Shortcomings of atheism

Is atheism a sensible worldview or not? Read why it is difficult to explain the existence of rationality and morality on the basis of atheism

Many atheists are convinced that if atheism were the dominant view of society, it would lead society in a better direction. They think that the more atheists and people who think like them there are in society, the better the future can be expected. Instead, they reject Christian theism, which they see as an old-fashioned and false view. They are also happy to bring up the thousands of injustices done in the name of God, while not understanding that those are the result of apostasy or that people have not followed the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They are not because the teachings of Jesus and the apostles have been followed, but because they have not been followed and obeyed.

But is atheism itself a reasonable and useful worldview? Although atheists believe so, there are actually fundamental problems with it. The biggest of them are things like that atheism does not provide a basis for reason or morality. That's why we explore these topics in more detail.

1. NO BASIS FOR REASON. If you talk to atheists (the author is himself a former atheist and evolutionary believer), you will very soon realize that they consider themselves scientific, progressive and wise. It is also one of the reasons why they turn their backs on the Christian faith. Atheists do not believe that the Christian faith is rational and accurate and that God created everything. Instead, they believe that the universe and life were born by themselves, without reason and information. They think that the origin of the universe and life is irrational and that we have evolved – after life had first arisen by itself – from lower animals.

But but. There is a big problem with the same way of thinking. If we have evolved from lower animals such as fish, reptiles or ape-like creatures, how can you trust the reasoning and knowledge of any human being? Can information from fish, reptiles or ape-like creatures be reliable? Even if a person, e.g. an atheist, can consider himself intelligent and reasonable, there is reason to doubt the reasonableness of his thoughts. His supposed wisdom may be delusional. It applies to atheists and every person on earth.

An even bigger problem arises if we came from the Big Bang, where there was no life, no emotion, no reason. Atheists assume that this notion is true, but it is difficult to explain how an inanimate substance like stone begins to speak, feel emotions (joy, sadness, anger, fear, infatuation, love...) and think rational thoughts. Atheists consider themselves wise, but if you think about this matter through common sense, it doesn't make much sense. Rocks and inanimate matter do not automatically become sentient and rational (or start eating and reproducing). Atheism and the assumption of an atheist's rationality is thus a self-refuting doctrine. An atheist, like anyone else, cannot trust his brain or his thoughts if they originated from the big bang or ape-like creatures.

Darwin also had to admit the same thing. He stated that if man has evolved from lower life forms, his beliefs may not be reliable:

There is always a terrible doubt in me as to whether the convictions formed by the human mind have any value, whether they are reliable at all, given that the human mind has evolved from the minds of lower animals. Would anyone trust the beliefs that have developed in the monkey's mind, if there are usually any convictions in its mind. (1)

2. NO BASIS FOR MORALITY. Another problem with atheism, and one that the last century proved to be true, is the weakness of the moral foundation. If there is no God and no belief in him, there are no universally binding, objective and final values. In atheism, there is no authority outside of man, while, for example, the Christian faith has ethical instructions that bind everyone (the teaching of Jesus and the apostles). This does not mean that an atheist cannot be moral, but that he does not have objective grounds for his morality based on this thought model. It is no more possible to talk about evil than about goodness, because they are personal and time-bound concepts ("My morality, your morality, etc..."). Everyone can define their own values because ethics and morality are not connected to God. Who can then say that, for example, Saddam Hussein's morals have been better or worse than others?

In addition, if a person does not believe that he is responsible for anything he does, it is easy for him to drift into doing injustice to others. This point of view is logical and everyone can understand it. The belief that there is nothing after this life will certainly affect behavior. The motivation to do good is not necessarily very high.

On the other hand, the awareness that God exists and that our actions matter, in itself deters wrongdoing. If we really believe that we have to give an account of what we have done and how we have treated others, we will not be so quick to raise our hands towards others. It makes us work a little better. It limits evil more effectively than the assumption that there is no God and no judgment after this life.

Croatian-born Yale University professor Miroslaw Volf, who has seen the violence in the Balkans, points to the same observation. He states that the cycle of revenge in the Balkans is not due to belief in God, but because people reject the idea of God's judgment. Only faith in a perfectly just God and that judgment and vengeance belong to him can make a person himself refrain from revenge if his relatives have been killed and raped:

If God were not angry with injustice and deceit and would not end violence permanently - such a God would not be worthy of worship. - - The only way to prevent ourselves from ever resorting to violence is that we persistently claim that violence is justified only when it comes from God, - - My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine retribution has fallen out of favor with many - - in Western countries. - - But the peace of a suburban home is needed for such a thesis to arise that man's non-violence stems from the belief that God refuses to judge. In a sun-baked land drenched in the blood of the innocent - - it invariably dies - - like other agreeable prisoners of liberal thought. (2)

What about the wrongs of the last century? By far the most extensive human rights violations of humanity were committed then, but what caused them? The best explanation is surely that the Christian faith lost its relevance, but atheism won the field. For example, Germany was the leading country in liberal theology and religious criticism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In addition, Darwin's theory contributed to the decline of the importance of the Christian faith throughout Europe. Darwin's theory reinforced the notion that God does not exist and therefore we are not accountable to Him for our actions.

The following quote refers to the development at that time. In Germany, for example, huge groups of people left the church, and atheist worldview and morality won the field in people's minds. The book was published only five years before the Second World War:

From time to time, there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc. (3)

Other quotes point in the same direction. They show how atheism was behind the great wrongs of the last century, which exceeded the wrongs of previous centuries. Many atheists have a blind spot in this area. They are able to see the errors of religion – committed by the apostate church and by not following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles – but not what is the result of turning away from God. Well-known from the last century are e.g. The regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot and numerous communist states where atheism has been the official doctrine.

[What would you say to those, who blame religions?] I would try to make them think about the horrific 20th century, during which we encountered more destruction than ever before. Possibly, along with the destruction of Jews, the greatest crimes were committed by two openly atheistic nations. The Soviet Union with its atheist museum being one and Mao’s China being the other. Both were militantly atheistic. And what did they do? They killed 70 million of their own people. Why won’t we ever hear that this is what atheism causes? There is something devious about it. Why the sins of religion are always so harshly judged (as they should be judged), but no one ever pays attention to the sins of atheism. (4)

Dr. Paul Johnston, a British historian: “Typical of the 20^th century and the primary reason for its terrors, is that people, who gained great carnal power, were not afraid of God and did not believe that any absolute behaviourial code was restricting them.” (5)

The role of Enlightenment in the terrors of the 20th century remains as a blind spot in Western understanding - - Communist governments were founded in pursue of utopian paradigm, which originated from the heart of Enlightenment - - as a byproduct of trying to reshape life.. Pre-modern theocracies didn’t attempt to do this - - The kind of terror that Lenin practiced did not originate from the tzars. (6)

Alexandr Solzenitsyn: Over half a century ago, when I was still a child, I remember hearing many elderly people talking about the disasters that Russia faced like so: “People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” After that I have studied the Russian revolution for over 50 years; during that time I have read hundreds of books, collected personal stories and have written eight books myself to research those phases. But, if I were asked to summarize as shortly as possible the primary reason for the horrific revolution, which took ca. 60 million of our people, I could not say it any more clearly than to repeat: People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” (7)

Human origin, evolutionary theory and morality. As stated, atheism has two major weaknesses: it provides no basis for reason or morality. Based on atheism, it is difficult to justify the rationality of any person's thinking (even if the person considers himself intelligent). Similarly, on the basis of atheism, it is difficult to justify any kind of moral values that are binding on everyone.

So what is atheism based on? The theory of evolution has been considered its most important scientific basis. It was only that that gave a seemingly scientific basis for atheism and the rejection of God, but also for the rejection of morality. Morality no longer had any permanent basis because it was not connected to God. Its importance in the change of people's world view cannot be underestimated.

As for the human rights violations and injustices discussed in this article, the theory of evolution itself did not lead to these acts. Instead, this theory affected people's world view so that they began to question the sanctity and value of human life. It involves e.g. the following factors:

The border between humans and animals became blurred. When it comes to the theory of evolution, it is based on the assumption that all living species today have been inherited from a single primordial cell. This theory is believed even though the origin of life has not been proven and even though there are no known examples of real species changes. There are no examples of changes in species in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, nor in other evolutionary literature. Even bacteria have not been observed to transform into other species of bacteria, let alone other species. Alan Linton, Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Bristol, has written on the subject:

Throughout the 150-year history of bacteriological research, there is no evidence that the bacterial species has changed to another. (8)

How, then, did Darwin's theory – even though no concrete evidence is found for it – affect the perception of man? In short, it devalued the human being. Human life was no longer considered qualitatively different compared to the rest of creation. There was seen to be only a slight degree of difference between humans and animals, as humans were thought to have evolved from simple organisms through gradual changes. As a result, it was difficult to draw a line between humans and other natural creatures. Man himself was seen to be subject to constant change, like the rest of nature. During the last hundred years, when inhumanities have occurred, they have been based on a distorted image of man:

If you find it hard to believe that evolution is related to the above, a few basic examples from history clearly demonstrate this connection. In fact, I have yet to meet a single knowledgeable evolutionist who disagrees with me on the connection between these moral issues and evolution. They don't necessarily think that this is how it should have happened, but they do admit that humans have applied evolution in this way. It is important that you do not misunderstand what I am about to say. Of course, evil and anti-God philosophies existed even before Darwinian evolution. People had abortions before Darwin popularized his views on evolution. However, what people believe about their origins affects their worldview. When people reject the God who did the work of creation, it affects how they relate to themselves, others and our world. (9)

Racial science and scientific racism. Secondly, when Darwin's theory became accepted and man was assumed to have descended from lower animals, it also led to the notion of the inherent superiority of certain races. It was thought that some races are innately more capable, intelligent, and better adapted. People were classified as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability, or other characteristic. This view, called Social Darwinism, was common in the early 20th century. It was adopted in many countries. Evolutionary theory thus provided a quasi-scientific justification for racism and human inequality. It was no longer believed that the entire human race originated from a single couple and that all human races have the same short life cycle. This notion was rejected because of Darwin's theory.

The Nazis also adopted the idea of racial inequality that arose with the theory of evolution. The history and human rights violations of the 1930s and 1940s cannot be separated from the Nazi worldview, where race was everything. This concept is well expressed in the statement of the German race biologist Fritz Lenz in 1936. He stated that racial doctrines can be put into practice because

"We have such an organic worldview that came to the fore with National Socialism. According to its founder Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist state has placed race at the center of social life. The basis of the National Socialist worldview is a belief in race. It does not believe only in scientific knowledge about the essence of the race and the way of life. The first is rather the desire to defend one's own race: this will precedes all scientific knowledge and is above it. The importance of racial biologists’ knowledge is that it provides the tools and methods for preserving, improving and perfecting the breed.” (10)

People still believe in moral values. As stated, the weakness of atheism is that it does not provide a basis for morality, just as it does not provide a basis for reason. There are no binding, objective and final values in atheism. They are missing.

Despite everything, people generally believe that there are moral values that bind all people. Although many may initially argue that everyone should define their own morality, they will very soon disprove that if they are interviewed a bit. This belief in moral values that bind all people strongly suggests that there is a moral reality that is independent of humans and comes from outside. Timothy Keller tells more about the same topic:

The popular notion that we should all determine our own morality is based on the belief that the spiritual world is not at all like the rest of the world. Does anyone seriously believe that? For many years, I always stayed in the hall for an hour after the morning and evening services to answer questions. Hundreds of people stayed to exchange ideas. One of the most common statements I heard was: "Each person must determine for himself what is right and what is wrong." I always responded to those making the argument by asking, "Is there anyone in the world right now who is doing what you think he should stop doing, despite what he personally believes in the correctness of his behavior?" The proponents of the argument invariably answer: "Of course." Then I ask: "Doesn't that mean that you still believe that there is some kind of moral reality that is not determined by us and that must be followed regardless of what a person feels and thinks?" Almost always the answer is silence - either pensive or irritated. (11)

The Bible also suggests that every person has an inner sense of right and wrong. Everyone understands that there are actions that are right and actions that are wrong. Paul wrote on the subject:

- (Rom 2:14-16) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves:

15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

What can be concluded from the above? The existence of morality very clearly points in the direction of God and that He has originally put the moral law, i.e. the concept of right and wrong, inside man (just as He has made us sentient and thinking beings). It is also a strong message that God will judge every person once.

Therefore, you who until now have denied the existence of God, think about this matter seriously! Consider the possibility that a living God created man, and therein lies the reason for the existence of thought and morality! Atheism does not explain these things, as stated above, but the existence of God is a good reason for the existence of reason and morality. We have reason and morality because God is rational and moral, and because he made the first humans in God's image (Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.). In addition, God is judging us, as the Bible says in many places (e.g. Rom 14: 12 So then every one of us Shall give account of himself to God.).

So how can one be freed from the sentence? Everyone knows deep down that they haven't always done what is right, but can everything be forgiven?

The answer to this is found in the Bible. Jesus Christ came into the world to close the gap between God and man. He took our sins to the cross and only through him can we be forgiven. He is the way to God as the following verses show:

- (John 14:6) 6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (Acts 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

So, if you personally want to be saved, welcome Jesus into your life and turn to Him in prayer. You can do this, for example, in the following way:

THE PRAYER OF SALVATION: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

References:

1. Charles Darwin: The Life and Letter of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter. (1887, 1: 315-316), Edited by Fancis Darwin. London: John Murray.

2. Miroslav Volf: Exclusion and Embrace. A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, s. 303,304. Abingdon 1996.

3. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115

4. P. Cousineau: Conversations with Houston Smith on the spiritual life, p. 259

5. Michael Green & Gordon Carckner: Kymmenen myyttiä kristinuskosta, p. 18

6. John Gray: Black Mass, Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, 2007. London: Penguin, p. 36,39

7. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos 1-5, p. 34

8. Linton AE, Times Higher Education Supplement (20.4.2001), p. 29

9. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 112,113

10. Pekka Isaksson & Jouko Jokisalo: Historian lisälehtiä, p. 178

11. Timothy Keller: Mihin Jumalaa tarvitaan (The Reason for God), p. 71