The Folly of Scientism

Scientism, perhaps more accurately described as philosophical naturalism, is the idea that the only means by which we may know things with certainty is through scientific inquiry. By scientific inquiry they mean that which can be observed and tested by means of the five senses, sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste. It’s the idea that only that which has a physical existence actually has existence.

It is by this notion that many who consider themselves “enlightened”, who hold to the hard sciences as the only means for knowing truth, declare that there is no God. I cannot see God with my eyes, or smell him with my nose, or hear him with my ears, etc., therefore the concept of God is meaningless and has God has no real existence. “Where is the evidence?” they say. “You can provide no evidence that God exists and therefore it is not reasonable to believe!” they proclaim.

But what they have done is set the parameters of evidence so as not to include anything which might serve to prove the existence of God or the supernatural. It’s like trying to measure the volume of the ocean with a yard stick and insisting that if you can’t do it by means of this particular tool then the ocean must not exist. To set the boundaries of inquiry into the possibility of the existence of an immaterial being so as to only use instruments that can examine material existence is begging the question.

By “begging the question” I mean that in the formal logical sense. It is to assume your conclusion in your argument.

Only the material world exists

God is immaterial.

Therefore God does not exist.

There is nothing invalid about this syllogism in form, but the problem is that the first premise is what in question to begin with. Does only the material world exist? Isn’t that the heart of the debate itself? Is it merely enough to simply assert that the immaterial world doesn’t exist?

The problem with philosophical naturalism (scientism) is that it is indeed a philosophy. It’s a point of view that has to be come to apart from scientific method itself. The statement “You can only know truth through science” is not itself something that can be examined under a microscope or tested and repeated in a lab. That claim is philosophical and one has to interact with it on the level of reason.

The truth is that as soon as someone asserts that “you can only know truth by the means of scientific inquiry” they have refuted themselves. All we need ask is “How do you know that to be true?” and we have them. The fact is there are immaterial realities such as numbers, logic, and even the thoughts you are thinking right now. Science is not able to measure the value of an idea, the beauty of a painting or the existence of objective moral values but these are real things.

The Violence Caused by Faith

I was talking to an atheist recently who said that most atheists she knew did not want to destroy people’s faith but only the violence done by faith. But I wanted to ask the question “does faith itself really lead people to behave violently?” Atheists often talk about all of the wars caused by religion and people of faith but I don’t think they are free of their own charge about faith leading to violence. The idea that faith is necessarily always religious is demonstrably false.

Faith is essentially synonymous with trust. You can have faith (or trust) in a person or an ideology. It seems hard to accept the notion that faith is somehow itself something that leads to violence. It is not hard, however, to imagine that faith in a person (namely their teaching and leadership) or a certain philosophy, religion or ideology could definitely give way to violent behavior. To deny that someone’s faith in something would ever lead them to violent action would be foolish because it would not take very long to come up with an example of just that.

However I think it bears pointing out that while atheists often claim that the faith that leads to violence is religious in nature this is hardly exclusively the case. No one is denying that religion has fueled violence but then again so have ideologies like Communism which are strictly non-religious. But it is more than fair to say that there are “true believers” in Communism and that their faith in that system of thinking and living has led to the death of millions. So it is not faith itself that leads to violence, it is faith in certain people or ideas that give way to violence. The kind of trust or total buy in that people give to any religious ideal is not any different than what occurred when people bought in, wholesale, to Hitler’s rhetoric.

So then faith itself is not the problem. What honest people ought to admit is that some ideas are more dangerous than others and it does not matter so much whether those ideas are religious or non-religious. There have been many atrocities committed in the name of “God” but there have been many committed in the name of “Man” as well. Trust (or faith) is not inherently dangerous but some ideologies are whether they are religious or not.

So what about Christianity? Is it a dangerous ideology? Some think so and they point to the crusades and Spanish Inquisition for evidence that it is. But anyone who studies not only religion but folk religion can tell you that what a religion actually teaches versus what people come to believe about it or how they behave while identifying themselves with it, is not necessarily the same. There is no doubt that people have identified themselves as Christians and then committed acts of violence that would abhor any moral man. But one can hardly help it if someone says they identify with a religion and then behave the opposite of how that religion instructs them to live.

Did Jesus condone violence in his name?

Matthew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”

Matthew 5:43-46 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?”

Matthew 26:52 “Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

There is No Evidence for God

Atheists often say “there is no evidence for God’s existence.” I find this an extremely odd thing to say if not altogether dishonest. Is it really the case that there is no evidence supporting the existence of God? Hardly. Someone might more reasonably say “I don’t find the evidence for God very convincing.” That is a completely different discussion and one I’m willing to have but to say that there is no evidence at all is just naive.

The fact is that there is evidence for God. That evidence comes in the form of arguments from the origins of the universe (the cosmological argument) and evidence in from of the appearance of design in the universe and in biological life (the teleological argument) and evidence for God in the existence of objective moral values (the moral argument). One could multiply other lines of evidence for God’s existence such as the argument from desire, the argument from human experience, the argument from reason, the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection or even the transcendental argument. There are lots of things that people have pointed to as evidence of God’s existence and many people have found them very persuasive including people like Anthony Flew who was once one of the most prominent atheists of our day.

So why is it that so many atheists insist on saying things like “there is no evidence for God’s existence”? I think it comes down to the fact that they have not seen or experienced him personally and, for them, that is tantamount to there being no evidence. But this is just not a reasonable position to hold. To say that “I haven’t seen him, heard him or touched him so therefore there is no evidence that he exists” is honestly just foolish.

Imagine a person says “I have never met anyone named Brian Hearn, therefore there is no evidence anyone by that name exists.” First of all this is just an obvious non sequitur, but we will just blow by that for now. In response to this you pull up the White Pages on your phone and show that there is a person by that name. But they say “Nope, not good enough.” So you proceed to go with this person to the address listed in the White Pages and you meet Brian Hearn’s mother. Brian is away overseas but she assures you he really does exist. Still not good enough. She shows you mail addressed to Brian, a high school yearbook with Brian’s picture in it and even Brian’s birth certificate. Enough evidence? Nope, your friend still does not believe…in fact he insists he has seen no evidence whatsoever.

No evidence! He has seen where he lived, met someone who knows him personally, seen mail addressed to him, seen a yearbook picture and his birth certificate. No evidence? “Well, I haven’t seen him, heard him or touched him, so there is no evidence” says your friend. At this point, what are you to do but throw up your hands and say “You are just completely unreasonable!”

But this is exactly what many atheists do. Note that I said “many”. I dare not place all atheists in the camp of foolishness with those who say “there is no evidence for God whatsoever.” But honestly, my experience is that many of the atheists I meet on the internet (and I rarely meet them anywhere else) are this type of unreasonable person who insist that “there is no evidence”. But this is just as foolish as the person saying there is no evidence for Brian Hearn in the story above.

No rational or reasonable person will conclude that “there is no evidence for God” unless they are truly just ignorant of it. They may be convinced that the evidence is insufficient to warrant belief in God. They may think the evidence can be reinterpreted to lead to another conclusion. But the claim that there is no evidence at all is something only a fool would say or someone who is just flat dishonest or so self important that they won’t call it evidence unless they find it personally persuasive. The height of arrogance is to dismiss outright any evidence in support of a proposition that you don’t want to believe. The fact is that there is evidence for God’s existence. Lots of it. Anyone who says otherwise looks foolish and arrogant.

The Difference Between Hard Atheism, Soft Atheism and Agnosticism

Hard atheism is the proactive, anti-theist, “New Atheism” that we see so much of today. It is an evangelistic kind of atheism that sees religion of any kind as a cancer on society and it thinks its version of “reason” is the chemotherapy. This kind of atheism, which I think is a growing movement, is one that makes a universal negative (i.e. there is no God) into positive truth claim. It affirms the idea that there is no God. When someone says “there is no God” the hard atheist says “amen, that’s true.”

Soft Atheism is the perspective that simply says “I don’t see any reason to believe in God and therefore I don’t.” They don’t make the positive claim “there is no God” they make the softer claim “I don’t personally think there is a God.” This type of atheist is not evangelistic you usually only run into them when you happen to ask them their thoughts, they are not actively recruiting for their team. It’s reasonable to still ask them why they don’t believe in God, but it is not fair to ask them to prove their position because their position is merely that of “unconvinced as it relates to God.”

Agnosticism is the notion of being undecided and uncommitted to a position about God’s existence. This position says “there might be a God, I just don’t know personally.” True agnostics are really not evangelistic at all because they don’t have a position to win anyone to other than uncertainty. It might be fair to ask this person if they would be willing to hear a case for God’s existence but they don’t really have to defend their position because technically they aren’t committed to one.

Atheism literally means “without God” or “no God” while Agnosticism means “without knowledge” or “no knowledge.” Something I find interesting is that many atheists today act like hard atheists until you ask them to defend their stated position that “there is no God” and then they pretend to be soft atheists. They make positive claims, they evangelize to their cause trying to get people to affirm the idea that there is no God, they are combative and obnoxious towards theists but as soon as they are pressed they suddenly act as though they are in the camp of soft atheism or agnosticism. This is a dodge to avoid answering for the claims they have made. It is the case, however, that he who makes a claim bears the burden of proof.

I claim there is a God and I have a case for my view on stand by to deliver to those who ask me for a reason why I believe. Those who say they are unconvinced or uncommitted to the idea of God and simply mind their own business don’t have to defend themselves. Those who go on the offensive and proclaim “there is no God” and who badger people of faith and call us nasty names for believing in God…they have to defend their claim. They are not free to be one thing and then run and hide like cowards behind the more reasonable versions of their brethren. But they do it all the time. Do not let them.

Why You Cannot Be Good Without God

It is commonly objected when theists present The Moral Argument for God’s Existence that atheists are just as capable of being moral as theists. Of course this retort is a total misunderstanding of the Moral Argument altogether. Note the following argument:

If objective moral values exist then God exists.

Objective moral values exist.

Therefore God exists.

It seems very commonly, despite the fact that the argument says no such thing, that atheists think theists are saying “In order to behave morally one must believe in God.” But look again carefully at the above argument. Does it say that? No. I really have a hard time understanding why so many intelligent atheists seem to miss the point of the argument. I mean I understand if they want to try and reject the argument and attempt to defeat either premise one or two but I don’t understand why they constantly fail to understand the argument itself.

The point of the argument is to say that the only sufficient ground for the existence of objective moral values (that is to say, moral values that are true for all people, places and times) is the existence of God. If God does not exist then there is no sufficient ground for objective moral values and moral values become necessarily subjective (that is to say moral values are reduced to personal or societal opinions and there is no reason for them to be binding on the conscience of anyone).

What this argument is not saying is that you must believe in God for objective moral values to exist. Actually any theist worth his salt would tell you that your belief in God or your belief that there is no God has absolutely no affect whatsoever on the reality of whether or not objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist the they simply do regardless of what you think or believe about anything. If they don’t exist then they simply don’t regardless of what you think or believe about anything. That objective moral values exist is either true or false just like the claim “God exists” is either true or false, no amount of belief in them or belief against them actually changes anything.

The point is only that if objective moral values do exist then God also exists. They are inseparably tied together. If you concede that objective moral values exist then you are in a corner and have to give in that God necessarily exists as well. The reverse is also true. If you concede that God does not exist then you necessarily concede that objective moral values do not exist either. Simply put, if God exists then rape, murder and theft are objectively morally wrong. If God does not exist then rape, murder and theft are not objectively morally wrong, they are at best distasteful to you and socially taboo.

I think this argument holds and is indeed very strong. But do you see how it is not the case that theists are not saying you have to believe in God to behave morally? You can be a perfectly moral person and an atheist. Your belief that God is not real does not make you immoral (aside from the fact that we as Christians would see your rejection of God as immoral itself). But you can be faithful to your spouse, help old ladies cross streets, give to charity, never lie to anyone, etc., etc., and be an atheist. You can behave morally as an atheist. Clear? I hope so.

We are also not saying that theists behave in a morally superior way. Indeed there have been many immoral theists throughout history and Christians believe all of us are morally impaired and thus need Jesus Christ as our savior. There are theists who have lied, cheated, stolen and killed in cold blood. So this argument is not about theism guaranteeing moral superiority to atheism.

The point is simple and I hope you apprehend it. If objective moral values exist then they do so because God exists as the sufficient ground for them. If God does not exist then there is no sufficient ground for objective moral values and therefore objective moral values do not exist.

But although we are not arguing that belief in God is necessary for moral behavior it is the case that no one is able to behave morally if God does not exist. See the difference? Belief is not necessary, but God himself is. If it is the case that there is no God then it is also the case that you are not capable of being good. This is true for theists and atheists alike because what we believe about God makes no difference. The brute fact is what matters and if God does not exist then calling someone or some act or behavior good or bad loses all objective meaning.

If there is no God then self sacrificing to help the poor or save someone from drowning is not good, it’s just an act that you have emotions about. Raping children is not evil or bad if there is no God, it’s just something you strongly emote against. You can’t be good without God. You can’t be bad without him either. All actions are morally neutral and individuals and societies can merely react to them emotionally but not objectively.

So the questions are simple:

Do objective moral values exist? If your answer is yes then you must confess that God exists.

Does God exist? If your answer is no then you must confess that there are no objective moral values.