths from accidents, disease, and general old age, it is still doubtful that her statistics are correct. Certainly many people have died from religious wars, but we shall show that many of those wars were caused by those who wanted to wipe out all religion. What does history say?

The Crusades are always cited as evidence against Christianity, and I wouldn't attempt to defend them. This quote is a good example of how far some spiritual leaders at the time strayed from the teachings of Christ. Pope Gregory IX said, “When you hear any layman speak ill of the Christian faith, defend it not with words but with the sword, which you should thrust into their belly as far as it will go.” But putting the roughly 3 million deaths during the Crusades into perspective, compare them to the atrocities carried out by Stalin in the name of atheism (greater than 23 million deaths). Another source gives even higher figures for the deaths attributed to Stalin (62 million) and adds in those carried out under the orders of another avowed atheist Mao Tse Tung (35 million) as well as those of Hitler (21 million), whose only religion could best be described as neo-paganism. And these deaths don't count the 2 million killings perpetrated by yet another atheist, Pol Pot, in Cambodia.

“But what about the Spanish Inquisition?,” atheists will reply. It was definitely another dark point in the history of Christianity, but only about 2,000 people were actually killed as a result of the Inquisition. The Salem Witch trials are also prominently cited, but the fact is that all of 25 people and 2 dogs were killed during them.

Nonetheless, let's consider a quote from this comedian and professional atheist Jim Jefferies: “Our fight in this world is not against Islam; it is against religion. I can tell you this for sure: no one's head has ever been cut off in the name of atheism.” Of course, his facts are way off base considering the roughly 100 million people killed in the name of atheism that I have already mentioned. But let's take him literally in terms of death by decapitation only. The French Revolution was carried out by those who wished to overthrow all forms of established leadership, including the church, and replace them with a more “rational” freethinkers such as Robespierre. Under his atheistic leadership he carried out the Reign of Terror. During it, some 40,000 French citizens were executed, mainly by beheading, in the name of nothing.

But the bottom line is that you can't judge the truth of a religion by the actions of some people who pretend to follow it. If you did, then you would be logically forced to reject atheism as by far the bloodiest of all belief systems. The one thing that you can say in defense of the brutality carried out by atheistic leaders throughout the years is that at least none of them can be accused of hypocrisy since atheism has no basis for teaching any sort of moral code at all.

There is one historical personage that I consider to be the most consistent atheist I know of. He was a French novelist who wrote very interesting books in which every other chapter was usually a logical defense of atheism by its main characters with gross pornography filling the other chapters. The theme of each book was that since there is no God, people should be free to act any way they want as long as they have the power to do it. And the author in real life did just that, and what he wanted to do was engage in sexual orgies and torture people. His name was the Marquis de Sade, from which we get the term sadism, and he died in an insane asylum.

Another major objection invokes the name of science to deny the existence of God. We have seen on several of my earlier posts that the few “scientific” and “mathematical” criticisms of the Bible itself are easily answered. However, I would like to address some general philosophical criticisms leveled at Christian beliefs in the name of science.

Some general observations before I begin: The atheists I will be quoting are often well known and quite intelligent, unlike the many purveyors of nonsense on the internet. But even so, most of their arguments are ultimately illogical and self-contradictory in nature. Let's start with a statement from Christopher Hitchens, a prolific writer and columnist who described himself as an anti-theist – a step beyond an atheist. He says that since all religions can't be correct then obviously none of them is correct. Let's examine his unusual logic by turning it into a multiple-choice question.

Which Religion is Correct?

1. Islam

2. Christianity

3. Hinduism

4. Animism

5. Buddhism

6. all of the above

7. none of the above

I would have to give Hitchens partial credit, at least, for recognizing that #6 can't be correct. And that puts him head and shoulders above the many post-modern people in the world who state that all religions provide an equal path to the same destination. That bit of nonsense ignores the huge basic differences in teachings between them. So what is Hitchens' logical conclusion? – #7 : none of them must be correct.

In case you still haven't yet grasped the lack of logic in Hitchen's statement, let's turn it into an arithmetical problem instead, using the same reasoning.

What is 2 + 2?

1. 4

2. 5

3. 10

4. 12

5. 1,000,000

6. all of the above

7. none of the above

Of course, we along with Hitchens would reject #6 as being absurd; so continuing with his logic we must say that therefore none of the above statements is true and 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

At least one prominent atheist would immediately object to this question by saying that atheism is not a religion. That is Penn Jillette of the magician team of Penn and Teller. “Atheism is a religion like not collecting postage stamps is a hobby.” This statement is very funny in more than one way. But what if one spends an inordinate amount of time posting pictures and statements on the internet criticizing those who collect stamps, writing books on the subject, giving lectures trying to convince others to stop collecting stamps, and joining organizations with those who have the same hatred of postage stamp collecting. Then I would say that those people have a hobby. And many of the atheists cited in this post (certainly including Penn himself), fall into that category. So by Penn's own reasoning they are all following a religion. But let's tone down the question a little by rephrasing it.

Which Faith System is Correct?

Even here there is at least one other atheist who would disagree with this wording. Bertrand Russell says that we only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. That is a strange comment coming from one who developed an almost pathological hatred for both America and Christianity after the Catholic Church petitioned successfully to bar him from coming to the States for a university appointment for his immoral teachings and behavior. Also, if you read any of his writings on the subject of science from the 1940's and 50's, you will see that they are filled with outrageously optimistic predictions without any proof whatsoever of what science would soon be able to accomplish. For example, he believed that scientists would soon be able to map out all the memories in everyone's brains in the world and store them in a repository somewhere. He also predicted that in the near future, science would have discovered all the secrets of the universe and have no more work left to do. Of course, to a scientist these are all laughable assertions and a prime example of utter blind faith. We need to keep in mind that Bertrand Russell wasn't a scientist himself or he might have known better.

But for someone who treated “faith” and “belief “as almost dirty words, Russell has no trouble using them to describe his own ideas in his book The Faith of a Rationalist and the essay “What I Believe.”

So how would Russell answer this question? The evidence, since we must only talk if we have evidence, shows that Russell really doesn't know which is the correct answer. On the one hand, he was widely quoted as saying that if God on the Judgment Day asked him, “Why didn't you believe in me,” his reply would be “Not enough evidence God. Not enough evidence.” Well, that puts him squarely into the category of an agnostic, not an atheist.

The comments of the Christian apologist Peter Kreeft are appropriate to add here: “If we had absolute proof instead of clues, then you could no more deny God than you could deny the sun. If we had no evidence at all, you could never get there. God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him.”

So is Russell really an agnostic then? Well, elsewhere, he solidly denies the possibility of God, as any good atheist should. For example, in one statement he speaks about God in the subjunctive mood (used to express an idea which is contrary to reality). And then he is even more definite in rejecting the notion of God when he states that no one can sit by the bed of a dying child and still believe in God. By the way, I would turn his argument around to say that no one can sit by the bedside of a dying child without believing in God since it is only God's existence and the possibility of a life after death that makes any sense out of the situation.

And after making such definite statements, Russell has the nerve to say that he as a man of science (which he wasn't), is not being dogmatic and that his ideas are based on evidence, not on intuition. I would love to go on and on with more ill-founded and contradictory statements from Russell since he was considered one of the foremost experts of his day in the field of logic, but I have to move on. However, I highly recommend that any Christian read his book Why I Am Not a Christian to see how totally illogical an atheistic logician can be.

Let's consider a true scientist for a change, Carl Sagan. Let me repeat his famous and quite dogmatic statement: “The Cosmos [the physical universe] is all that there is, or ever was, or ever will be.” G.K. Chesterton summarized the situation quite well when he said, “Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas...for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” And I was going to add that universal negatives can never be proved, but that would be stating a universal negative. So to be consistent I had better back down and say that they are extremely hard to prove.

For another change of pace, how about a voice from the entertainment industry? Gene Roddenberry is, of course, the originator of the Star Trek franchise and continued as its creative director for several TV seasons and movies. Roddenberry says that he wanted his vision of the future to be free of the “thou shall's” and “thou shall not's” found in religion. And yet the appeal of the show was based on more than just sci-fi action. Star Trek deals with a whole gamut of human questions. How can that be done without introducing some do's and dont's? Obviously, it can't.

Here are some quotes from Capt. Jean Luc-Picard of Star Trek: Next Generation, which aired while Roddenberry was still involved in production. Let me paraphrase them a little. “Thou shall obey your conscience. Thou shall not blindly obey orders. Thou shall not deprive anyone of their personal freedom and liberty. Thou shall shall not hand your child over to the state.” Most of the moral values in Star Trek are those coming from the Judeo-Christian tradition which Roddenberry has inherited whether he recognized it or not. And before turning back to the area of science, here is something from the area of pseudo-science.

In Freud's interesting book Moses and Monotheism, he spells out the reason that Moses invented the idea of God. You see, Moses grew up without a real father, and so out of his deep psychological need he conjured up the idea of a perfect super-father figure to believe in. It is interesting that Freud attacks biblical beliefs by saying that the Jews invented the type of god they were hoping to have while Bertrand Russell and many other atheists attack the Bible for coming up with the idea of Hell which almost no one hopes exists. I guess in the eyes of atheists, we Christians are literally damned if we do and damned if we don't.

C.S. Lewis skewers Freud's contention in several of his essays and also in The Silver Chair, one of the books in the Narnia Chronicles. In that book, several of the main characters accidentally wander into a cave and can't find the entrance again to get out. There are inhabitants of this underground world who have never seen the light of day but they can see dimly by the glow of some phosphorescence coming from the walls of the cave. When one of the children tries to explain the outside world to the cave people, their resident wise man patiently explains to them that they are merely engaging in a case of wish fulfillment when they describe the light of the sun outside since obviously there is no greater light than that which exists in the cave.

“God and immortality, the central dogmas of the Christian religion, find no support in science.” (Bertrand Russell, What I Believe) You might as well say that French ballet finds no support in science; you wouldn't necessarily expect it to. That doesn't invalidate it, however. Let's turn Russell's statement around to point out a much more pertinent fact. Namely, that science finds its support in the Christian religion and little to no support from atheism. Just look at some basic pillars of science necessary for it to function at all. They actually find their support in the early chapters of Genesis:

1. Events in nature have natural causes. This is only possible because God brings order in the universe out of chaos (unlike pantheistic religions which have many competing nature gods).

2. There is a linear view of time. Genesis 1:1 says there was an beginning, unlike most eastern religions which believe in an infinite number of cycles to time.

3. Causes and effects possess regular patterns. Again, this is a result of the order God puts into the universe as for example the regular motion of the heavenly bodies, which is necessary for us to keep track of time, as expressly stated in Genesis 1:14.

4. We can understand these patterns. It is only because we are made in God's image (as we see from Genesis 1:27) and have something of the supernatural in our very nature (as taught in Genesis 2:7), that mankind has even a hope of comprehending the universe by studying it. This is quite a contrast to the beliefs of atheism, as we shall see in a minute.

5. Experiments are needed. Mere philosophy taught that you could just deduce truths from basic logical assumptions without taking the time to actually determine them experimentally. The Bible teaches, in Genesis 3 that because of our flawed nature, we all make mistakes and therefore there is the need to actually test our ideas and revise our theories as needed.

6. Lastly, science is worth doing. Mankind is given the mandate in Genesis 1:26 and 2:15 to rule over creation, and to a great extent that is accomplished through the use of technology, which in turn is based on scientific discoveries. By contrast, it has been said that a religion like Islam severely limited the portions of creation available for study since those were reserved for Allah alone.

By contrast, consider this typical atheistic assertion. “Undoubtedly we are part of nature, which has produced our desires, our hopes and fears, in accordance with laws which the physicist (sic) is beginning to discover. In this sense we are part of nature, we are subordinated to nature, the outcome of natural laws, and their victims in the long run.” (Bertrand Russell, What I Believe)

If Russell is correct in believing (along with almost all other atheists) that we are all victims of nature and a mere product of irrational natural forces, then that means that our own thought processes can't be trusted to lead us to any sort of absolute truth.

The scientist and atheist J. B. S. Haldane realized the problem here when he said, “In order to escape from the necessity of sawing away the branch upon which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” In other words, the mind exists outside the cause-and-effect laws of nature, i.e. there is something of the supernatural in mankind. Elsewhere he even expressed his belief that the mind would live on after death, even though he still refused to believe in a supernatural Being behind it all.

Richard Dawkins, an animal behaviorist and evolutionary biologist, makes the interesting statement that he doesn't like religion because it discourages us from understanding the world. Let's see if the facts bear him out. Look first at some of the most basic laws of nature and who discovered them.

Scientific Laws of Nature

Isaac Newton                  Laws of Motion

Johannes                         Laws of Planetary Motion

Antoine Lavoisier          Law of Mass Conservation

Willard, Clausius,

Rumford, Thomson        Laws of Thermodynamics

Gregor Mendel               Laws of Heredity

Robert Boyle                  Boyle's Law (relating pressure and volume of gases)

Michael Faraday             Faraday's Law

All of these scientists believed in God, and most were obviously more than just nominal Christians. Newton wrote more Bible commentaries than scientific works. Kepler was a devout Protestant who utilized biblical arguments in his scientific writings. Lavoisier was executed during the French Revolution, in part because he was loyal to the Church. Mendel was an Augustinian monk. Robert Boyle (considered to be the father of modern chemistry) treated his scientific work as part of his Christian service. And it was said that Michael Faraday “pursued both his science and his religion with total dedication,” and he was one of the most influential scientists of all time. Bringing it up to date, recent polls show that 40% of practicing scientists today profess a belief in the existence of God.

Here are two quotes from those in my own field of organic chemistry, beginning with Louis Pasteur: “Little science takes you away from God, but more of it takes you to Him.” Then there is the often cited nanoscientist James Tour. “I build molecules for a living. I can't begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

Well, how do atheistic scientists view religion in general? I have found one anonymous posting on the internet where the person says that the existence of anything must be proved using the scientific method, otherwise he has no reason to listen to you. In other words, you have to play by his or her rules. The problem is that the scientific method only works under certain narrowly defined conditions where you can definitely prove or disprove something, replicate your results, strictly control all the variables, express your results numerically, and in the most simple manner possible. By those criteria, for example, the whole subject of history falls outside those scientific parameters.

What about the field of art? As a chemist, I can determine the molecular composition of each pigment that Van Gogh used. I could chart the thickness of paint and count the number of stars in the sky, but could I scientifically declare that “Starry Night” is a masterpiece and prove why? No. As a scientist, can I determine who is the greater composer, Ludwig von Beethoven or Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys? No. I personally think they are both geniuses.

Let me conclude by citing two statements that summarize the situation quite well. The first is from the Christian apologist Alister McGrath: “The problem lies with some scientists who seem to assume that their authority in their own rather limited field can be transferred to every other area of life.” The Big Question: Why We Can't Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God.

The second quote is from an American essayist from Columbia University, William Deresiewicz: “To say that the humanities can be a path to truth itself is to challenge one of our most closely held beliefs. We live not only in a scientific world, but a scientistic one: a world that thinks that science – empirical, objective, quantifiable – is the exclusive form of knowledge, and that other methods of inquiry are only valid insofar as they approximate its methods. But the humanities and science face in opposite directions. They don't just work in different ways; they work on different things.” And the same is true of science and religion.

In summary regarding their various objections, I have yet to find a single one that shakes my faith in the least. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for some comments by my fellow Christians. I have to admit that there have been times when it was a great temptation to abandon church altogether rather than be even remotely associated with some of the nonsense that has been said and printed in the name of Christianity and biblical beliefs.