Some thoughts about Atheism

The following was written after reading McGrath's Why God Won't Go Away, thanks to the great theologian for the inspiration


Duck! Quick! The Atheists are coming. I have been thinking a lot lately about the attacks that we as Christians face on our faith. More and more we are bombarded in the media with stories about how religion is wrong and how its the rational thing to be an atheist. Just this morning I was reading an article online which suggests that religion is dying off. The report which could be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197 is in the science and environment section of the BBC website and is an interesting article. Simply because more and more people are saying they are not religious they suggest that religion is going to become extinct. The tone of the article is such that this is something which would not necessarily be a bad thing. And this was just today. I have lost count of the numbers of attacks there have been on Christianity in recent months. The Hotel attacked for not allowing non-married couples to share a bed (which was turned into a case of Christianity versus Homosexuality), the Christian counsellor attacked for agreeing to talk through  with and offer a patient the treatment that he requested. Threatened with being struck off a professional register merely for offering the patient what they requested (the fact that the patient lied is hardly mentioned in the mainstream media). The couple who were not allowed to continue with becoming foster carers to an 8 year old child because they would not tell that child that homosexuality would be an acceptable life choice (forgetting the fact that not many 8 year olds would ask anyway!). This last case prompted the Prime Minister (the actual Prime Minister of the UK) to say that Christians should learn to be more tolerant. Tolerant indeed. Tolerance means accepting someone’s right to act or believe in a certain manner. It does not and never has meant accepting it as right.

Polemic over, I feel that it is about time that Christians started to be more confident in their faith and to give an answer for the hope that they have (1 Peter 3:15) with the crucial proviso that it is done with gentleness and respect. In recent years, the strident nature of what some have dubbed new atheism, led by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, has become an almost constant irritant. These people see religion as a delusion and faith as unintelligent.

It is time to redress the balance but before we do there are one or two things that we could do with getting straight. Firstly, don’t worry: Christianity has been under attack for two thousand years and has always survived. It continues to grow. I particularly like the picture we see here. Its probably an apocryphal story but an amusing one nonetheless. In 1883 Nietzsche (incidentally one of Hitler’s favourite philosophers) argued that mankind had killed off God. This was once a piece of graffiti which some wag scrawled underneath that Nietzsche is dead and signed it God. He is indeed dead and the influence of God is still growing. So don’t worry, God can cope with the arguments against Him. He likes it when we defend Him but He really doesn’t have anything to worry about.
Secondly, it is important not to ridicule these atheists. They are very clever people and know a lot more about their subject areas than many of us ever will. They are certainly brave in their attacks and should be commended for their willingness to stand up for their beliefs. Moreover, we all know there are problems with religion and perhaps we should consider this in our arguments. I suppose it is worth pointing out that they have at least put faith back in the public sphere for people to debate and its always good to see a debate over the nature of truth, perhaps this is the beginning of the end for moral relativism.

So, even though I have heard some Christians say that they are scared to read books such as the seminal The God Delusion because they fear for their faith (something which Professor Dawkins hopes will be destroyed by those who read his book) it is important to meet these attacks knowing where they have come from.

The central premise of Dawkins’ argument is that there is almost certainly no God. We know this, he argues, because science has disproved his existence. Now, I know nothing about science, well next to nothing at least. Despite being married to a wonderful scientific wife (a marine biologist no less) who comes from one of the most scientific families I have ever met, all I know is that molten sodium should never be mixed with water and that acetylsalicylic acid is the formula for aspirin. This means that I will not presume to challenge Dawkins on his scientific knowledge but it does not mean I will concede defeat either.

Dawkins (and many others) live under the highly erroneous notion that science and religion cannot live side by side. No scientist, he argues, can really be a believer. If they are then it is surely just a ruse to help them get grants and win prizes. As I have already said, I know very little about science but  do know about history. For much of history religion and science have gone hand in hand. Christianity virtually screams out that we should study the world. As C.S Lewis points out in his book Miracles ‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in nature, and they expected Law in nature because they believed in a legislator’. Our God is a transcendent God who created a world that is good. What he created is not evil. He is not a part of nature and nature is not a part of God. If nature is neither evil nor part of God then its ok to experiment. Who, after all would want to risk experimentation on evil matter or run the risk of experimenting on something that might be a part of God?  In the great pantheistic religions such as Hinduism, we have seen very little development of science compared with the ways in which religions such as Christianity and Islam have helped science to develop.

The list of great Christian scientists is impressive. Copernicus described God as the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all. Kepler was a committed Christian. Isaac Newton wrote theological books as well as science ones. When asked what was his greatest discovery, James Simpson replied ‘the day I discovered Jesus Christ’. Even Gregor Mendel, in whose field Dawkins has studied and taught was a Christian. In fact Mendel is described by Dawkins as the ‘founding genius of genetics itself’. Faced with having to explain the fact of Mendel’s faith he makes a cogent argument when he points out that Mendel must have become an Augustinian Monk as the simplest expedient to getting scientific research done. I think it’s highly commendable that this scientist, only in a Monk’s habit for the free research opportunities, spent so much of his time studying theology and pretending to be a Christian before starting his research late on in life.

When it comes to modern scientists, one could, if one listened to Professor Dawkins, suspect that there are none who really believe in an active God. However, surveys constantly point out that many do believe. He dismisses claims that there are many famous British Scientists who believe in God by stating that only three names ever come up. These names arise ‘with the likeable familiarity of senior partners in a firm of Dickensian lawyers: Peacocke, Stannard and Polkinghorne’. It seems very witty to dismiss someone because of their name (perhaps not so when you consider the most common way of shortening Richard) and these men do not deserve such treatment. The Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne was a Cambridge professor of mathematics and the others are just as gifted at science. Dawkins forgets to mention Sir John Houghton who is one of the world’s leading scientists in the field of Climate Change, perhaps Dawkins had a word limit whilst writing his book. There are thousands more scientists who believe in a loving and caring God. It is churlish of Professor Dawkins to be so dismissive of them.

‘I am a scientist and I believe there’s a profound contradiction between science and religious belief’ says Dawkins. His arguments are many but come down to the two major areas of miracles and evolution. The argument against miracles is summed up by saying that the laws of nature cannot be broken therefore there cannot be miracles. This is a difficult premise to argue though. It is ruling out all possibility of there being another option. This is not very scientific.

Developing this we see scientists arguing that science has actually explained miracles now. Those who witnessed and believed in miracles simply didn’t know what was really happening. This is particularly insulting to the people of the past but also a patently absurd. People in First Century Palestine knew that Virgins didn’t give birth and they knew that three day old corpses didn’t leave tombs under their own power. They knew what the laws of nature were and that’s why they argued for the miracles. It comes down to this; if there is a God, there is the possibility of miracles. If there is no God there isn’t.

Dawkins actually misses a trick here. In dismissing miracles as being impossible he fails to engage with the Resurrection. This is a strategic mistake. Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest and most successful military strategists of all time and normally he attacked his enemies at their perceived weakest points. This is often a very successful way of attacking that which we perceive as our enemy. If, as the esteemed professor argues, miracles are impossible, then surely the best way to defeat Christians would be to argue against the Resurrection. After all this miracle is the central tenet of the Christian faith. As Paul points out (1 Corinthians 15:14) without the Resurrection Christ’s teachings are pointless. However, Dawkins does not argue against the Resurrection at all. He appears fearful of tackling it. One could argue that, if he were not scared of it he would have tried to disprove it. It seems to me that Dawkins has problems putting Jesus back in the tomb

The other area in which scientists and religious believers disagree is in the area of evolution. Here I must confess to the lack of real understanding of either evolutionary theory (and I do believe that it is merely a theory, nobody has ever convinced me that there is enough evidence to call it fact) and the exact nature of the creation accounts in Genesis. Personally I see no conflict between the two in what I have read on the subject.

For me, the Bible is more about why God created the universe and no amount of science could ever answer that question. Science cannot tell us why the universe works, simply that it does. It cannot explain the fine tuning of the universe beyond spurious arguments such as suggesting that in the billions of universes that exist (none of which have been proven to exist other than the on we are in I might point out) one of them had to fit us. These arguments merely avoid answering the question. I think that this is something that Professor Dawkins need to realise. As Einstein himself said, “a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist”.

To say that science has all the answers is wrong and extremely arrogant.  I have never held that the Bible holds all the answers. Most of the answers to my questions are in there but I know that it also points me elsewhere for some of the other things. After all ‘The heavens declare the glory of the Lord’ (Psalm 19:1) so why shouldn’t we look into this. God actively encourages us to investigate what He has created and I welcome the developments that scientists have helped mankind develop. This encouragement to look outside for the answers is a magnanimous gesture that, no matter how hard I look, I cannot find in The God Delusion.  I would never be arrogant enough to suggest I have all the answers nor that I knew where they could all be found.

Science cannot explain why there actually is a universe and neither can it explain why the universe is so wonderfully fine tuned. More importantly it cannot meet our deepest needs. If everything is reduced to matter and energy then life is meaningless. What a breathtakingly arrogant and hurtful argument from Dawkins this is. To say that life has no meaning is incredible. Music, is it simply vibrations in the air? Art, is it simply a random selection of materials? Where is the space for altruism? According to science, when I kiss my wife it is the coming together of two sets of lips and the sharing of some chemicals. I can tell you this, it is a lot more than just that.

I am not, in any way shape or form, arguing that I know more than Professor Dawkins. I am, however, prepared to argue that his work is flawed and that he misses some of the major points. I will always have a great deal of admiration for those whose brains take them down the road of understanding how the universe works. I will not, however, ever let someone tell me that the love I feel when I am with my wife is simply a matter of chemical attraction and biological necessity.

It is about time that people started to realise that atheism is not the default position. It is not the only valid intellectual position to hold either. The new atheism that we see is a very arrogant and presumes much. It is about time that I and other Christians ceased being so scared of it. This essay has only tried to deal with the area of science and I hope to be able to deal with other areas in the future but I do so in the knowledge and comfort of knowing that our God doesn’t need defending but that He will love it when we stand up for him. As the Bible says, do not forget the gentleness and respect that is due. Some other people need to learn this too.