|
 Printer safe version
Atheism’s Black Hole
Introduction to atheism as the hope for mature mankind
In the London Times of Thursday January 13 2000, the writer and broadcaster
Mr Ludovik Kennedy wrote an article entitled ‘Goodbye God, we can get along just fine
without you’. It was certainly an eye-catching headline. Mr. Kennedy wishes to
be rid of God. From his article we might conclude that to him the very idea of
God seems an insult to the intelligence. The article was related to his then
recently published book ‘All in the mind’ (Sceptre -1999). The title of his book
implies that belief in God is in the realm of the imagination, fantasy, not
reason. Mature man should be rational, behave in an adult fashion and take
control of his own destiny. ‘Man come of age’ ought therefore to grow up and be
independent, and should not need a childish clinging on to an idea of God for an
emotional prop. The old-fashioned concept of a God who one day will judge
mankind can therefore be happily cast off. But is the prospect of a world
without God really a cause for celebration? Would atheism, even if it had truth
on its side, be a basis for optimism or despair?
There is an apparent appeal in the thought of being adult, and in charge of
the future. It is also not hard to see why people do not like the idea of God
the judge. Before the wish is father to the thought however, there are some matters
that deserve serious examination. The hope of atheism is often justified by the
sad fact that the behaviour of Christians, today or through the ages, is neither
one of exemplary charity, nor of exclusive virtue. In his article Mr. Kennedy
makes this point well, and he could have called in aid many more illustrations
of tyranny, hypocrisy, oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of
Christianity, or a Christian state or culture. Few would therefore seriously
dispute this part of his article, even if he seems to ‘over-egg’ the idea of the
‘noble savage’. (There are however many counter examples of the principles of
liberty, equality and brotherhood in a godless society producing terror rather
than benevolence.) But how is any of that proof that there is no God?
What is Atheism’s hope?
Although the article does not expressly say so, it must be inferred that the
aim of the ideal (godless) society is still to produce a benevolent, caring
society. Otherwise atheism is only an philosophical theory with no relevance to
mankind’s situation and hopes. In holding out a hope for a perfect society
however atheism does not differ from Christianity over the kind of society that
is worthy of praise. Where it differs is whether mankind on its own, without God
can (will?) produce a perfect society. If it can then (perhaps) man might not
‘need’ God. Christians may well assert strongly that it never will. However for
the present let us allow the proposition – that man independent of any God can
achieve ethical and moral perfection – in order to see more clearly where the
arguments of atheists break down.
To say that the arguments of atheism break down is not to imply any criticism
of the intellectual or philosophical rigor of those who have championed a world
(universe) without God, but rather to expose the paucity of the hope for mankind
that results. Creating a perfect society some time in the future will render God
redundant only if that was the sole need that man has for God.
Where is justice?
Suppose that man without God did achieve utopia, who would benefit? It could
only be relevant to those who would be fortunate enough to be alive then. There
is no hope offered in atheism to any of the victims of oppression or violence,
past, present or future, including those whom Mr. Kennedy cites in his
denunciation of the hypocrisy of Christian society. What is their hope?
What can atheism offer them? How are they to get justice? The difficulty with
this or any other problem that reaches beyond the grave is that by definition it
is outside of man’s control. Any answer requires something beyond man himself –
God? Man has therefore a need for God that will not go away; even if an
otherwise perfect society could be achieved without God.
| The problem for anyone who would wish
to rejoice in atheism is that it comes at the price of abandoning all and
any hope for absolute justice? This is the unavoidable consequence of
getting rid of a God of judgment. The judgment of the Christian’s God is a
wider concept than merely giving out punishment. In (say) Isaiah 59 it is
the cry of the oppressed of mankind for justice which is God’s motivation
for bringing judgment, and salvation. Thus to abandon the prospect of
judgment is also to jettison the hope of justice, and of any salvation. |
Man has thus a double whammy of a need. On the one hand, without a God of
judgment there can be no justice. On the other, if there is a God who judges who
can stand? We have reason to be wary of a God who will judge righteously –
because everyone has offended in some way or another. Thus man’s need is of a
rather refined kind. Without a God who will combine justice and loving kindness
(mercy) there is neither hope for the oppressed, nor real check to the lure of
oppressive power.
Need is not the same as proof
Yet to demonstrate a need for God does not prove that God exists, any more
than a postulation that mankind does not need God reveals the absence of God. If
God is, God is regardless of mankind, and any attempts of man to shape God in
man’s image. And if God is, and is beyond man, above the created order, God is
not accessible to rational proof or disproof. Theism and atheism are therefore
both equally positions of faith, not reason, though it may be questioned which
is the more rational?
To say that God is beyond rational discovery is not to say that such a God
cannot be known, if He should choose to reveal Himself. That this is precisely
what the Bible claims God has done is thus entirely consistent with reason –
rational. The real questions therefore are (1) does the Bible offer truly good
news, in the sense of a salvation that meets man’s needs; and (2) does the Bible
speak truth?
(1) Does the Bible offer a better hope than atheism?
According to the Bible, God claims to offer a rational salvation. That is
‘rational’ in the sense of being in accordance with the principles of reason.
God provides solutions to man’s problems that are accessible to man’s reason,
not irrational escapism. The mechanics of God’s actions are frequently beyond
our understanding, not the principles.
In this revelation God offers that He (through the incarnation), has entered
our realm in order to identify with mankind, to know and be known, and to
provide a salvation commensurate with our needs. This has been achieved through
the self-giving unto death of Jesus the Son of God, for and on behalf of man.
Through this death cleansing from the guilt of unrighteousness is offered to
man, the pollution caused to the creation by man’s violence (in all its
manifestations) is purged (even if not yet visible), and a relationship with God
leading to a share in God’s utopia is made available – see for example Hebrews
chapter 9.
The Bible does not pretend that achieving salvation for man is easy, and
surprising perhaps in writings of such antiquity, it appears to be more honest
about man’s core needs than is modern day atheism.
| But the Bible presents a transcendent
creator God who cares enough for man to provide an answer for mankind’s
needs, in spite of the difficulties and costs. Thus the good news of
Christianity is that God offers to man that which he cannot achieve for
himself – removal of the guilt and consequences of performed injustice, and
participation in a truly perfect society. The fact that it all is not yet a
physical reality does not detract – if it is true. And if it is true it is a
far better hope than anything atheism can muster. |
(2) Faith and Proof
The truth of the Bible or Christianity cannot be objectively proved by
scientific examination. It is surely offensive to reason that the transcendent
God could be reduced to scientific or academic apprehension.
| However the purpose and the effect of
the revelation given by God is to enable the seeker of God to find proof in
a very subjective way. If the transcendent God is self-revealed in His word,
it is hardly surprising if hungry penitents find, not a theory or a system,
but a Person. Belief in God is consistent with reason, but is engendered by
an encounter with a Person. It is thus the experience of having met God that
gives the Christian the confidence to assert the reality of God. |
Any assertion of Christian belief not grounded on a living knowledge of the
person (God) is only argument. The existence of God cannot be proved by argument
or reason, but neither can it be disproved. And if the claims of Christianity
cannot be disproved then atheism itself can only ever be argument, and a real
leap of faith.
The bottom line of atheism’s faith
The surprising thing about the faith that atheism demands is that instead of
a faith in a Person that flows from revelation atheism’s faith is a faith in
nothing. Surely this by definition is a blind faith. What is really astounding
however is that given the barrenness of atheism’s hopes anyone would wish to
assert the claims of the faith of atheism with anything but despair.
And finally
Oh, and by the way, the failings of Christians and Christian society exposed
in Mr. Kennedy’s article only serve to illustrate the truth of the announcement
by Jesus ‘I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners’. Even leaving aside
the point that not all who call themselves Christian have met and responded to
God, the revelation from God does not claim or promise that the behaviour of
Christians is ethically perfected in this life. But the Christian’s hope of
salvation and universal justice remains, while the present fellowship with the
God and Saviour affirms the personality of the transcendent Deity.
| Finally however the God revealed in
the Bible, also discloses Himself as a God who will not force His kingdom
upon anyone. Citizens of that kingdom are there by choice, not coercion. The
Bible therefore postulates (in final judgement) a confirmation by God of an
individual’s choice in a paraphrase of the headline chosen by Ludovik
Kennedy – ‘Goodbye ……. I never knew you’ (after Matthew 7:23). |
| 
