There is a saying that "if you get your philosophy from comedians, don't be surprised if it's a joke". One comedian who proves this regularly is Ricky Gervais, an outspoken atheist who, in 2017, debated the topic of religion with Stephen Colbert on his Late Night Show.
To Gervais' credit, he wasn't as much of a jerk in this interview as I've seen him be in the past. He calmly laid out what I'm sure he would claim are perfectly reasonable points, and for that I ironically say God bless him. The problem, however, is that not only were his points poorly thought out, but Ricky Gervais, as a celebrity, is in the unique position to Google himself. This means every time he publicly uses an argument, he can hop on his computer a short while later, type in "response to Ricky Gervais", and it won't be even remotely difficult for him to find responses to whatever he has said.
This should ultimately lead to conversion, as his arguments are answered, and evidence is provided, sometimes in the same article. If it doesn't lead to conversion, it should at least lead to Gervais improving his argumentation. Yet, Gervais seems to be at the same low level of reasoning he always was. Back then, even Stephen Colbert, who isn't exactly known for his debate prowess, managed to expose Gervais' inconsistency, causing him to stutter for a moment. Gervais has shown no improvement since then.
In this particular episode, which seems to have randomly resurfaced recently, Gervais begins by defining his own position: "...atheism is only rejecting a claim that there is a God. Atheism isn’t a belief system. This is atheism in a nutshell. You say, “there is a God”. I saw, “can you prove that?” You say, “No.” I say, “I don’t believe you then.”" This, he calls "agnostic atheism". That is, he is convinced by his belief that there is no God, but he doesn't claim to know there is no God. In this same interview, he claims that, since no one really knows there is a God, technically, everyone is an agnostic.
In keeping with this, he makes a very cliche argument. "...you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 Gods and I don’t believe in just one more". This is similar to an argument by Steven Roberts, who once argued "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
While there is a distinction between Gervais' version and Roberts' version, the key flaw is ultimately the same: A maximum of one Theistic philosophy can be correct. Of course, contrary to Gervais' claim, that includes atheism.
See, Gervais is half correct when he says atheism isn't a belief system. You cannot lump all atheists together and say "they are all atheists, therefore they believe this". But the same is true with Theists. You cannot lump all Theists together. The problem is, Theism is such a wide-sweeping philosophy that any lack of belief is belief in another sense.
To illustrate this, let's consider the standard trolley dilemma. These typically involve you stumbling upon a split track, there are various people/things tied down on both/all splits, and you have the power, but not the mandate, to switch the tracks. In these dilemmas, not to choose is a choice. If you do not switch the tracks, you have chosen to let the train continue down the track it is going.
In the same way, because of the all-encompassing nature of Theism, to be an atheist is to have a religious belief. "I believe in one less god than you" isn't just a comment on the mere existence of God, as if He was some sort of vacuum with no effect on our reality. To say "there is no God", or even to say "I don't know if there is a God", is to make a comment on every aspect of our reality. Where did we come from? Where are we going? How do we get there? What should our journey look like? These are all very important, interconnected questions that every person has to answer, and not to answer them is to answer them, even if you want to say "I just don't want to switch my train to your track unless you can prove your track is the best". In this case, Gervais' train simply continues on the track he has currently chosen.
It's worth noting that Gervais has actually made a switch. While atheists tend to have such a high view of themselves that they assume their views must be the default, and the burden of proof lies on everyone else, the simple fact is, atheism is deliberate. Shortly, Gervais will continue to talk about science, and how if we lost it, all the tests we could do would yield the same results. Well, although one cannot scientifically test God, we can scientifically test human psychology. These tests tend to show that children default towards Theism. Don't misunderstand me: I do not mean we default towards the Christian faith. By His nature, God can be found when groped for, but the reason we have the Bible is that He cannot be directly encountered; He reveals Himself, and Scripture is the primary means by which He does it.
However, "Theism", much like "atheism", is more broad. For millennia, indeed for all of human history, we have known God. Even with divine hiddenness, God has made Himself evident enough through creation that atheism is a relatively new phenomena, coinciding with this new level of self-reliance (and arrogance). The belief that we no longer need God, because we can look to ourselves for the answers to everything, has caused us to take the next step and flat out deny Him. But historically, and indeed right up to the modern day, even cultures that do not focus on God have retained Him in their memories, forming, as Gervais points out, thousands of little counterfeits. For some, this manifests in worshiping beings with little control. The god of war, the god of fertility, the god of the harvest etc. For others, it manifests in ancestor worship. The ancestors are up above, watching over us, guiding us. Even atheists themselves tend to set up replacement gods, including the government, if they're so inclined.
But if you want to really understand human psychology, it isn't the adults you need to look at. Rather, as the word of God says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6). As adults, we are, in many ways, products of our culture, and our opinions, including atheism, are hard to change, simply because they have already been through that process of change. We do what those before us taught us to do, and we believe what those before us taught us to believe. Children are almost blank slates. They have instincts, but without guidance, that's all they have. That's why the child of a racist probably won't see race. The child of a snob won't see status. Release a bunch of children into a playground, they will not divide themselves into the same groups as their parents might, and even if they have already been taught a thing or two, they may test these fences, and their eyes will be opened to entirely different worlds.
But you probably don't need me to tell you all that. When it's a cause we believe in, we often look to the children. My Facebook timeline frequently features "feel good" posts about how children see the world. Most recently, I saw a video where a little boy and his mother are walking down the street, they pass a man with no legs. He's primarily walking on his hands, with his lower half in walking motion, but obviously not in the same way as I might walk. The child stops, takes off his shoes, and gives them to the man for his hands. It's really sweet, and it shows that, for all our sin, the law of God really is written on our hearts! This child showed kindness because, as of yet, he hasn't been taught not to.
Well, it turns out, children tend to see design in nature until they are taught not to. One study performed by researchers at Oxford University reveals as much. In an interview with Science and Spirit in 1999, Dr Olivera Petrovich explained the findings:
"I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., ‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding."
While atheists, including Ricky Gervais, so often like to point to regional distribution of religious beliefs (as if that mattered), one cannot make this argument here. Britain and Japan are significantly culturally different. If you ask a British adult these questions, you will almost certainly get a different answer than a Japanese adult. But as Petrovich points out, "...the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children." (Emphasis added).
So what of our trolley dilemma? From a purely scientific perspective, it seems the default track is what Ricky Gervais would describe as Agnostic Theism. Yet, he describes his view as agnostic atheism. So, he has switched his track, quite willingly.
But of course, he would contend this is a reasonable switch to make, and I'm going to throw him this bone: There is a difference between what we instinctively believe, and what is true. Thus, if he wants to suggest our divine instincts may be illusory, and it's better to verify them some other way, that's fair. Of course, we could get into the argument from reason, and say if we're going to take this far enough, we can't really trust our own eyes, but I want to address Ricky's next argument instead.
That argument is "...science is constantly proved all of the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and any other fiction and destroyed it, in a thousand years time that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would be the same result."
With all due respect to Gervais, especially as he, himself, showed a lot of respect to Colbert in this debate, that is a highly flawed statement. The first of many flaws is that it assumes science is the all-encompassing measure of truth. In reality, science is a very specific field of study, primarily focusing on explaining the natural world and how it works. If you were to erase every history book, those would never be recovered either, because you cannot scientifically test history. In fact, one day, hopefully in a good 20 - 30 years (that'd make him about 82 - 92, well above the average life expectancy for an English male), Ricky Gervais will die. So, imagine we cremate him, completely obliterate his records (birth certificate, death certificate etc.), his movies, any books or biographies about him etc., we'd never get those back. If we apply Gervais' scenario to his own life, it would, by his logic, make it reasonable to reject the belief that there ever was a Ricky Gervais.
By the same logic, yes, I am happy to admit, if we supernaturally lost the Bible today, obviously including citations in other records, it would be impossible to piece back together accurately. But that's because it was never supposed to be a science book. Science is a specific field of study, but the Bible contains a lot of extra-scientific stuff. It contains history, philosophy, morality, and most of all, theology.
Now of course, Gervais assumes his conclusion in his argument. If Yahweh truly is God, this scenario is technically impossible, and even if it was possible, the Bible would come back, because God would give it back. But even if we assume it would be lost forever, we're not just going to lose God. Our divine instincts would remain intact, we'd still grope for Him, we'd still find Him, and He'd still reveal Himself. Heck, such a scenario would probably trigger a brand new miraculous ministry, because with no history to argue on, we'd need it, and He'd no doubt give it.
But even if you want to argue that God isn't real, we'd still have the aforementioned divine instincts. You can erase specific revelation, but unless you want to change human nature itself, we'd still recognise design in nature, and pursue the designer.
In fact, this is how it would work with Gervais' parallel suggestion. If science was erased from human memory, we would presumably still have the technology, we just wouldn't understand it anymore. We'd observe babies coming naked from the womb and ask "then where did our clothes come from?" We'd look around and see these large structures and wonder, where did these come from? These big roll machines... we seem capable of making them move, but they don't generally move themselves. Wait, that one stopped, how do we make it go again? Whoa! This big flat thing, press this button and it lights up! And it's got our letters on it, and when we press them, we can make words appear on the light surface! Where did all this come from?
Well, I would imagine we'd soon shun the few idiots who dared to blame the origins of the computer on natural processes. Especially as we studied science more and realised there just aren't any natural processes by which these things might come about. It probably wouldn't be too long before we rediscovered the laws of thermodynamics, thereby winning Creationists the slam dunk. Of course someone made the computers, the cars, the buildings, even the clothes. If we found so much as a mud hut, we would reject natural causes in a heartbeat.
In our culture, we've unfortunately had this kind of attitude buffed out of us. For over a century, Naturalism and Materialism have been funnelled down our necks since our youth. But those of us who have failed to heal from our Evolutionary indoctrination need to recognise that this is exactly how the rest of us see the world. For the past 500 years (and no, as we're about to see, that's not a coincidence), human beings have made amazing technological leaps, yet even when we copy from God, our designs are nothing compared to His.
So let's take Ricky's arguments together for a moment. Poof, off goes the science. Where'd that computer come from? Brian thinks a human made it, probably someone who works for this company called "ASUS". Gervais asks "can you prove it?" Brian says no. Gervais says "well then I believe in one less computer technician than you". What? Do you not realise how insane that sounds to anyone who isn't absolutely committed to atheism? Look around, look at how complex every single organelle inside even the simplest cell is! Look at the bacterial flagellum! Looks sort of like a motor, doesn't it? Show me a car company with the kind of skill to replicate, much less surpass that. Look at DNA. Looks sort of like a language system, doesn't it? And don't you dare pretend we've invented anything so fantastic. You want to talk to me about scientific tests that are the same every time? Here's one that never fails: Take any design in nature, compare it to something similar we use ourselves, I guarantee you, our absolute best designers will lose that contest every time. We can't even compete.
And this was the logic of Isaac Newton, widely considered to be one of the greatest scientists in history. He once said that atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. You couldn't convince this man that a simple replica of the solar system (as it was understood in his day) lacked a designer, so of course he would mock his atheist friends for saying the real thing does.
And this was the standard view of virtually all early scientists, because as I said, it's not a coincidence that we've made particular leaps and bounds in science over the past 500 years. See, while Gervais suggests we'd be back where we are in 1,000 years, he fails to realise the human race has existed for at least 6,000. Longer, in his view. Yet, there was a sudden revolution, which coincided with another major revolution: The Reformation.
Any competent historian will tell you that science, while it existed in basic states around the world, absolutely blew up in the Reformed Christian world, because, as Loren Eilsley puts it, "The philosophy of experimental science…began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
It's ours. Science is not a product of agnosticism, atheism, or even any other Theistic philosophy. Science came into existence entirely as a result of Christian thought. It was historically viewed as an act of worship, and a method by which we may fulfil the dominion mandate. We even use Theistic terms in science. We talk about natural "law". What, are you going to put water in jail if it doesn't boil? No, you just trust - dare I say have faith - that the forces in operation today were in operation yesterday, and will be tomorrow. That's not an assumption that naturally flows from atheism. Atheists came on scene later, after Christians of varying degrees of faith had done all the heavy lifting. We laid the ground atheists run on. And yes, you can run on it, but only because it works. You don't have to believe in Henry Ford to drive a Transit van, and you don't need to believe in God to do good science, but if you deny the Christian origins of science, you're wrong.
So what if we run Gervais' scenarios at once. We get rid of Theism, but we get rid of science, too. Well, obviously, the 1,000 years deadline is kaput. Christianity created science, so if you get rid of both, you lose the roof with the floor. That's just how it is. But the world is still going to operate the same. At least, we assume that's how Gervais pictures things.
Now, ultimately, Gervais' scenarios would have far more implications than he realises. In fact, I dare say it would be apocalyptic. No way could we sustain 8 billion people in a developed world full of technology we've forgotten how to use. We'd starve, poison ourselves, blow ourselves up, tick off a bunch of wildlife, and all sorts of other disasters. But we'll skip all that and just suggest the best minds quickly gather together, build a baseline, and after a year or so the human race becomes semi-sustainable. We're now back to pre-Christian, primitive science levels. We know this berry is poisonous, and if you stick that seed in the ground and keep it watered, it'll produce a vegetable. Now what?
Well, as I pointed out, this is the scenario we were in before the Reformation. We had basic science, it just wasn't enough to put a smartphone in our pocket. That came from Christianity, along with its assumptions about the natural world. But... even with the Christian faith in play, a lot of science came from less than ideal places. Accidents, negligence, and even pure evil.
See, Christianity provides more than just a few basic (and apparently accurate) assumptions about how the world works. It also talks about how it ought to work, and history shows us what happens when we reject that. Even today, there are absolute atrocities taking place in the scientific world. Take, for example, the... "work"... of Margaret Livingstone. It reads like a dystopian horror novel. This so-called "scientist" is a disgrace to the very word, as her methods include separating infant monkeys from their mothers and sewing their eyes shut in order to study the psychological effects. That is going on right now, and you probably didn't even know about it.
But if you think unethical scientific practices are limited to monkey terrorists, you're absolutely wrong. Throughout history, many terrible things have been done in the name of "science", including great atrocities committed against human beings. Now, the really good thing is, in Gervais' scenario, Evolution is gone, and it's never coming back in the same way. There are no tests you can perform that will lead one to Evolution, nor any facts that compel us to accept it over alternatives, and as Theism as a whole is gone, we have less motive to make up anything so weird. But Evolution didn't make us racist, it just helped give the impression that racist views have a scientific basis. Furthermore, racism is neither a product of science or religion, so it would survive this supernatural purge.
So now we have two problems. First, we've obliterated the faith that kickstarted science in the first place, so we're going to have to hope, with no good reason, that it will start again somehow. But with Christianity gone, we don't even have an ethical guideline to prevent the same atrocities of the past being repeated. What stops us from gathering "specimens" by raiding the graves of Australian aboriginals (or worse, hunting them down like animals)? How do we distinguish between caging a gorilla and a Congolese pygmy? Why shouldn't our knowledge of anatomy come from killing the homeless and carving up their cadavers? And you can lump informed consent, human rights are religious concepts. With no God to say "thou shalt not...", the one who is "right" is the man with the biggest gun, so you just better hope he isn't pointing it in your direction.
You see, then, how the scenario Ricky Gervais posits is not only unrealistic, but ultimately, it shows just how much we need the Christian faith. Without Christianity, we wouldn't even have the mentality that lead us into our modern scientific age, and even if, somehow, we managed to get into it anyway, Christianity is a bulwark against both unethical scientific practice, and against Scientism, which is a religion in itself.
But unlike other religions, Scientism could probably come back in the same form. See, Scientism isn't based on any history, real or imagined, nor is it based on any revelation from God. Scientism is instead grounded in one thing that would survive Gervais' hypothetical purge: human nature.
Remember, in Gervais' hypothetical scenario, we're assuming the world still works the same way, including biology, and psychology. That means human beings will still have our natural pride. We'll still possess our Theistic instincts, but with so little guidance, they will be significantly easier to suppress. Thus, once we regain our scientific capabilities, we will begin relying on ourselves again, like little children who despise hunters and farmers, because "you should just get your food from the supermarket, where nuggets come from packets instead".
This is all the result of the same thing that separated us from God in the first place: Sin. The devil's first temptations were that we should doubt the word of God, seek knowledge for ourselves, and thus become like Him ourselves. And sadly, he doesn't need to tempt us in the same way anymore, we all repeat this folly.
But God didn't leave us in it. Scientism, atheism, and anything that separates us from God is ultimately a choice we all make. For now, though we can pray he eventually changes his mind, Ricky Gervais has made the wrong one, making abysmal arguments against a low-level understanding of "religion" (a term so broad, Gervais doesn't even seem conscious of the fact it covers the beliefs he holds, too). But as we've seen, his logic leads to his own existence coming into question.
But God has given us sufficient evidence to not only be without excuse rejecting His existence, but even His revelation. Through a miraculous ministry that only He could have performed, and a well-preserved historical record that even atheistic scholars have always struggled to suppress, God has not only given us sufficient evidence to believe, but sufficient explanation of what to believe in; and how that belief affects us.
See, one thing we don't need much scientific evidence for is that we are all going to die. Science can do many things. It can help us delay death, it can improve our lives while we delay death, but it cannot prevent it indefinitely, it cannot reverse it, and it cannot protect us from whatever we're going to meet on the other side.
As Jesus is the only man who's ever conquered death, raising not only others, but even Himself, He seems like a fair horse to bet on regarding death. And this is a topic on which He spoke extensively. During His ministry, He repeatedly predicted that He would die, but His message was very clear: There is a judgment coming, and because of our sin, none of us are set to survive it. But through His death, He actually received the judgment for us. The punishment we are owed, He received. The result is we can receive His reward, as if it was He who did what we did, but we who did what He did. The criteria for receipt of this gift is faith. The kind of faith that says no, I can't prove it, but I'm not going in blind either. I believe that this man, who rose from His grave in history, can raise me from my grave in eternity. Now, as Steven Colbert pointed out, Ricky Gervais is among the many people who is willing to put their faith in a magical explosion that (supposedly) happened billions of years ago. I doubt he will ever read this, but on the off chance he does, I would like to present him, and anyone else, with an alternative that requires a lot less faith: Repent, and trust in your Creator. You will never regret this choice. The same cannot be said for atheism.