Atheism...Founded on Evidence or Emotion?

I'll admit that when I first began to study the evidence for and against Christianity several years ago, I made the assumption that there would be solid reasons for rejecting God.  I made that assumption because I had heard so often that the atheists were the better educated, the ones who had taken the time to look at the evidence, and had had the courage to follow it where it leads.

As a Christian, I was not happy about the prospect that God might not exist.  But as someone who values truth, I was devoted to learning what it was and following it regardless of the consequences.  So I began a personal study in which I read (something that continues today) extensively from both sides.  I learned about writers such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss and Daniel Dennett.  I checked out their books, listened to their lectures, and spoke to many people who had clothed themselves in the mantle of 'atheist'.

But I also acquainted myself with Christian thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias and JP Moreland.  I listened to their lectures (and, when possible, their debates).  I considered their arguments and reviewed their response to the new wave of atheism that has become so vocal in recent years.

It should come as no surprise that instead of my faith being weakened, it was strengthened far beyond what it was when I began.  At the beginning of my study, I was concerned that my belief was only in place because i was taught by my parents that God exists and that Jesus died for my sins.  But upon examination of the evidence and the rational argument (and let's be honest, most atheists claim they don't have to make a case for why they reject God, and they rarely are willing to even give it a try...that weighed heavily against their case, in my view), I found that virtually every shred of it fell squarely on the side of Biblical Theism.  Of course atheists would disagree with my conclusion, and I've spoken with many of them through the years who have said things like "that argument has been refuted!" (though, interestingly, none of them has been able to point to the refutation they claim exists).  But for me, there really was no question.  Evidence for God was and is undeniable.

In brief, some of the evidence and philosophical reasoning I found persuasive has been:

• The argument and evidence of the beginning of our universe out of non-being
• The design of our universe in a very finely-tuned manner to support life (not just human life, but life of any sort)
• The existence of certain phenomena that simply cannot be explained or exist within an atheist's worldivew, including:
• Consciousness
• Rationality
• The 1st person perspective
• Free Will
• The existence of objective moral duties and obligations which seem to span all cultures, geographies and time periods in history
• The historically reliable evidence that Jesus truly did live, teach, die and rise again on the third day

In response to things like this, the atheist community has gone so far as to deny consciousness and free will, to say that the universe truly could have popped into existence uncaused out of nothing (meaning 'non-being'...not the redefinition of the term that has been attempted by Lawrence Krauss), and to deny that there are moral truths.  While there have been scattered attempts from time to time to justify why they make these claims, mostly they just issue the denial and proclaim "the matter has been refuted" (though, again, I wonder why they can never actually produce the claimed refutation...it's not for a lack of asking on my part, that's for certain).

Having come to the conclusion that the evidence really does support God's existence (to the point that many well educated atheists have converted simply based on the weight of evidence), I had to ask myself...why do atheists still reject God?  If you ask them, they'll tell you either one of two things (for the most part):

1. Atheism is the default position (it's not...agnosticism is) and no one has shown me evidence sufficient to cause me to move from that default.
2. I have looked at the evidence and can find nothing to support a belief in God.

But it seems to me that this is just a dodge since when we get into the evidence, I find that they mostly don't want to discuss it.  They want to insult and jeer and dismiss anything that might possibly disagree with what they want to be true.  And as I looked further, I realized that was the key...it boils down to what atheists want to be true.

As Michael Talbot, author The Holographic Universe, put it:

"But why is science so resistant to the paranormal in particular?  This is a more difficult question.  In commenting on the reistance he experienced to his own unorthodox views on health, Yale surgeon Dr. Bernie S. Siegel, author of the best-selling book 'Love, Medicine, and Miracles', asserts that it is because people are addicted to their beliefs.  Siegel says this is why when you try to change someone's belief they act like an addict. 

"There seems to be a good deal of truth to Siegel's observation, which perhaps is why so many of civilization's greatest insights and advances have at first been greeted with such passionate denial.  We are addicted to our beliefs and we do act like addicts when someone tries to wrest from us the powerful opium of our dogmas.  And since Western science has devoted several centuries to not believing in the paranormal, it is not going to surrender its addiction lightly."  

- Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe pp. 6 & 7

My own experiences matched up with what Talbot was saying.  People seemed to have adopted a worldview and were addicted to it to the point that they were simply trying to defend it at all costs regardless of whether the evidence supported them or not.  This was further supported when I saw additional statements from atheists such as the following:

"In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence.  Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods.  I am talking about something much deeper - namely, the fear of religion itself.  I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.  It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief.  It's that I hope there is no God!  I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." 

- The Last Word by Thomas Nagel, page 130

Nagel's words seem pretty honest to me.  He freely admits he does not want God to exist.  It's not that he simply can't believe because of the weight of the evidence (in fact, he's made uncomfortable by the fact that so many well-informed people do believe).  He simply wants the universe to be different than it is.

Or what about these words by philosopher Mortimer Adler (quoted in James Spiegel's excellent book The Making of an Atheist):

"There is also the popular author and educator Mortimer Adler, who recognized that the nature of religious belief is such that 'it lies in the state of one's will, not in the state of one's mind.'  Adler rejected religious commitment 'because it would require a radical change in my way of life, a basic alteration in the direction of day-to-day choices as well as in the ultimate objectives to be sought or hoped for...The simple truth of the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person.'" 

- The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel, page 85 

(Note: This quote from Adler is taken from page 316 of his book "Philosopher at Large")

Two other comments by prominent atheists seem to be relevant here, so I'll share them as well.  First, we have the famous (or perhaps infamous) quote that has been attributed to Aldous Huxley:

"For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberatin we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." 

- Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization by Aldous Huxley, page 316

And then we have Michael Shermer, who is a very prominent atheist and likes to claim that the evidence is on the side of his skepticism (he debates fairly regularly on this).  But as can be seen from below, even his atheism is not grounded in evidence:

"Socially, when I moved from theism to atheism, and science as a worldview, I guess, to be honest, I just liked the people in science, and the scientists, and their books, and just the lifestyle, and the way of living.  I liked that better than the religious books, the religious people I was hanging out with - just socially.  It felt more comfortable for me.  In reality I think most of us arrive at most of our beliefs for non-rational reasons, and then we justify them with these reasons after the fact." 

- Michael Shermer speaking in Nine Conversations: The Question of God, PBS documentary

And then we get to Nietzsche, perhaps the greatest of atheist philosophers (and one who was willing to accept the consequences of a universe without God...for that, we can at least respect him that he doesn't try to sugar coat things).  In a review of Nietzsche, George Santayana noted the following:

"That there is no God is proved by Nietzsche pragmatically, on the ground that belief in the existence of God would have made him uncomfortable. Not at all for the reason that might first occur to us: to imagine himself a lost soul has always been a point of pride with the romantic genius. The reason was that if there had been any gods he would have found it intolerable not to be a god himself." 

- The German Mind: A Philosophical Diagnosis by George Santayana

 So at this point, two things were obvious to me:

1. The evidence and argument was on the side of Biblical Theism
2. The reasons that atheists reject this evidence is not due to intellectual hurdles, but rather emotion and volition

At this point, I turned to the question of why.  Why would atheists reject God if the evidence truly does point to His existence?  In the quotes above, I already had some indication.  Shermer admits he just enjoyed hanging out with atheists more than Christians.  Adler talked about not wanting to change his entire life, which would be required if he became a Christian (thankfully, he did accept Christ toward the end of his life), Huxley pointed to the sexual freedom he could enjoy absent God, and Nietzsche said he couldn't tolerate the idea of God unless he was able to be a god himself.

Similarly, the atheists I spoke with directly had non-intellectual reasons for their unbelief.  However much they might protest that they are unbelievers because there is no evidence for God, I have yet to find a single person for which this is true.  The motivations I found, in part, were:

• A desire to be free and not have to answer to a God who would judge their actions.  This usually manifests itself, like Huxley, in a desire for sexual freedom, though it's certainly not limited to this
• An emotional response to pain suffered at the hands of Christians (and sadly this is all-too-frequent), producing either anger or fear as these people equate God with the evils done to them
• A rejection of God because acceptance would lead to conclusions they do not want to consider (such as the pain at accepting they had family members who rejected Christ before they died)

I'll admit that in many of my conversations, it started off looking as if the person I was speaking with rejected God for intellectual reasons.  But as I got to know each of them, I never found this to be the case.  In absolutely every case, I found that their real reason was one of desire, emotional hurt, etc.

And as I looked into it further, I realize I shouldn't have been surprised by this.  Scripture clearly tells us that this is the case.  Note the words below:

19 “This, then, is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who practices wicked things hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 

- John 3:19-20 (HCSB)

Or consider what Paul had to say on the matter:

 21 For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

24 Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 

- Romans 1:21-25 (HCSB)

 It seems scripture was way ahead of me, as it always is.  It tells us the reason men reject God.  Not for lack of evidence, since the evidence is all around us (and, indeed, within us).  No, it's for other reasons altogether.  As Jesus stated it, men who reject God "loved darkness rather than the light".  And this is perfectly in line with my own experiences talking with the atheist community.

Now this is not to say that there is no one out there with intellectual doubt and deep questions.  But these people, if they are genuinely seeking, will get their answers.  And it will lead them to faith.  We've seen this time and time again with thinkers like CS Lewis, Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Ravi Zacharias, Francis Collins, Frank Tipler and many others.  Antony Flew, one of the leading atheist philosophers during most of his life, even rejected atheism and embraced deism before his death.

So I agree that there are those who are currently unbelievers, but are looking for answers.  These people will get the answers to their questions and will be future Christians.  It's those who cling to their atheism for various emotional reasons that are harder to reach, since they will need to decide that truth is more important than their own desires and emotions.

And as for those people who have been hurt by Christians in the past, they are the ones we need to be especially considerate of.  Ravi Zacharias wrote a book that I highly recommend to everyone entitled Has Christianity Failed You? as part of his effort to reach these people who have been harmed by others claiming the name of Christ.  As Christians, we absolutely need to show these people (and, indeed, everyone) that Christ's message is one of love and family.  It decidedly is not the sort of faith embraced and advertised by foul groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.

In summary, let me say this...I have not written this post to cause nonbelievers to get angry with me (though I have no doubt this will happen with some).  I have written it in an effort to hopefully get some who currently profess atheism to take a look at their own lives and motivations, and to recognize their true motivations.  It is an attempt to reach out and have an honest conversation, like Michael Shermer had when he said he just preferred the non-believing crowd's company.

God does exist.  When we examine the evidence objectively, this fact is not really in doubt.  But people still reject Him for a variety of reasons.  Undoubtedly many will continue to do so in the future.  But hopefully there will also be those who have such a commitment to the truth that they will pursue it and weigh the evidence for themselves.  Hopefully they will find Christian friends and associates who will love them and show what true acceptance within God's family is like.

All I can do is to point the way and to love as many of those around me as I can.  With much prayer and God's guidance, hopefully I'll be able to do just that.

John Searle, Consciousness, and the Dogmatic Commitment to Naturalism

Recently, I finished reading The Mystery of Consciousness by John Searle.  In my last post, I focused on a section of this book in which Searle confronts some of the flaws in the case made by Daniel Dennett.  In this follow-up post, I thought I'd give a general review and focus more on problems I see with Searle's position.

I enjoyed this book because it was instructive and allowed some good insight into the thoughts and goals of certain secular neuroscientists and philosophers as they try to solve the mystery of consciousness.  It should not come as a surprise that I do not believe this book solved it, and the author admits as much.  But I do think the book achieved one thing...it demonstrates quite well that, among secular scientists and philosophers, the goal is subject to the ideology.  What do I mean by that?

John Searle asserts repeatedly in this book that the brain causes consciousness.  He states that we know this for certain.  But when trying to explain how this happens, he is at a total loss.  Toward the end of the book, on page 193, he admits as much in the following quote:

But the reason consciousness appears to be a 'mystery' is that we don't have a clear idea of how anything in the brain could cause conscious states.

Later, he admits (on page 194) that the ultimate goal in studying consciousness is to figure this mystery out while not abandoning "the scientific worldview".  And this is the problem exactly.  Searle, like so many of his colleagues, is not investigating consciousness in a way that allows him to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  Instead, his efforts are focused on explaining consciousness so that it is consistent with the worldview he already accepts.  This, I'm afraid, is not legitimate scientific inquiry.  It's dogmatism.

Dr. JP Moreland, in his book "The Recalcitrant Imago Dei" (pp. 4-5) has this to say:

Now, the dictionary defines 'recalcitrant' as 'being obstinately unco-operative, hard to handle or deal with'.  A recalcitrant fact is one that is obstinately unco-operative in light of attempts to handle it by some theory.  A theory may explain some facts quite nicely.  But a recalcitrant fact doggedly resists explanation by a theory.  No matter what a theory's advocate does, the recalcitrant fact just sits there and is not easily incorporated into the theory.  In this case, the recalcitrant fact provides falsifying evidence for the theory. 

One way to 'handle' recalcitrant facts is to deny them.  Another is to proffer an ad hoc adjustment to one's theory.  An ad hoc adjustment of a theory is an irrational, intellectualy unacceptable adjustment of a theory whose sole rationale is to save it from falsifying evidence.  As such, an ad hoc adjustment has no other independent reasons that can be offered on its behalf... 

...Important examples of such features, and thus of such recalcitrant facts, are consciousness, free will, rationality, the self, intrinsic value and equal rights/dignity, the reality and nature of human meaning and flourishing...Thus, they provide confirmation for biblical theism and evidence against scientific naturalism.

Moreland has hit the nail on the head.  Within naturalism (or "the scientific worldview" as Searle describes it), there are certain facts that just don't fit.  Some advocates of naturalism decide to deny these recalcitrant facts (as Daniel Dennett denies consciousness even exists).  Others attempt to shoehorn these facts into their worldview through a variety of means.  Searle is guilty of the second type of error.  He admits that he has no idea how brains could cause consciousness, but he simply knows that they do (insert shoehorn, apply pressure).

Searle admits that he wants to preserve the scientific worldview, and that his efforts are in service to that larger goal.  The problem is, the facts of consciousness don't fit nicely into his worldview no matter how hard he tries.

So while I enjoyed this book and I recommend it (if for no other reason than the spirited disagreement Searle has with Dennett, and the back-and-forth which is recorded in its pages), I don't think it does a great service to those seeking answers to the mystery of consciousness.  What it does is demonstrate what it's like to have a faith commitment to a particular worldview, and to engage in an effort to fit inconvenient (or recalcitrant) facts into that worldview.

But be cautious not to blindly accept that brains must cause consciousness.  That has certainly not been proven, and any attempt to convince us otherwise is merely an effort to salvage the naturalistic worldview in spite of evidence (those recalcitrant facts) that contradicts it.

Consciousness (Or the Lack Thereof...) and Daniel Dennett

As I write this, I am just wrapping up an interesting book entitled The Mystery of Consciousness by John Searle.  While I have issues with Searle's position that I'll likely address in the future, I wanted to focus specifically on his review of the work of Daniel Dennett in this present post.

For many years now, I've been aware that Daniel Dennett is an academic and a professional philosopher.  He has made quite a name for himself as one of the "Four Horsemen" of the New Atheist movement.  Dennett's role has been to function more as a philosopher, particularly focusing on the Philosophy of Mind.  I've also been aware that Dennett has published several works, all with the seeming goal of discrediting the Christian worldview in one way or another.  I was even aware of Dennett's conclusions when it came to his Philosophy of Mind.  What I was not aware of (though in retrospect I should have been) was his reasons for adopting his position.

In Searle's book, in the chapter Conscious Denied: Daniel Dennett's Account, we are treated to a good summary of what Dennett claims to be true when it comes to consciousness.  In reviewing Dennett's book Consciousness Explained, Searle summarizes things this way (page 99):

The peculiarity of Daniel Dennett's book can now be stated: he denies the existence of the data.  He thinks there are no such things as the second sort of entity, the feeling of pain.  He thinks there are no such things as qualia, subjective experiences, first-person phenomena, or any of the rest of it.  Dennett agrees that it seems to us that there are such things as qualia, but this is a matter of mistaken judgment we are making about what really happens.

 Before going further, perhaps I should explain that qualia is the first-person subjective experience of things at an inner level.  For example, the perception of color or pain.  These things cannot be explained by purely physical phenomena (there is nothing in the molecular makeup of a rose that leads to our perceiving it being red).  Note that I am not saying that physical phenomena cannot account for things like pain.  Certainly our nervous system sends signals to our brain and this explains how we are notified of pain.  Instead, qualia is the actual sensation of pain.  Why do we experience it as we do?  It's a qualitative sensation that has never been (and in my view, will never be) explained purely in physical terms.

When it comes to things like qualia or the first-person perspective (the sense that there is a "me" and that "I" have independent thoughts and desires and dreams, etc.), Dennett denies them.  In fact, he denies that consciousness exits at all!  He says we are merely mistaken and it only appears we're conscious.  It's just an illusion and is not real (one wonders if we have to be conscious to recognize that consciousness is an illusion).

Now, I knew all of these things (and I recognized how utterly absurd they were...after all, if you don't have conciousness you aren't reading this right now!).  What I did not consider was Dennett's reasons for holding this conclusion.  And when Searle mentioned it, I had one of those moments where I suddenly wished I'd given it more thought at the outset.  It's pretty simple, really.

Consider that Dennett, like his atheist brethren in the New Atheist movement have, in large part, a commitment to an outdated philosophy known as verificationism.  In short, verificationism is the claim that if you can't prove something scientifically, it can't be counted as knowledge.  In other words, if science can't prove it exists, it doesn't.  And when it comes to consciousness, scientists and secular philosophers are completely stumped.  They have been searching for centuries to explain the existence of consciousness within the confines of their worldviews.  They have not been able to do so, and today are no closer to a solution than they were in the past.

Enter Daniel Dennett (and a few others, like Paul and Patricia Churchland).  He also cannot solve the mystery of consciousness.  He has been unable to show that it reduces down to biological processes (no one has), so he goes the extra step and denies it exists at all!  Give Dennett credit for this.  At least he lives out his worldview to the extent that he accepts the conclusion of his verificationism.  But perhaps we should check verificationism out to see if it holds water.  Is it, indeed, a sound worldview from which to base our view of what's real and what isn't?

Consider that David Hume, in his book An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, asked the following question:

If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics (works on religion and philosophy) let us ask this question, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion

Hume here is an early form of verificationism.  If it can't be subjected to experimental reasoning (a.k.a. the scientific method) then it's meaningless and can't be counted as true.  Fast forward to the early 20th century and we have the Vienna Circle and its brand of verificationism known as Logical Positivism.  If you want to read up on it, check out AJ Ayer's book Language, Truth and Logic.  Ayer was one of the architects of this new movement, and he advocated what he called the 'principle of verifiability' which is essentially identical to what Hume said and what Dennett believes.

Only one problem exists with the principle of verifiability.  It's logically incoherent!  Consider the following...if something can only be counted as true if it is logically necessary (which verificationism certainly is not) or testable through the scientific method (which verificationism also is not), then verificationism fails the test and can't be counted as true!

In other words, if verificationism is true then it's false.  It is literally self-refuting!

Philosophers such as Ayer realized their mistake and they abandoned verificationism.  Today, virtually no philosopher holds such a view.  But that hasn't stopped people like Daniel Dennett.  Though the view is utterly discredited in professional circles, he's picked up the banner again and is using it as his foundation for why he rejects the existence of consciousness.  All of this is fine, but just remember...he rejects consciousness because of his commitment to verificationism.  And verificationism is self-refuting.  Thus, Dennett's reasons for rejecting consciousness are self-refuting.

There are other things that disturb me about Dennett.  This includes his seeming willingness to say and write deceptive things in order to carry his point (for instance, he denies Searles' claim that he concealed his view on the non-existence of consciousness, even though he previously affirmed he was doing exactly that to another critic of his work...this seems to be more of a pattern with Dennett than the exception, I'm afraid).

The bottom line is this.  Consciousness exists and we all know it.  To deny it is simply a desperate attempt to explain away a phenomenon that doesn't fit nicely into a naturalistic worldview (a worldview which says that nothing exists beyond the material universe).  To admit consciousness exists is on step toward admitting the supernatural realm exists.  And Dennett won't have any of that, even if he has to go to the absurd point of denying the existence of something we all know is real (honestly, is anyone reading this thinking "I guess I don't exist after all"?).

Other scientists and philosophers try to explain consciousness in a manner that's consistent with a naturalistic worldview (they talk about emergent consciousness which is a function of the brain, or how consciousness is nothing more than an epiphenomenon of brain function, etc.).  I applaud them for not simply taking Dennett's nonsensical position.  But at the same time, trying to explain consciousness as emerging from (like the rainbow we see emerging from the spray produced by a waterfall), or identical to, physical processes is like someone who sets out on a project to explain where rain comes from but rules out the possibility that it comes from clouds.  That person may come up with some really interesting theories about the source of rain, but none of them will win out because the real source of rain has been eliminated from the start.

Searle says in his own book many times that brains produce consciousness.  He never proves this.  He never even offers evidence for this.  But he admits that this is his ideology and he is busy trying to confirm it.  In this regard, he can't blame Dennett for also doing the work to confirm his own ideology.  Both of them are wrong, but both are merely doing what they believe is necessary to preserve their own ideologies.

Only when each of them abandons the ideology and accepts that the evidence must be followed wherever it leads, even if it leads them to reject their naturalism, will they have any hope of getting to the bottom of what consciousness truly is.  As a Christian, I know that I exist.  I know that I am conscious.  I know that this is not reducible to physical processes, and that my inner experience is not merely an epiphenomenon.  I don't hold this view just because of my ideology.  I hold it because I've tested the theory and reasoned through the issues.  And I have found that the evidence supports a dualistic view (the view that the mind is real and not merely a component of a purely physical universe).

I won't go into all of my reasoning here (perhaps in a future post).  But if you do want to read up on my view, I'd point you to a great book by Dr. JP Moreland entitled Body and Soul.  He lays out an excellent case for dualism, showing how it is well supported by the evidence, and is the only plausible answer to the question of consciousness.