Why I’m Not an Atheist
The following essay was originally sent to American Mensa in October. It began as a response to an article in the Bulletin titled “We Atheists Come in Four Flavors,” which is an ironic title since atheism is defined as a lack of belief in god or gods: there can’t be any flavors of a lack of a belief. The author then goes on to accuse other members of Mensa who happen to be theists “illogical” and “unenlightened.”
My response was rejected for publication in the American Mensa Bulletin, presumably because other members might find it “offensive.” I was told that it was “too long.” Here it is, enjoy:
Many people might know Bertrand Russell for his work on set theory, his paradox, or his book “Why I am not a Christian.” While he wasn’t a Christian, few people might know that he wasn’t an atheist. Technically, he was agnostic, but, outside of the context of serious philosophical discussions with his peers, he told the layperson that he was an “atheist,” because he didn’t expect them to know the difference. Ironically, “Russell’s Teapot” — the assertion that a teapot is orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars — is often used by atheists today to argue for atheism, when it should be used to argue for agnosticism or for making the point that beliefs should require supporting evidence. Furthermore, we now have the technology to verify that there is, in fact, no teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. For this reason, it has become an archaic analogy and not the most effective way of engaging with an educated theist. There are, of course, other variations of Russell’s teapot idea, including unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. At one point in his career, being the good logician that he was, Bertrand Russell actually recognized the ontological proof, an apriori proof of God’s existence, as logically valid and sound. He famously proclaimed, “Great God in boots, the ontological proof is sound!” Kurt Gödel later agreed with him. However, for Russell logic wasn’t enough to inspire faith.
It is estimated that there are between 30,00 — 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone, and there may be around 4,300 total world religions, which each have their own separate denominations. The law of non-contradiction states that not every religion and not every denomination within a religion can be correct: either one is right and the rest are wrong, or they are all wrong. Personally, as a theist, I take a more constructive approach to how I view an atheist. I see atheists as “frenemies”; after all, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Logically, I reject all of the same gods that an atheist does, except for one. From this perspective, there is more common ground than uncommon ground between us. When engaging an atheist in a discussion concerning a the general topic of religion, I will agree with them the majority of the time.
When I was studying Shakespeare at Oxford University, I occasionally went to the pubs on the weekends. My favorite place to have a drink was in The Eagle and Child — specifically, in “The Rabbit Room.” It was in this rabbit room that J.R.R. Tolkien conceived of the idea for “The Hobbit”: one of his friends had indulged in a particularly potent green beverage and was convinced that tiny people with hairy feet were trying to steal his wedding ring. It was at this time that I became fascinated by the lore of The Inklings, a writers’ group which included C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Dyson, and Williams. I became fascinated with Lewis’ conversion to Christianity. What could cause an intelligent person to reject atheism in favor of Christianity? The answer to this question is J.R.R. Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton.
I come from the same brand of theism that J.R.R. Tolkien did, Traditional Roman Catholicism. To use an analogy, this wider religious debate is like Middle-earth. The dwarves (atheists) and the elves (Roman Catholics) might have a history of disagreement, but they both might be able to cooperate, and put aside their differences, to beat back the invading orcish hordes from Mordor. If I were to criticize a different religion, I might be accused of “hypocrisy” or of being “uncharitable”; I might be told “not to judge.” This could not be said of an atheist critic, since there is no religious text that they attempt to follow. This makes them a powerful ally in the war for truth.
One of the reasons that I am not an atheist is my love of science. The study of science becomes, itself, a sort of teleological proof — when I look at waves, galaxies, or nature, I see Fibonacci numbers and mathematical patterns. For me, personally, the study of science reveals “God’s thumbprint” on creation, and scientific inquiry becomes a way for me to appreciate the grand architect or the watch made by the watchmaker. Of course, I do not literally believe that the world was created in seven days, and I am well aware that the universe is likely around 13.8 billion years old. If you are familiar with various theological perspectives, such as the one espoused by Philo of Alexandria or the teachings of the Catholic Church, you would know that many theists interpret creation stories as allegorical and don’t see a contradiction between the creation story in Genesis and science.
Albert Einstein once said, “I want to know God’s thoughts — the rest is just details.” Our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics seems to validate the God hypothesis. Eugene Wigner proved the existence of God, or at least an omniscient consciousness, when he was trying to formulate a solution to the Schrödinger Cat Paradox, around the year 1967. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that quantum particles are in flux until they are observed, or, in other words, observing a system changes that system. When a quantum system is observed, physicists refer to this as “collapsing the wave function” of that system. While the cat in the thought experiment is “simultaneously alive and dead” until observed, the same could be said of the individual who is observing that system. Logically, there must be a new wave function that includes both the cat and the observer, and this wave function must be collapsed by an additional observer, referred to as “Wigner’s friend,” who is watching the first observer. Of course, how can we know that “Wigner’s friend” is alive or exists without a larger wave function and an observer to collapse it? As you might logically deduce, this process of observer-observed goes on ad infinitum. It ends, Wigner concluded, with an infinite mind, or consciousness, that is capable of making infinite observations — in other words, God. God is constantly observing us and collapsing our wave functions to ensure that we exist. Physicists won’t be able to disprove Wigner’s “God Hypothesis,” since it is completely consistent with the Copenhagen model or interpretation.
I find inspiration from other religious scientists such as Georges LeMaitre, a Catholic priest and physicist, who proposed The Big Bang Theory. Perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, actually spent more time writing about theology than he did science. Could he have thought that the final destination of man’s eternal soul was more important than the truths about the natural world? His religious writings are available for free on Project Gutenberg. You have until 2060 to read them, as this was the date that Newton predicted would be the time of the parousia. Let’s not forget Francis Bacon, the Christian theist who became the father of the scientific method. Knowledge is power, is it not? We have Roman Catholic thinkers to thank for the existence of the scientific method and universities.
I suppose another reason that I am not an atheist is because I descended from the school of thought which began with Plato, was advanced by Aquinas, and later became known as “Rationalism” within the discipline of philosophy. The ancient Greek philosophers, for the most part, were considered theists who believed that it was logically impossible for something to come from nothing. Specifically, Plato referred to this first cause as the Prime Mover, or Unmoved Mover. Later, under Aquinas, this form of logical reasoning became known as “the cosmological proof for the existence of God.” Famous theists from the school of philosophical thought known as “Rationalism” include the following: Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Leibniz. These theists were very much concerned with using logic to prove theism. They were well versed in Aristotelian logic: they understood that a proper logical argument is one that is both valid (meaning that if all of the premises are true, the conclusion must be true) and sound (meaning that all of the premises are true). In “On The Only Way to Prove the Existence of God,” Immanuel Kant used a valid moral argument to prove theism. He also argued that the ontological argument for the existence of God, originally proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, was not sound; specifically, he argued that “existence is not a real predicate,” and, therefore, not a possible property of an omni-x being, which is traditionally defined by superlatives. He was corrected by Hegel and Leibniz, who both logically proved that, while “existence” isn’t a real predicate, “necessary existence” is a positive property of a god-like entity. This was later formulated into a valid and sound argument by mathematician, theist, and logician Kurt Gödel.
Rational theists are also known for their famous refutations of some of the biggest problems in the philosophy of religion. The biggest one, perhaps, is the philosophical problem of evil. Augustine’s solution was that “evil” technically does not exist — it is a privation, or nonbeing, much like the hole in a shirt. Another logical refutation would be the idea that concepts are defined by their opposites: without evil, the concept of good has no meaning; it would be analogous to being asked to point to the direction of north while standing on the North Pole.
There are certainly fideistic reasons why I am not an atheist. Kierkegaard, a father of existentialism, stated: “If I were capable of understanding, I would not believe, but it is precisely because I do not understand that I must believe.” I believe that it is truly impossible for a finite mind to fully comprehend an infinite mind. Therefore, belief, for me, is a “leap of faith” or a “suspension of the ethical.” Humans, it could be said, are not really rational creatures — we arrive at some truth through feelings, passion, and emotions — and we don’t live in a universe governed by reason; therefore, to some extent, non-belief is just as equally unreasonable as faith.
I find the accounts of personal revelation of God or mystical occurrences, recorded throughout history, sufficient to warrant faith. I believe that, for the most part, the five senses are reliable; otherwise, science wouldn’t be possible. At least some or all of the people who had these mystical experiences were in a sound state of mind. The famous mathematician, Blaise Pascal, had a mystical vision wherein he was told: “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars.” Many have examined his writing and his accomplishments in mathematics and concluded that he was of sound mind. Other examples of mysticism include, but are not limited to, the following: Julian of Norwich, Margery Kempe, Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila (the second most famous writer of Spain), the occurrence at Fatima, the priests who survived the atomic blast at ground zero in Hiroshima, and the appearance and photos of the Virgin Mary in Zeitun.
I am not an atheist because I believe that there is enough historical evidence — historical documents, artifacts, etc — to warrant faith. Some theists believe that The Shroud of Turin is evidence of the Christian faith. Secondo Pia discovered that the image on the shroud was a photographic negative, and that it was made before the invention of photography. There are pollen samples from Israel found on the shroud, and extant historical documents confirm that Templar Knights were in possession of the shroud, in Constantinople, during the Crusades. It is valid and reasonable to believe that this relic was the burial shroud of Christ. If the image on the shroud was not produced by the energy released from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then there must be an alternative, valid scientific explanation. No such explanation currently exists.
The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the writings in the Old Testament were not altered, and that the prophesies contained therein were not produced after the fact. In Blaise Pascal’s “Pensées,” one of his arguments for Catholic theism is that the first coming of Christ was foretold, a fact that is unique to the religion and not found in other religions. He specifically refers to the prophecy in Daniel which is an exact mathematical prediction of the arrival of the messiah, in weeks of years. Since the prophecy is also found in copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which weren’t found until around the 1940s, the logical conclusion is that it was a valid and accurate prediction. Many historians — including Josephus, Eusebius, Thallus, Pliny, Tacitus — wrote extensively about theism. The Catholic church essentially molded western civilization by promoting science and founding the first institutions of higher learning. The Bible itself is evidence.
Many atheists like to blame wars on religion. In actuality, The Encyclopedia of Wars states that over 90% of all wars throughout human history had nothing to do with religion. Atheists might also exaggerate the severity of The Inquisition. In reality, there is no evidence to support some of the forms of torture that many claim were used. In reality, more people have been executed by the state of Texas than the worst inquisition, The Spanish Inquisition.
Of course, I could probably produce a book-length thesis on why I am not an atheist, but I fear that this article is already long enough. I can’t really point to one specific proof, book, testimony, or “piece of evidence” that has caused me to be a theist; it is a combination of many things and the totality of my perspective on the universe. It is ultimately a personal, private decision that I don’t usually try to force on other people. However, I wanted to share my thoughts, and I disagree with people who claim that “there is no evidence” for theism. Even if one were to dispute the dictionary definition of evidence and what constitutes it, remember: “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.”
