What Unbelievers Believe
by Kenny Chumbley
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 2, June 1994
Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 3, September 1994
Atheists like to portray Christianity as the non-thinking man’s sugar stick. They, we are told, are guided by reason and logic, whereas believers hold to antiquated religious superstitions that have been scientifically debunked. Nothing, however, could be farther from the truth, for it is the atheist who has committed intellectual suicide. Though they identify themselves as “unbelievers,” atheists are not without beliefs. But they are extremely reluctant to talk about their beliefs. And for good reason—viz, the affirmative case for atheism is fatally weak. When the sceptic’s beliefs are subjected to critical analysis, it is the atheist, not the Christian, who is found to hold untenable presuppositions.
Cosmological Alternatives
Cosmology is a branch of philosophy that studies the origin of the universe. Though the subject might sound intimidating, its relevance to the issue of atheistic beliefs can be readily demonstrated. To this end, consider the following:
Universe: If there is one fact universally accepted, it is that the universe exists. But from whence did it come? Only two possible explanations exist.
- No beginning: Some scientists believe matter is eternal and have postulated theories such as the “Steady State” and “Oscillating” models to explain how the universe could have always existed. The only problem with these theories is that not a shred of physical evidence exists to substantiate either; they simply do not fit the facts of observational cosmology. To believe the universe is eternal is to believe it is a cosmic perpetual motion machine. And the same laws of physics that make an eternally running machine impossible on earth preclude the possibility of an eternally running universe.
- Beginning: “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 111). Science, therefore, says there was a point at which the universe began. But if it began to exist, what was the cause?
- Uncaused: Does anyone seriously believe there was no cause for the universe’s beginning? Did it pop into existence spontaneously? To so argue is to take an unscientific tack, for science says “out of nothing, nothing comes.” If there was ever a time in the past when nothing existed (no matter, energy, force, etc.), nothing would exist now.
- Caused: If the universe began to exist (as science says it did), there had to be some logical cause. And again, only two possibilities exist as to the nature of that cause.
- Impersonal: What impersonal forces can science point us to that adequately explain the existence of the universe? What was the nature of these forces? And were these impersonal forces themselves caused or uncaused? To believe, as atheists must, that impersonal forces caused the universe is a gigantic leap of blind faith for which no evidence exists.
- Personal: Clearly, the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe is this: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” To believe that Jehovah is the ultimate reality, the Uncaused Cause of all things, is not only consistent with what science acknowledges, but is undeniably true in light of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Remember: for an atheist to believe the universe is eternal, or uncaused, or caused by impersonal forces is to hold a belief scientifically unprovable and at odds with what science admits.
Spontaneous Generation
Perhaps the easiest way to reduce atheistic beliefs to absurdity is to focus on spontaneous generation. Simply defined, spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, is the belief that life can arise from nonliving matter. There is absolutely no physical evidence that even begins to suggest that such has occurred. Yet, atheists believe life initially appeared spontaneously from pre-existing, inanimate matter. They must believe this, for their philosophy will admit no other possibility. Since, per their position, there is no God who created life on earth, life—at some point in the misty past—must have arisen by itself from material that somehow just happened to be.
In any discussion with an atheist, I think it is important to press them on this issue. Why? Because their belief in abiogenesis contradicts their claim to be guided solely by logic and reason. It shows that a major plank of their philosophical platform is nothing more than blind faith. It shows that their unbelief rests on an ignorant, superstitious myth that has been scientifically debunked.
For that is what abiogenesis is: a myth. I would like to recommend my high school biology textbook, Modern Biology, by James H. Otto and Albert Towle, to atheists. In chapter two, “The Living Condition,” there is this subheading:
"The myth of spontaneous generation.” Please note that spontaneous generation isn’t a fact, a theory, a hypothesis, or even a good guess, but a myth! The text then explains how spontaneous generation was scientifically disproven. "Pasteur’s decisive defeat of spontaneous generation. It remained for Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), a French chemist, to deal a final and convincing blow to the theory of spontaneous generation...Louis Pasteur substituted a proved and valid concept, biogenesis, for a theory [abiogenesis] which had been accepted for centuries without any real evidence. Life comes only from life (emphasis mine). Experimental evidence has borne this out from the time of Pasteur to the present day” (p. 24-25).
Spontaneous generation is alchemy, not science! But do the authors accept the scientific findings? Do they look to a supernatural source as an explanation for life? No—instead, they irrationally maintain, “We cannot assume that abiogenesis has never occurred, nor that it could never happen again” (ibid.). Science says it can’t happen, but maybe it did anyway.
Such obvious self-contradiction also comes from the pen of Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson. Infinite in All Directions is a rewriting of his 1985 Gifford Lectures. Chapter Four, “How Did Life Begin?” opens with this statement: “I am concerned with the origin of life as a scientific problem, not as a philosophical or theological problem.” Yet, as the chapter proceeds, Dyson is forced to admit two things. First, science has nothing to say about how life began
“We know almost nothing about the origin of life. We do not even know whether the origin was gradual or sudden. It might have been a process of slow growth stretched out over millions of years, or it might have been a single molecular event that happened in a fraction of a second” (p. 72).
Second, to talk about the origin of life Dyson must do the very thing he said he was not concerned with doing—viz., speak philosophically. Dyson subscribes to the double-origin hypothesis, which holds that life arose twice: first with proteins and then with nucleic acids. About his hypothesis, he admits,
“I do not claim that the double-origin hypothesis is true, or that it is supported by any experimental evidence” (p. 64).
“I have to confess my own bias in favor of double origin. But my bias is based only on general philosophical preconceptions...” (p. 65).
My high school biology textbook and Professor Dyson thus illustrate the logical dilemma on which men hang themselves when they adopt atheistic suppositions. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Christians believe life came from life—the living God. Atheists believe life came from nonliving matter. Don’t ever be afraid to ask which belief is best supported by scientific evidence.
