"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
- Isaac Newton
In Newton's time, atheism was, indeed, a rare phenomenon. Atheists existed, but were rare enough that the world in general mocked them as much as they can often be seen mocking the world today. It is an unfortunate fact that atheism is, indeed, growing. Nevertheless, a minority it remains.
Of course, no sensible person would argue "it's rare, therefore it's false". Similarly, no sane person would argue "it's common, therefore it's true". But suffice to say, regardless of its truth value, atheism has always been rare enough to be considered "extraordinary". But not only on the basis of its rarity. Also on the basis of merit.
Newton's claim that atheism is "so senseless and odious to mankind" is accurate, due entirely to human discernment. As a species, not only are we able to ask "who, when, what, how, and why?", but we also have effective methods to answer those questions. Yet, when it comes to philosophy, atheists magically lose their discernment, coming up with the strangest logic apparently, and in some cases even explicitly, designed to exclude God.
Of course, we cannot forget the aforementioned explicit confessions. Michael Ruse, for example, admitted "Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." (1). Similarly, Richard Lewontin once wrote "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. (...) Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (2).
Time would fail me to mention the hundreds of other examples, but suffice to say, particularly among intelligent atheists, it is not at all uncommon to find such confessions. Atheism is not a conclusion reached by compulsion of evidence, but is a choice one makes. But when you look at how one defends that choice, particularly in an attempt to make it seem like the wise one, it becomes clear just how unusual the reasoning is.
Indeed, the clearest evidence would be the very claim this article is designed to address; that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I remember one time, I wrote an article about how this claim is a tacit admission that we have enough ordinary evidence to convince an ordinary mind. This was then shared on an atheist page, and one particularly arrogant atheist commented, boasting that his mind is extraordinary, and an ordinary mind is not enough, since it leads to poverty. This laughable display, which unfortunately is the "best" response that article ever received from an atheist, missed the point completely. There is enough ordinary evidence for Christianity, as long as you use ordinary reasoning.
Ordinarily, even a truly extraordinary claim would not require extraordinary evidence. The irony is, in this sin stained world, extraordinary things are not entirely rare. Indeed, any "first" claim would be extraordinary. The moon landings are an extraordinary claim. Yet, when we hear from the many people who think the moon landings were fake, we look at them like they have 3 heads. Not only do we not need extraordinary evidence to believe in the moon landings, most of us, atheists in particular, take it for granted.
Now of course, I'm not suggesting this is a good attitude. Indeed, if you don't know any evidence that the moon landings actually happened, you might well be reasonable to hear the conspiracy theorists out. But the ordinary evidence we do have, as well as the answers to counter claims, is sufficient that it's reasonable to believe that yes, although it is an extraordinary claim, men did walk on the moon.
Why, then, would the very much not extraordinary claim of Christianity, a religion widely accepted in some form or other around the world, require "extraordinary" evidence? Simply because the atheists are using extraordinary reasoning to defend their extraordinary beliefs! There is no particular merit to this extraordinary claim, it is designed entirely because the ordinary mind will come to Theistic, if not Christian conclusions.
One particularly prominent example is the Intelligent Design debate. Of course, on its own, evidence for Intelligent Design is not evidence for Christianity. It requires many complex additions to show that only the Biblical God has all the attributes that would be required to create this world in particular. We could show, for example, that Romans 1 talks about how we, as a species, are designed to recognise God's invisible attributes in creation.
But the point here is that we do! Even atheists can often be found admitting that, whether they believe it is or not, the world around us looks designed. Richard Dawkins, for example, once wrote "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (3). Of course, he believed, and to my knowledge still does, that this appearance is illusory, but by his own admission, in which he is not alone, it exists.
Atheists have a number of silly ways to reject this appearance, up to and including "have you ever seen God?" To this, I would of course reply that I don't need to see a designer to know one exists. If I find a sandcastle on the beach, I don't even need to know who made it, I know someone did. If I wanted to find out who built my house, I may be able to follow a paper trail, but never find the builders themselves. Must I therefore conclude my house is the result of a freak storm? The irony is, no one has ever seen Evolution, the big bang, or indeed the origins of anything "major". These claims are particularly extraordinary, to the extent of being counterintuitive, and contrary to everything we know about science. Yet, when Theists reject Evolution and the like on the basis of positive evidence against it, somehow we are irrational?
But as I said, without some complex philosophy, the design argument alone is insufficient to prove more than that a God exists. For Christianity, specifically, the most compelling evidence is arguably the historical record. Simply put, the Bible is a historical record. And were it not for the fact it so clearly portrays a pro-Christian history, up to and including supernatural occurrences, atheists would assuredly treat it as one.
Usually, when we find an ancient document, we tend to take it seriously, regardless of whether we share the author's philosophies. Sometimes, evidence is limited. For example, Socrates is not known from any evidence other than the writings of his students. But with the Bible, in particular the New Testament, not only do we have corroborating evidence both friendly and hostile, but it is also first hand evidence.
A minority of atheists, however, reject Jesus' existence completely. Jesus Mythicists are a small group of conspiracy theorists who argue, against all evidence, that Jesus never existed. Most extreme among these are copycat theorists, who assert that Jesus is simply a re-branded version of other pagan gods. These, however, can be dismissed as extremists. Their beliefs are completely unfounded, easily refuted, and generally rejected by even ardent atheist scholars.
Yet, even atheists with the wisdom to reject Jesus Mythicism are not willing to accept the Gospel. Why? Not based on any ordinary reasoning, which would at least force them to accept that a lot of impressive things happened even if you reject that they were miraculous, but based entirely on the fact that they were miraculous. These atheists resort to copious amounts of insane theories, some even crazier than Jesus Mythicism. Maybe Paul converted not because he saw Jesus, but because he felt guilty? Maybe appearances of Jesus can be attributed to His reclusive twin brother, who apparently not even His mother knew existed? Perhaps the Gospels are so airtight because they are all effectively plagiarised from the mythical Q document?
One noteworthy thing about all these theories is that even if they worked, they would only explain one thing. When we compile all the facts at once, however, there are no working theories. Except, of course, the "theory" atheists don't want to accept: That what we read in Scripture is what really happened. Which brings us to...
Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor, known also as the Law of Parsimony, or Law of Succinctness, is the concept that assumptions should never be multiplied beyond what is necessary. Ironically, this is often used against Christianity, as God is seen as an "unnecessary hypothesis", but when faced with the facts of Christianity, the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is that Christianity is true. Sure, we can make up stories about Jesus being an alien, or about the disciples being able to overwhelm Roman centurions to steal His body, or about Him surviving crucifixion and fleeing to India, any number of wild and wacky theories, but with the evidence we have, the simplest explanation is that Jesus rose. And atheists know that.
So we see, in this 7 minute article alone, just how extraordinary atheism really is. It requires unusual reasoning, which would never be used elsewhere, and realistically should never be used anywhere, all to draw an absurd conclusion that most people find silly. In fact, ironically, even many atheists themselves resort to a form of theism, attributing even "the universe" with Godliness. How, then, do atheists have the cheek to demand "extraordinary" evidence for a perfectly ordinary claim they, themselves, already know is true?
Simply because they don't want it to be. Like all men, including many theists, atheists are born, and continue to live, in rebellion to God. We have gone our own way, and we prefer to keep it that way. Even Christians, in our flesh, are not yet perfect. But a way has been made. Reconciliation is available, bought for us all by the very God we reject, at the expense of His Son's blood. The criteria to receive it is unbelievably, dare I say extraordinarily simple: Faith. Faith backed by a wealth of evidence. Faith you know you should have. Confess Jesus as Lord, and believe He rose from the dead, and you, too, shall be raised with Him.
References
1. Ruse, Michael - How Evolution became a religion: creationists correct?, 2000
2. Lewontin, Richard - Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, January 9th 1997
3. Dawkins, Richard - The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Norton & Company, Inc, 1986
Comments