We're All Atheists Now?

When you atheists understand why a jury can convict one particular person for a crime and not any of the other 7+ billion people on the planet who are technically eligible suspects, then you will understand why I am a Christian believer. The available evidence points to the Christian God, not to Zeus, Thor, or Quetzalcoatl.

If one were to live by the logic presented in this uncompelling meme, our judicial system would collapse. A lawyer for a likely murder suspect could simply say to the jury, "Surely you would agree that all these other people in this courtroom are innocent of this crime. I'm simply asking that you go one suspect further and declare my client innocent of these charges."

We are confident in the Christian God because that is where the evidence points regardless of the other options.

[This response is adapted from the work of Andy Bannister in Chapter 3 of The Atheist Who Didn't Exist.]

Science and Observations of God

What is the message of this meme?

• Science improves our knowledge over time. We have better images now of things that were previously inaccessible to us.
• Science couldn't then nor can it now observe God.
• Therefore, God must not be real because science cannot see him.

How to respond?

1. Science is a wonderful enterprise that does indeed improve our knowledge, and Christians should embrace, rather than fear, it.
2. The traditional Christian conception of God is that he is not physical, so we should not expect to be able to physically see him.
3. This world is full of things that skeptics, atheists, and scientists in general have good reason to believe exist even though they cannot see them, such as magnetic fields, quarks, a mathematical point or line, past genetic mutations, past transitional forms for which there are no fossils, force carriers in physics like photons or gluons, and past historical events for which there are no records.
4. The epistemology (or way of knowing) of this meme and of the average skeptic is weak sauce. If we limited our knowledge to only that which we could see, then we would know very few things indeed.

If atheists and skeptics want to claim that they can be confident in their lack of belief in God because science hasn't observed him, then to be consistent they must also claim to lack a belief in many other things that are not controversial.

Sauce for the Goose

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea."

This statement was made by William Provine, professor at Cornell University, in a debate with Phillip Johnson at Stanford University in 1994.

If Dr. Provine thinks it is appropriate to draw a metaphysical conclusion ("there are no gods") from a scientific theory ("modern evolutionary biology"), then surely he won't mind if others draw their own metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence.

Those of us who hold to Intelligent Design (ID) get accused of using science to support our belief in God. Well, ok, it's a little more complicated than that, but if William Provine can draw a negative conclusion ("There is no god") from empirical data, then surely we can form a positive conclusion ("an intelligent designer does exist") from empirical data.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.