Impossible Atheism

If there were good grounds for atheism, they would have to be found in philosophy. But the philosophical arguments for atheism seem, even at first glance, relatively weak. And, as one ponders further, the situation worsens considerably, even to the point of absurdity. This is not the fault of unbelieving philosophers, however, for they can hardly be blamed for their impotence. After all, the subject matter of their denial—the Infinite Source of Existence—is, in an important sense, beyond the scan of human reason, which renders any firm conclusions about God’s nonexistence rationally impossible. And, to make matters worse, in denying any transcendent ground of rationality, as any orthodox materialist must do, the very weapons of their warfare dissolve into dust.

One may be tempted to think that the realm of physical science is relevant to the atheistic task, but that would be to commit a grave category error. The reasons for this should be obvious to everyone, but apparently they are not, since, for example, people seem to think the statement, “I believe in science,” is a meaningful riposte to the question, “Do you believe in God?” Whatever it is these people are referring to when they use the word “science,” it is not to the methods of inquiry and patterns of inference used by scientists in their theorizing about the physical features of the universe—methods and patterns that, by my lights, only make sense within a universe that is indeed Creation. Perhaps it is a god named “Science”? Or, more probably, they have mistaken God with a capital “G” for a mysteriously undetectable physical law that was once used to fill gaps in our scientific understanding but is no longer a necessary postulate, thanks to advances in theoretical physics and the application of that much-beloved explanatory principle: Occam’s Razor. In any case, clearly there is much confusion out there, and one would hope that such confusion would engender humility and open-mindedness, not smug internet memes and hopelessly ridiculous generalizations about “religion”—but, alas. (See David Bentley Hart's magisterial The Experience of God for much-needed clarity on what "God" means.)

So, I say, it is within philosophy that the atheist must seek support for his views, and, truly, the human mind can conjure arguments pointing away from God. But, then again, the construction of such arguments requires faith in the principles of reason, and, to repeat, those principles seem not to have any firm foundation in an honest atheist metaphysic. Why, for example, should one trust one’s innate rational intuitions, if those intuitions are the purely accidental result of an essentially non-rational and purposeless mechanical process of evolution by natural selection which only directly “selects” those traits that enhance chances of survival? A major point made by evolutionary scientists is, after all, that natural selection "selects” what works, not necessarily what is best or optimal (e.g. the panda’s “thumb”). How can the atheist be confident that our brains don’t just get the job done so far as survival and reproduction are concerned but still fundamentally misrepresent reality? Is it that if we were to misrepresent reality, we would not survive? Why assume that? It is pretty obvious that plenty of nonhuman animals get by quite well without a clear idea of what the world is really like, perhaps without any ideas at all. So long as something in the brain of the gazelle triggers her to run away from the lion, it doesn’t really matter what she believes about him. (Alvin Plantinga develops this thought in a number of places. Here's a popular level treatment.)

Moreover, there are plenty of decent arguments pointing toward God, arguments that do not constitute proofs but are, I think, more powerful than anything the atheists have produced. So even if the atheist could somehow defend his confidence in reason (which he can't), he still would be left with something of a philosophical stalemate (at best).

In the end, however, philosophy can only take us so far, and I believe it is no place to seek a foundation for any belief about ultimate reality. The rational mind, after all, is wholly dependent on the inarticulable deliverances of what Pascal calls the "heart". It is with the heart that we converse with realities too deep, too essential, too exact for words. The heart is the wellspring of first principles and the place of deep connection with reality. I am convinced that every human heart hides an ineradicable knowledge of God: the mind may plot against it; the mouth may gainsay it; the virtual worlds of our own creation may divert our attention from it; but nothing short of the abolition of man can remove it.