Notes to an Atheist, Part One

Notes to an Atheist, Part Two

Hello Humanists, Part One

Hello Humanists, Part Two

Doubters, Part One

Doubters, Part Two

NOTES TO AN ATHEIST

Part One

This article was inspired by two rather intense online discussions. One was with a minister I know. A friend of his had just been murdered, in a crime so terrible I'd seen it on the national news. We discussed God's grace, and the spiritual world.
The other was with three members of my online writer's group: an atheist technician, an agnostic scientist, and a struggling Catholic musician. It was about Science and Religion, and whether either is based in reality, and if they can really help us.
These discussions lead me to write this article. The subject has already filled entire libraries with centuries' worth of hard-thought-out tomes. In this incarnation, it's just long enough to fill a two-part article.
I have written this in the form of a letter to an atheist I might meet someday.

* * *

Dear Friend,
There are saints who proclaim they see the glory of God everywhere, during every waking moment. There are also scientists who tell us, flatly, that they see no evidence of God whatsoever.
You've told me you don't believe in God. You know that I do, and don't seem to mind that. You have so many reasons to doubt, and not enough reasons to believe.
Let's begin by framing the debate.
The most fundamental question has always been: Is there a God? This might be rephrased in this scientific era as: Is there a supernatural? (Things that have not been, and perhaps cannot be, measured by science.)
I won't ask you to try and 'prove a negative,' only to remain open minded. Many things once unsuspected, even in theory, are now accepted as routine.
Are there forces that current science cannot measure? There is little agreement about what such forces might be like. Many Pagans believe in an amorphous 'life force' or many-named 'divinity' which imbues the cosmos. There are several very old, as well as some modern New Age, versions of this belief.
If that is true, then monotheists such as myself would say that this force is but one aspect of a vast, personal God.
Let's look at the monotheist's descriptions of God. Religious liberals believe in an all-forgiving, milquetoast sort of God. Fundamentalists see a demanding, judgmental God. One version sends nearly everyone to Heaven; the other, to Hell.
I would say the truth is larger than either of those ideas. God created us in His image, with both a mind and a heart. Let's use them both, like God does. I will use 'His' for God, while accepting that God is big enough to embrace both genders.

GOT PROOF?

As an atheist, you don't want to take things on faith -- especially not on blind faith. You have asked me, "I can't see any clear evidence for God, so would you please show me some?" Assuming, I suppose, that I won't have any for you.
Before we get into that, let's take another look at the underlying assumptions. You boldly ask for dramatic and incontrovertible evidence, in order to make such a major decision about your worldview.
In response, Rabbi David Gottlieb has presented a brilliant analysis of our 'criteria for responsible decision.' Briefly: in the ongoing conduct of their lives, few people demand this kind of hard evidence, even while making very serious decisions.
What do I mean? Okay, do you eat at restaurants? Any idea how many people die each year from food poisoning, and related contamination? (Hint: many.) So, do you inspect the kitchen before eating? Ask to see the Health Inspection certificate? Do you know the inspector, and regard him as both competent and not corrupt?
What about airliners? In reality, you go with the best probabilities. Most reasonable people will take the great convenience over the slight risk.
What about intimate personal matters? Have you tested your DNA, and compared it with your parent's DNA? In other words, are you certain they are your father and mother? Your probable answer is, no and no. I would venture to say that you would not demand this evidence, or even be comfortable asking for it.
What about your children? How many men have tested the DNA of their children, to ensure they are the real father? Again, relatively few. In truth, a lot of men don't really want to have that much 'evidence' in hand.
What is so very different about a belief in God, our heavenly parent?
That being said, there is plenty of evidence, and counters to the usual objections.

OBJECTIONS TO BELIEF

I would like to address some common objections to belief in God. By now, I suppose I've heard them all. Fortunately, they can be answered. (Here's a quick review of the traditional evidence.)
Doubters ask, "Why evil?" The old lament goes: "Why do the wicked prosper, oh Lord, while your own people suffer?"
Many who have suffered personal tragedy tend to blame, and then to doubt God. "A good God would not have allowed such a thing to happen," is their heartfelt cry.
God does not treat with this fallen world, directly. With the rarest of exceptions, He only works through the minds of people, especially those He has called to lead His Providence.
In other words, God does not micro-manage the physical world. He might keep His eye on the sparrows, but He does not prevent the hawk from swooping down on their nests. He might number your hairs, but He will not intervene if they begin to fall out.
An example: when a tornado passes through their town, the people whose house is spared ought to thank Chaos Theory -- and not God -- when the fickle wind veers around their home, and wrecks the neighbor's place instead. God was not on the side of the "winners," here. Nor is He against the losers, in sports contests and most other venues.
Some wonder why evil exists at all; and how it could have emerged in a cosmos that should have been entirely good. This question occurs to every perceptive child, and is formally known as theodicy. The answers vary between religions, and most have in fact reconciled the idea of a Good God with the existence of Worldly Evil.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Schonborn offers some brilliant insights on this topic, as does scientist Francisco Ayala.
An unusual response, once controversial, now subject to serious theological discussion, can be found in the Divine Principle. Based upon a clear grasp of its overall framework, it explains three specific reasons, near the end of its second chapter. For now, I'll try to summarize them here.
God always maintains His original standards and blueprint. For web readers: in an online context, His dealing with evil forces would be like a human discussion forum (or blog) administrator getting into a big argument with a cynical troll. This would "feed the troll," tarnish and distract the person in charge, and drag everything down. God prefers to honor our dignity and free will, and at the same time, maintain the purity of the ultimate Ideal.
Hence, He does not stay the hands of the evil, except when good people arise to do it, whether in crime or war. Several years ago, over in Scotland, there was a terrible massacre of school children. During the memorial service, the town's Pastor said a very wise thing: "God's heart was the first to break." We make Him suffer, but we can also bring Him great joy.
Without a crystal clear understanding of these issues, Christianity has often been challenged by compelling heresies and competing beliefs; such as Mithraism, which teaches that Good and Evil have always existed, and that the best we can hope for is to keep the two "in balance." Today this is the darker variety of New Age belief. This is also the basis of The Force, to the extent it's ever explained, in the Star Wars franchise.
There are other tragedies also, with 'neutral' causes. We need water, but could drown. Gravity is quite handy, yet falls cause numerous deaths. Common sense and good technology mitigate these dangers tremendously, as does medical science. With time, this will only improve. Science can provide safety, and religion a healthy lifestyle. (Folks could be so much more sensible, but then we've have to do without the Darwin Awards.) It's strange, but Darwin and the Bible do agree on one thing: our mortal bodies are but temporary vessels.

HORRORS!

By now you must be itching to tell me all about the horrors promulgated by 'organized religion,' such as the Inquisition and Crusades. They're mentioned constantly, despite having happened many centuries ago. (They've already been apologized for.) The historical reality is complex, and frequently misunderstood. For instance, the Inquisition is one of history's first examples of a formal, deliberative court of law. Bad as it surely was, the alternatives were much worse. As for the Crusades, they were preceded by centuries of invasion and rule by peoples from another land. (Lots of small tribal principalities, back then.) Some have termed them a counterattack, brought on by the harassment of pilgrims to the Holy Land, plus incursions on Byzantine territory.
Here is a different take: what the Church authorities could not overcome by virtue of their own weak doctrines, they sometimes crushed by brute force. For example, a medieval incarnation of Mithraism, called the Cathar heresy, was exterminated by one of the bloodiest massacres in French history. (Here's a sympathetic essay on Catharism. Others claim they provoked violence.)
Many wonder why a good God would condemn so many to Hell. Or how a powerful God could lose so many of His creations to eternal perdition. If Heaven and Hell's populations were sports scores, then (according to mainstream doctrine) God is losing badly.
Simply put, God condemns no one -- people do this to themselves, in this life and the next. Also, though Hell is a terrible place, there are ways out. Difficult roads that anyone can follow to Heaven. Long ago, Dante and C.S. Lewis both hinted at this.
Believe it or not (heh, heh), Hollywood has managed to illustrate this well. In my opinion, three movies give fairly accurate depictions of physical death, and life the spiritual realm. These are Ghost, What Dreams May Come, and The Sixth Sense. Yes it's "just" pop-culture, but you must admit how influential it is!

SCIENCE VS. RELIGION

You have great respect for science, and you've told me that you think religion has mostly opposed science. Therefore, that religion has been a roadblock to the advancement of humanity.
You've brought up Evolution, the obvious example. Science seems to have won, hands down, on this point. Even the Pope has admitted that evolution must be true.
The Creationists have consistently invoked a so-called "God of the gaps." Everything science could not explain, they attributed to God. But as more is discovered, God is then (supposedly) shoved out of one more perch. Eventually, Darwinians gloat, God will have no possible role.
Actually, it works both ways. Science has given us the Big Bang, as well as the Cosmological Anthropic Principle. There are several excellent books which explain these in detail.
Drawing a correspondence between the 'Days' of Genesis and the 'Eras' of the Earth is a sure way to annoy almost everyone! Note that the "Sun and Moon appearing" (in Genesis 1:16) could refer to the clarity of the Earth's atmosphere, after impact events and volcanism have diminished.
I have a friend who got a Ph.D. at UC Berkeley, as a research embryologist, who told me he's seen evidence previously unknown (perhaps spiritual) forces, involved in the development of all new life. His work has been featured in peer-reviewed journals.
Suffice it to say that the latest scientific theories have not eliminated, but rather, given us a probable role for an intelligent Creator.
Most believers in God point to the existence of miracles. By their very nature, no one thinks that such things can be reproduced in a laboratory. There are people who are famous for their alleged psychic abilities, though the vast majority of them have been proven as fakes. A vast reward fund remains unclaimed.
However, the CIA and others have taken a serious interest in human abilities beyond the ordinary five senses. Millions of people can recount striking 'psychic' experiences, but almost by definition, such are difficult for science to verify.
I look for God's hand at the time of the Big Bang, and at the time the first true humans were born on this world. I would look for it in holy places, though usually, well away from the glare of publicity.
Religion has been a great boon to humanity. Sure, there have been abuses, as there are in every walk of life. Such violent "religious" people, past and present, have not been following the clear teachings of their own Faiths. (There are certain exceptions, but in each case, genuine splits developed over such things.)

REVELATION

One major difference between religion and science is their source(s) of information, and of authority. Religion is founded largely upon revelation, and believe it or not, in practice this is not so different from science.
All human traditions have some rational basis, else the tribes, societies, and nations which uphold them will fail. For example, scholars now recognize a couple of reasons why pigs (and pork) were abhorred by Middle Eastern people, including disease and a pig's habit of contaminating small and precious water sources.
New knowledge and standards will arise, and adaptable societies will change with them. This might be due to a new religion, as with Moses proclaiming a measured "an eye for an eye," instead of the ultra-barbaric "kill him and all his sons, and take the women for my own" type practice that preceded it. It might be due to science and technology, as with "mix potassium nitrate and sulfur and charcoal--very carefully."
Religion claims an invisible source of knowledge: divine revelation, and atheists shudder at the very idea. But is this really a bad thing? Scientists hatch up new concepts all the time, and apply math and observation and experiment to verify them.
In most cases religion develops more slowly, but in the end it's tested just as thoroughly. Anyone can say they've heard from God, but to be accepted by a variety of people, and then believed over a wide region, is a whole different thing. For such proclamations to outlast their proclaimer, and then stand the test of time, is rare indeed! When that does happen, the store of wisdom, and overall attainments, of humanity are vastly uplifted.
Almost all religions see the Divine as a source of truth, and not just any truth but a comprehensive and fulfilling worldview. (See John 14:6) It's a bold claim, and history backs it up!
Meanwhile, in practice, science rests upon the authority of its elders--even when those elders are wrong. Max Planck lamented how difficult it is for new concepts to be accepted, at least within the lifetime of the guardians of the previous reigning theory. Also, certain Asian societies so emphasize 'respect for elders' that doubting a senior professor or scientist is tantamount to blasphemy. Perhaps in consequence, the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to scholars in those nations is proportionately much smaller.
The focus and style is different, yet in both religion and science (and similarly, with political ideologies), the greater truth will ultimately prevail.

LIMITS OF SCIENCE

For scientists, accusing religion of violence is like the pot calling the kettle black. Historically, when people have ruled by non-religious 'rational principles,' they've seldom managed to improve their societies. Quite the contrary, some of them produced the most horrific dictatorships in all history. Even in the USA, scientists have carried out atrocities such as the Tuskegee Experiment. Despite the mental brilliance of its practitioners, science has tremendous shortcomings!
The great laws, the foundation of civilization, all have religious underpinnings. From the Code of the ancient Hammurabi, to Moses, to the Magna Carta and the American Founders, we see the hand of the Divine. An understanding that people are not cogs in some domineering social machine.
Even rulers with the best of intentions, be they Kings or bureaucrats, have a terrible time guiding their nations. Whole economies, and specific programs, seldom end up as planned. Even professional futurists, and the finest science fiction writers, have a hard time envisioning the future accurately.
This leads us to the realm of politics, and the creation of laws. A relative handful of health and safety regulations have a genuine basis in science. Once you get past those, the creation, enforcement, and effects of human legislation are so utterly unscientific as to give one fits.
Human rights activists, and the scholars who study that important topic, are worried that atheism provides no clear basis for outlaw nations to behave. In their treatment of citizens (and prisoners), the launching of terror (or even nuclear) strikes, and more. The best John Finnis and his associates can do is, present a complicated argument that such leaders "be reasonable," because the no-rights alternative is surely much worse.
The bottom line? In guiding humanity, religion had done better then science.
Please don't be too quick to dismiss these sections as a "right back atcha" petito principi type arguments. This is not goofball stuff -- much of it has been covered in Scientific American and elsewhere.

© 2009 by Paul Carlson