The Folly of Atheism

Steve Townsend

Text of a sermon preached at Westhill Episcopal Church

Sunday 21 April 1996

and at Gerard Street Baptist Church

Sunday 5 July 1998

 

Psalm 14 verse 1: ‘The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”.’

Many in this generation have inverted this verse – atheists who claim it is folly to believe in God. And many of these appeal to science to justify their position. For them science shows that the concept of a Divine Being is no longer needed to understand the universe;  that there is no evidence for the existence of God;  that he belongs to the realm of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy - a fantasy without any basis in reality.

This view has been promoted, deliberately or unwittingly, by much of the media, in education and throughout our culture until it has pervaded our society. Most of us are touched by it. From school days we have placed ‘scientific truth’ in one box and ‘Christian faith’ in another. We try not to let them mix. We dare not allow the one to inform the other, for fear of ridicule or exposure. Well, you can keep hydrogen and oxygen in separate compartments, but at the risk of a considerable conflagration or explosion. Separated they can be highly destructive; bonded together, as H₂O, they can sustain and preserve life.

Does Science Conflict with Christianity?

This supposed division between science and Christianity was not always so.  What organisation would you say has the following in its original mission statement?

‘for the praise of the divine Name, the exaltation of the Catholic faith, the salvation of souls and the advantage and profit of the common welfare’

The BBC?  The Royal Society?  The Salvation Army?  Tear Fund?  Some other evangelical and philanthropic Christian mission?  No.  It is at the very heart of the original manifesto of the University of Aberdeen, established 500 years ago to ‘be a teeming fountain from whose fulness may drink all the faithful in Christ, from whatever quarter repairing thither in their desire to be adorned with learning and virtues’. [1] The University motto still is ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’.

This interaction between Christian belief and the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and wisdom is the rich soil from which has sprung most of the technological advances (for good or ill) that we experience today. This point is disputed by some scholars, who assert that modern scientific advances were made in spite of religious belief rather than because of it. But the evidence is almost overwhelming. It was their belief in a God who both created and sustains the Universe, a God who does not change, a God who brought order and form to that which was unordered and formless, that inspired and motivated so many of the great scientists on whose work so much of modern day science depends. Scientists such as Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein  -  all these and many other founders of modern science were inspired by a deep conviction that God created the Universe and could be understood better by exploring his works. [2]

Today, even though there are many scientists who do not proclaim a Christian faith, or who are atheists, there are many eminent academics with a deep Christian conviction, such as R J Berry, FRSE (Professor of Genetics, UCL), Sir Robert Boyd, FRS (former Professor of Physics, UCL), John Bryant (Professor of Cell and Molecular Biology, Exeter), Sir John Houghton, FRS (former Director General of the Meteorological Office), John Polkinghorne, FRS (former Professor of Mathematical Physics, Cambridge), Colin Russell, FRSC (Professor of History of Science and Technology, Open University) to name but a few. The point I am making however is not just that science and faith in God are quite compatible, it is that the dominant force behind the major scientific advances of the last few centuries has derived from an essentially Christian view of the universe. It is reasonable to conclude that without this religious influence modern science would be a poor relation of what it is today.

For the Christian scientific investigation is a voyage of discovery into a deeper understanding of God himself. When Johann Kepler formulated his laws of planetary motion it is said his excited reaction was to cry, “O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!”  Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1 tell us that Christ is the creator, sustainer and one unifying principle of the universe. When we search for deeper understanding of truth, whether physical or spiritual, we discover increasingly more of him.

The popular notion of a conflict between science and biblical Christianity is a very recent phenomenon. There is in fact no conflict. True science is a pursuit of truth, and a rejection of error. This is food and drink to the Christian. There are, of course, Christians who adopt unscientific positions, or who believe things that are untrue, just as there are atheists who do the same. But the fault then is with the person, not the creed.

The Nature of Scientific Truth

There is also considerable misunderstanding and debate as to what constitutes ‘scientific truth’. There is no time to explore this question here in detail. It is enough at present to recognise that all science can do is model reality, and therefore all scientific theory is at best a pale reflection of and crude approximation to what really happens. Such theory may be extremely helpful, but it is never absolutely true and may subsequently be shown to be fundamentally in error. Indeed science advances not by demonstrating its theories are true, but by laying aside those theories and aspects of theories that are no longer helpful in improving our understanding of reality. Essentially a theory lies somewhere on the scale of very unreliable to very reliable. To be considered scientific a theory must be capable of being tested in such a way that an unsuccessful outcome is possible. When a theory is supported by successful testing then it may move up the reliability scale. When tests or predictions do not support it then it may move down the scale. Whether it moves on the scale is determined by the degree of risk involved in the test.

For example, I might say to you, “Listen, I’ve observed this rather strange phenomenon. Whenever I whistle a bus comes along. Let me give you a demonstration.”  I then take you to Union Street, Aberdeen, on a Saturday afternoon. I tell you to shut your eyes while I whistle, and when you open them you’ll see a bus. We try this once and the outcome is successful. We try it again and again. We try it one hundred times. Each time it is successful. Even so, you might not be convinced. Now it would be quite a different matter if I were to say “Let’s now go to the top of Ben MacDui.” Even if I were successful there only one time in a hundred you’d be impressed!

A scientific theory, therefore, may be considered to be reliable or unreliable, helpful or unhelpful. Asking whether it is true is not appropriate. Anyone who claims that a certain scientific theory has been proved to be true misunderstands the nature of science and of truth; in many respects theirs is a religious position rather than a scientific one.

The Conflict between Atheism and a Belief in God

The contention I spoke about at the beginning is, in fact, not between science and Christianity at all. It is, and always has been, an ideological conflict between atheism and a belief in God. Atheism is a creed, a statement of faith. It is not a position that can be reached through scientific investigation, but is a foundation upon which a philosophy of life is built. Not only is atheism not a position that can be reached through scientific investigation, it is a position that is continually challenged by science.  The apostle Paul said, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” [3]  Isaac Newton spoke of his own discoveries that they would ‘work with reasoning men to a belief in the Deity.’  In our own time the widely accredited theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just [the way it did] except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” [4]  Far from being the logical position for a thinking person, atheism is in many respects illogical.

There are two fundamental reasons why atheism is not a reasonable creed to adopt. The first relates to the scientific method described above; it is not a satisfactory position from a scientific point of view. The other relates to the consequences outlined for us in Psalm 14; it is not a satisfactory position from a moral point of view.

Atheism: The Scientific Perspective

The theory that there is no God is less credible than the theory that there is a God when tested using scientific methods. Suppose we were to ask, “What outcomes would we expect to find in a universe assuming that there is no God?” If we were being generous we might say that anything at all would be a possible outcome, in which case anything we observe confirms the theory, and nothing can show it to be false (like whistling for a bus in a bus station). In short, the theory could not be satisfactorily tested. A more realistic response however would be to expect as outcomes disorder, chaos, irregularity and confusion wherever we looked. But instead we find the opposite – order, organisation and the appearance of design. Under this scenario the theory would fail the test.  At best then the theory cannot be satisfactorily tested; at worst it can be and fails the test dismally.

Suppose we apply the same arguments to the theory that there is an intelligent creator. Again, suppose we ask, “What outcomes would we expect to see in a universe assuming there is a God?” As before, one might say that anything at all would be a possible outcome, and again conclude that the theory cannot be satisfactorily tested.  But would this be a reasonable response? If an intelligent being had created a universe surely we would expect as an outcome evidence of that intelligence, by way of regularity, order and the appearance of design?  And when we look that is exactly what we see.  At worst then the theory cannot be satisfactorily tested; at best it can be and is confirmed.

These arguments do not prove that theism is correct and atheism is incorrect. They do however show that of the two positions theism is considerably more reasonable.

Atheism: The Moral Perspective

In Psalm 14 (and again in Psalm 53) the psalmist declares that the person who does not believe in God is in the final analysis ‘a fool’. The Hebrew word here does not carry our typical meaning of being a simpleton or of being somehow intellectually deficient. It carries rather the idea of moral deficiency. The atheist may be highly intelligent, and well respected by others. But he or she stands on moral quicksand. In verse 1, echoed in verse 2, the psalmist describes a progression deeper into depravity:

·      say there is no God, and refuse to seek Him;

·      corruption sets in, individually and in society;

·      deeds become vile;

·      all goodness is lost.

The idea behind ‘corruption’ is that of rot setting in. This gives rise to worthless and unseemly behaviour. Ultimately nothing that is done is good. This is not just an individual thing. People encourage one another in this downward spiral; eventually the whole of society descends into a moral morass.

Last summer one of our apple trees showed worrying symptoms. Some of the leaves on particular branches were wilting, but strangely there were no signs of bugs attacking them. Eventually I discovered the source of the problem. Low down on these branches canker had set in, a particularly invasive form of rot. Sadly it had even infected the main trunk of the tree. Eventually the whole tree would be affected, and worse still the spores would be carried to neighbouring trees. With a heavy heart I set to with the pruning saw. Even if this tree could not be saved I would preserve those alongside it. This is the kind of picture the psalmist paints - a people infected by a canker that will ultimately destroy them and others. And there, amongst the trees, walks the Gardener with his pruning saw. A source of dread to the corrupt; a means of salvation to others.

Is this to say that atheists are bad people?  No, not necessarily, and not initially. The psalmist is describing a progression here, from the initial ideological position to the final breakdown of morality in society. Some of my closest friends and colleagues are or have been atheists. I have observed in some of these greater personal integrity and morality than in many Christians. But I would claim that such integrity and morality exists not because the individual is an atheist, but because other, stronger influences are affecting behaviour and lifestyle. But sooner or later, as atheism gets a stronger foothold in individuals and society, moral decline will set in. This is the biblical position, and I believe the history of humanity, and of our own society in recent times confirms it.

If atheism were true then the following conclusions would be unavoidable.

1.   There is only one absolute truth.

The only absolute truth is that I exist and am self-aware. My consciousness is the centre of the universe. Everything external is experienced only through the physical senses, and there is no way of knowing whether there is indeed anything real out there, or whether it is all just a dream or hallucination. Since the only reality that I can be sure about is my own self-awareness, then nothing else can assume greater importance.

2.   There is only one absolute evil.

The greatest possible tragedy would be my own death, since then my consciousness would be extinguished permanently, and, as far as I am concerned, the whole universe would be extinguished at the same time. There is no moral reason why I should not actually destroy the universe on my death, supposing it were in my power, since the effect would be precisely the same. There would be nobody to mourn the extinction of the universe, nobody to pass judgement. It wouldn’t matter.

3.   There is only one obligation.

The only absolute moral code that applies to me is that I should fulfil my own choices. I may of course choose to show love to another person, but this is not done because of an obligation to any external code of conduct, but because I want to do it. Alternatively I may choose to hurt another person, and although others may object or even restrain me I have no absolute moral duty other than to take note of  this and choose my response according to my own preferences. I may even approve of some external moral code, and choose to conform to it, but this is because I choose to do it, not because it is absolutely binding on me.

4.   There is only one absolute right.

I have an absolute right to be what I am, but otherwise nobody can claim anything as an absolute right. There is no legal framework to establish or protect absolute rights. A society may develop a legal framework, and there may be consequential rights relative to that framework. But there is no absolute against which to assess this. If, for example, a society chooses to give its sick and poor no rights whatsoever and allows them to be killed at will, there is no higher court of appeal.

In short, the logical moral consequences of the atheistic position are extreme self-centredness and the rejection of any kind of external absolute moral framework.

Thankfully most atheists do not live like this. Indeed it would run counter to the instincts of most of us to live like this. In this we see the essential inconsistency in the atheistic position - it leads inevitably to a code of behaviour that in its extreme form most would reject out of hand. But note the terrible warning of Psalm 14. As atheistic thinking permeates society so there will be an increasing slide into moral decline. People’s behaviour will become more and more consistent with their atheistic beliefs. To what extent do behaviour patterns in our country demonstrate this slide?

·      Consider the TV producer defending explicit sex and violence who says, “What right do you have to impose your moral views on others?” He demands the right to do what he likes, but wants to deny others the right to campaign for something different.

·      Consider the gunman who kills innocent people and then turns the gun on himself. Within his code of morality the murder of the innocent is of no consequence once he himself is dead.

·      Consider the campaigner for abortion on demand. To her the right to choose is of paramount importance; the unborn child has no rights.

·      Consider the marriage partner who abandons spouse and children for a life elsewhere. Choosing what is best for himself is his only obligation.

·      Consider the youth who stabs to death someone coming to the aid of a victim of a mugging. To him no action is prohibited if he can get away with it.

·      Consider the girl who lies about her background in order to secure a job. To her truth is disposable.

Throughout our society certain attitudes seem to predominate: ‘look out for number one’; ‘if you feel like it, do it’; ‘right and wrong are just relative concepts’; ‘don’t let anyone tell you what to do’. All of these derive directly from the creed of atheism.

A Call to Stop the Rot

It is time to stop the rot. It is time for us to declare unashamedly that God is not dead: he made us, he sustains us, he expects a response from us, he hates immorality, he loves us to seek him.

Do you feel inhibited or ashamed about speaking of your faith in God?  Don’t!  You are on higher ground intellectually, scientifically and morally than any atheist. His creed rejects intelligent design in the universe; yours seeks it, finds it and revels in it. His creed cannot be confirmed by testing; yours encourages you to ‘taste and see that the Lord is good’. His creed dismisses the Christian testimonies of a multitude of eminent scientists and others down the years; yours places you in excellent company; His creed leads inexorably to moral decline; yours promotes all that is good and wholesome. His creed leaves him to stand alone; yours leads you to One who will never leave you. His creed leads finally to a lonely death, anticipating extinction at best and hell at worst; yours gives the hope of eternal glory when you will see clearly all that is presently obscure.  Do not be ashamed!  Hold your head high!  Declare to the world that the Lord reigns!

In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,

and the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you will remain;

they will all wear out like a garment.

You will roll them up like a robe;

like a garment they will be changed.

But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

Hebrews 1: 10-12, NIV

Questions

?      Did the church not in fact often impede the progress of science. For example, was not Galileo put on trial for publishing his theory that the earth orbited the sun?

Galileo certainly got into trouble on account of his publication. The ire of the church leaders seems to have been raised not so much by what he published but by the manner in which he went about it (see Forster & Marston on this issue²). Opposition to specific scientific theories by organisations within the church may have occurred from time to time, but this does not take away from the fact that it was their belief in God, and adherence to the Christian faith, that motivated so many of the founders of modern science.

?      Many atheists are extremely moral people, and it is not correct to describe them as being self-centred, is it?

I made clear that many atheists are people of high moral integrity. The morality of a person’s behaviour can only be assessed by what they do, not by what they say they believe.  Even so, belief in an absolute moral code is incompatible with atheism, so an atheist who upholds and lives by absolute moral principles is being inconsistent.  Moreover a serious problem for society arises as atheism is embraced by those who do not otherwise have a moral framework to guide them. Then the principle of ‘do what you like regardless of the consequences’ can readily take over. There is strong evidence that it already has in many sectors of our society.

?      Do I have to bother about this? I don’t like science and technology, and I’m not convinced of its benefit for humanity anyway.

My main point has been to challenge atheism, not to support science.  For the Christian science is a means of understanding more of God’s eternal power and divine nature. But if scientific advancement is not constrained by God’s justice, mercy and love then exploitation and abuse of people and the environment is bound to occur. Christians in science can help to prevent this happening.