The Hypocrisy of Atheism

This year’s Templeton Prize winner, Marcelo Gleiser, has declared that Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. For those who are unfamiliar with the Templeton Prize, it is an award given to a living individual who "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” Gleiser’s declaration is sure to garner a lot of criticism from the atheist community, and while I’m sure Gleiser can hold his own in any debate, I think that it is important for believers in the scientific community to support him in any way they can. Atheism has called science godless for too long without being checked with good theistic arguments. While I am not a scientist, by education or practice, I do understand the qualities of a logical argument and enough basic science to recognize certain invalid premises. I completely agree with Gleiser’s claim, and will discuss why throughout this article. As a disclaimer, I am not talking about agnostics or people who remain uncertain of what they believe here, only those who openly profess that there is no God with the same level of confidence that Christians profess there is one.

Believing in science, for atheists, means adhering to what we, as humans, know to be fact—sort of. Amazingly, atheists (mostly unwittingly), commit the same “error” that they accuse Christians of—they sacrifice true science for the sake of their own anti-deity belief structure. They do this in several major ways. For one, the minute they declare that life first emerged from something not alive (a bang or random, perfect mixing of elements), they rely upon their own faith in a questionable and unproven theory. They reject all empirical evidence that suggests life is only formed from other life, and ignore the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that life can possibly from something that is not alive. To suggest that life came from anything but an original life source makes no sense based on the scientific method. Even more fantastic is the extreme complexity of DNA that abounds in all living bodies, the incredible diversity of nature, and the distinct mental power that humans have been graced with. The most logical explanation for all of these things is the orchestrated power of an involved supernatural force in a controlled manner. If we are going by scientific method, we must affirm that an eternal life force probably exists based on all given evidence. To believe that some special proteins originally came together somehow and randomly came to life is utter nonsense from the perspective of the scientific method.

Another atheistic theory that defies logic involves very existence of our Universe. We have seen evidence of the Universe’s creation (via gravitational wave imprints), that points to a “big bang,” and yet we have no true understanding of what caused it. Again, there are plenty of theories of how the universe began since we know that it had a beginning, but not a lot of public speculation on causality. We know, logically, that there had to be something before the universe began; after all, nothing can come from nothing no matter how long it has time to sit in it’s nothingness. Only with a catalyst can one expect a reaction—it’s a law of physics and a logical perfection. From the perspective of a logician, to take an atheist’s point of view in almost any circumstance seems to be the less secure and more fantastical option. There are too many things that contradict it from both science and logic.

For decades now, atheists and secular humanists have accused Christians of sacrificing science for the sake of their religion. According to these cynics, Christians are locked into a mindset that refuses logic for the sake of faith. As the century has progressed, the voice of atheism has gotten louder and continuously attempted to drown out the voice of the Church, claiming that the Church is foolish, antiquated and unable to keep up with the times. What we should be pushing for, as a unified body, are theories that include the possibility of a primary mover. What we need are scientists that acknowledge that the most logical and truly scientific arguments often include the possibility of God. Just as the atheists seek to remove Christianity, we should seek to destroy the lies and fallacies of atheism; and not for glory or bragging rights, but for the chance that someone out there may finally decide to give God a chance to work in their hearts. This is an exciting time for our faith, and we should proclaim the truth with love and grace—especially in the world of scientific discovery. People like Marcelo Gleiser will be opening new doors to the kingdom through their work, and we should be taking notes in order to convince those who are caught in lies. Once people are convinced of the scientific possibility and evidence of God, we may see huge shifts in societal behavior and even growth in the Church.

____________________________________________

“I do not fear at all what men can do to me for speaking the truth. I only fear what God would do if I were to lie.” ~St. John Bosco

“When one is convinced that his cause is just, he will fear nothing.” ~St. John Bosco

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men closer to God.” ~Louis Pasteur