Have you ever been in a situation where you just did not
want something to be true, and no matter how much evidence was brought before
you, you would do whatever it took to ignore what was so plainly in front of
you? Maybe you had a vested interest in
keeping whatever it was “false,” maybe you just could not bring yourself to
accept the evidence, whatever; it really doesn’t matter why it happened, just
that it happened. I am not ashamed to
say that I am part of this club; it’s an element of our behavior that makes us
human: we have a hard time accepting new information and assimilating it into our existent worldview. Now, I’m
not saying that this stubbornness of not believing something based upon
evidence presented plainly to one’s face completely and accurately describes
our atheist friends, but its contemplation does bring up some interesting
parallel scenarios.
Listening to the impassioned rantings nowadays of Internet
and professional atheists alike, one gets the sense that they do not just
disbelieve in God and disbelieve in the evidence and arguments provided for His
existence, but that they really just do not want
Him to be real! It seems that they are willing
to do and think anything to ensure that God “doesn’t exist” (as if their
beliefs about His existence could make Him any more or less real).
The universe is too big! Er, wait,
or is it too small? I don’t know: it doesn’t matter!
Many
atheists today will claim that the universe is simply too vast for God to care
about us human beings and our well-being, beliefs, and actions. “Why would this supreme Being care about a
tiny speck of dust in the vastness of the universe?” is a very common inquiry. As the Amazing Atheist once said in a video
concerning the death of Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist
Church: “Because God really cares
about a bunch of primates on a backwater speck of a planet in the cosmos and
where they stick their genitalia?!”
This
strikes me as a false dichotomy though.
Theological complaints aside—specifically concerning the nature of God
as Love Itself and the fact that from reality this stems all of the Catholic
Church’s teachings on sex, end of life care, poverty, and a whole host of other
issues (all worthy topics for future posts)—it seems as though the atheist’s
position is merely one of stubbornness and not of reason; it appears internally
inconsistent. To prove my point, let’s
take a parallel scenario and see where we end up.
Suppose
everything in this new, alternate reality is exactly the same as it is now,
except that our universe is only the size of our Milky Way galaxy, or even only as large as our solar system. (This
obviously calls for us to suspend our disbelief regarding the expansion of the
universe and how science tells us that it actually needs to be this big for the force of gravity not to have collapsed
the whole thing shortly after the Big Bang.)
Can
anyone guess what the line from your typical aware-of-the-cosmology-debate
atheist would be? I have an idea: “Gee
fellas. You know what? When I look at the universe, you know what I
think? I think that if the Christian God
were real—this all-powerful, all-knowing, Supreme Being those whack-job
Christians are constantly blathering on about—the universe would be
bigger. If He was real, He would have
created a bigger, more majestic universe!”
Notice
the problem: when the universe is too big, God is not real, because, well, why
would this Divine Being care about lil old us, huh? But, when the universe is too small? Ah! Isn’t
this God I keep hearing about all-powerful?
Whaddup with this janky small-ish universe?
Shouldn’t He be proving to me that He is real with majesty and grandeur
and whatnot?
It really
seems to me that atheists are not thinking clearly when they say these
things. It seems to me that their
responses are more akin to an emotional reaction whenever God is brought up and
not grounded in any kind of sense.
You just wait and see: when we find aliens, you’ll realize that we’re
not special at all.
Astronomers and physicists are obsessed with finding
other planets with intelligent life. It
seems as though every other article I come across on my daily Internet strolling is about
extraterrestrials and how we’re literally
*this close* to discovering intelligent life *holds pointer finger and thumb
really, really close together to demonstrate how close we really are*. (No, for real though: it’ll be any day now,
just you wait and see.) This frenzy was
even more fervent in the decades of old.
The Drake equation is a famous example.
Developed by Dr. Frank Drake, an American astronomer and astrophysicist,
it was designed to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial
civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.
These scientists’ insinuations were that if we found extraterrestrial
life, then the meaning of human life and intelligence would be of less value
and importance: after all, we would simply be one among many, and this was not
even accounting for the many other billions of galaxies in the universe at
large!
That equation was developed in 1961, and after all this
time, guess how much intelligent life we’ve found in the Milky Way, or anywhere
for that matter? Nothing. Zip.
Zero. Nada.
This is not to say that no such life exists
at all, only to contrast it with the mentality of today’s scientists and
intellectuals. (I personally would not be
shocked one way or another: the Catholic Church’s teachings will not be
contradicted one iota if there is intelligent life out there in the universe or
if we are all alone; it really does not matter.)
Now, the thinking is much less optimistic. Many scientists nowadays are conceding that
we may very well be alone in the cosmos, though the recent discovery of Kepler-186f—a rocky exoplanet about 500 million light years away, roughly equivalent
in size to Earth, and in the “Goldilock’s Zone (not too close and not too far
from its sun)—is sparking new optimism in the search.
But again, you will notice the internal
inconsistencies with atheists’ views on the matter of extraterrestrial
life. When we are confident in the 1960s
and 1970s that we will indeed find intelligent life in the universe other than
human beings, well, isn’t it terribly obvious?
We’re not special! God did not
create all this for us, and we do not have a special place in the grand scheme
of things; we share the universe with a bunch of other intelligent beings. But now, when the prospects of finding such extraterrestrial
life are much more dismal, well, isn’t it obvious? God obviously cannot exist! He is not even powerful enough to create more
than one species of intelligent life: some “Intelligent Designer” this shmuck
is!
Again,
this smacks of hypocrisy and doublethink,
and I really cannot wrap my mind around how atheists get through their days holding
these so obviously contradictory views.
You know what? God doesn’t help
people who are being raped or anything like that, so yeah: if He was all-powerful
He would.
This is always a fun one.
Atheists look at the state of the world around them and they see
suffering, evil, and death, and it is ugly—and I agree with them. From this dismalness, however, atheists see a
lack of God—they see God’s nonexistence, whereas I see God and His Providence bringing
good even out of the most horrendous of evils.
This is a fundamental disagreement between the two camps, and not an
issue that I wish to concern myself with in this particular post. (Is it a topic for another post? Most definitely.) The point of this observation of how atheists
respond to the evil so very present in the world around them is to contrast it
with how they view the Old Testament. In
modern times, atheists see God’s lack of intervention in the sufferings endured
and evils committed by men as proof of His nonexistence, yet this contrasts
interestingly with how they view the God of the Old Testament, YAHWEH.
I have yet to hear of an atheist who did not complain
about, have a major beef with, or cite
the Old Testament as rock solid evidence attesting to the cruelty of YAHWEH,
and why this prevents any so-called “rational” person from believing in the
Christian God: hence, why they do not.
Now, this post does not concern itself with the information present in
the Old Testament and how it fits into Christian Tradition (again though, a
post for another time), but I cannot help but take notice of the irony of the
situation. These same atheists who
complain that God is so very distant and inactive in our modern times then turn
around and viciously condemn YAHWEH when He is near and active in righting
wrongs committed by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and in the heathen nations in the land of Canaan: nations which offered children in
sacrifice, committed horrible offenses like infanticide, and ran rampant in sexual
immoralities in their frequent participation in orgies and homosexuality, among others.
The bottom line is that these peoples were not
very… “wholesome,” and that’s putting it mildly.
The
point is that the atheist complains when God is seemingly distant (like today), but also complains when He is active and
near to His people during Old Testament times.
Sounds like a recalcitrant child to me, and not an über-rational secular humanist
or however it is that they identify.
The
fundamental observation is this: the
atheist is determined not to believe in God no matter what. The universe is too big; therefore, God’s not
real. The universe is too small;
therefore, God’s not real. We’re gonna
find so much life in the universe; therefore, God’s not real. We’re probably alone in the vastness of
space; therefore, God’s not real. God
allows rape; therefore, God’s not real.
God punishes deeply evil and immoral nations in the Old Testament;
therefore, God’s not real.
In what scenario
will atheists concede that God is real, I honestly do not know. It seems to me that the atheists have crafted a kind of lose-lose
situation for God: He’s damned if He does and damned if He doesn’t. I think it is more likely that the atheist—who
professes to keep an open mind about God—is really more in the business of avoiding
God.
“The
atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.”
-Author
Unknown
Follow @DeionKathawa
I have a simple answer to your challenge at the end. God is all-knowing, right? So he knows what it would take to make me believe. God is all-powerful, right? So he would have the ability to make the scenario happen. God is all-loving, right? So he would want to make it happen for the salvation of my soul. So even if I don't know, your God would. This falls into the multi-faceted problem of the tri-omni God, which I would love to delve further into if you wish.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd LOVE to discuss with you the impending "Free Will" cop-out. Unless you see any flaws with my above response?
I challenge you similarly: What would persuade you a god doesn't exist?
The "3-O" God problem is interesting to be sure, but here's the main problem with your assertion. The God you envision does in fact possess those three qualities as intrinsic to His very being, His nature itself, but despite this, we do have free will. I know, you don't want to hear it, so I 'll give it to you a bit differently. Now, the God you describe is certainly the Christian God; this cannot be ignored or gotten around. In light of this fact, it is correct to say that this God is not a dictatorial overlord. This God wants a relationship with us. In fact, He wishes to be as a lover to us. A lover wants the love of his/her beloved returned FREELY, not by force. God will not force us to love Him or go to Heaven. So, how does the "tri-omni" God problem get resolved in regards to belief? Love.
DeleteHold up. In your first argument, you create a hypothetical situation, make up what you believe the counter-argument would be in that hypothetical situation, and use the discrepancy between that argument and the real-life argument to try and discredit the real one? You realize that is in no way persuasive, right?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, none of your arguments are logically valid, so let's skip to the end. What would convince atheists? I imagine a physical manifestation, here and now, that is both clearly divine and clear enough that people of all faiths and none would recognize it as the catholic christian god should do the trick. Not 'private revelation' or 'personal feelings'.
So what would convince you?
I think that my conception of the first scenario does in fact hold. It is a common argument for today's atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Hawking, et al) to claim that the universe is just too vast for a supremely powerful deity to possibly care about us; I mean, why would it? It is not then, illogical and/or totally "out there" to then extrapolate onto a hypothetical "small universe" scenario to see what atheists would say. If atheists disbelieve in a grand deity that created a vast universe, how much more so would it be scorned for creating something only solar system-sized? (You will also note as well that this had to be hypothetical: obviously, the universe we inhabit is immense, not "small"--relatively speaking.)
DeleteNot sure how the rest of my arguments are ALL not "logically valid"; care to cite specifics?
Finally, in regards to a physical manifestation, I would try this:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/the-god-of-the-gaps
It deals with your stated reason of what would make you believe in God perfectly. It basically boils down to a "God-of-the-gaps" appeal, and it would do well for all people to avoid this type of faulty reasoning.
Keep up the good fight, Deion. I'm very proud of your fortitude and openness to challenges. See you soon.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Mr. U! That's all there is for us to do! Keep me in your prayers!
Delete