Making sense of how an atheist is made
A review of The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief by James S. Spiegel
Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL, 2010
by Brian Thomas
In this brief but insightful book, author James Spiegel cogently clarifies, especially
for Christians, the real cogs that turn in the engines of atheists’ hearts,
including the New Atheists. One key distinction of the New Atheists is that not
only do they say that it is probable that there is no God, but that belief in God
is wrong and should be proactively stamped out. Not only is Spiegel’s analysis
backed up with history, Scripture, and logic, but his suggested mindsets and tactics
for Christians to use in ministry among atheists are equally insightful and practical.
This book has something for young and old, and would be a valuable addition to most
any Christian’s library.
The entire book follows a progressive flow that compels the reader forward. Spiegel’s
first two chapters point out obvious and fatal flaws with the atheistic worldview.
In fact there are more, and more well-laid-out, arguments in just these forty large-font
pages than there were in the entire book God and the New Atheism by John
Haught, which was reviewed in the December 2008 issue of Journal of Creation.1
Succinctly refuting atheism
For example, Spiegel notes that the problem of evil, often considered the bedrock
of atheism, “could never count as grounds for atheism” (p. 26). This
objection is usually framed as a question like, “How could a theistic God
allow evil, since by definition he doesn’t like it and is able to stop it?”
Spiegel states that “one cannot—whether by appeals to evil or anything
else—eliminate the need to explain the existence of the universe. Nor does
the problem of evil eradicate the abundant physical and biological evidence for
design” (p. 27). He admits that while it is challenging, the problem of evil
really has nothing much to do with explaining how this world got here.
Not only this, but New Atheists like Richard Dawkins who have used the problem of
evil to argue against God’s existence actually “have no grounds to call
anything evil” (p. 27). The New Atheists are ‘positivists’, which
means they believe that all real or true knowledge must come from a science experiment.
Spiegel correctly points out that this faith claim is self-refuting, since, “the
notion that all beliefs must be scientifically verifiable is, well, not scientifically
verifiable” (p. 29).
New Atheists like Richard Dawkins who have used the problem of evil to argue against
God’s existence actually “have no grounds to call anything evil”
Unfortunately, Spiegel admits that Christians ought to agree with atheist objections
that past Christians are guilty of murder, abuse, oppression, slavery, torment,
and torture, all motivated by the Bible. Most of the cases that New Atheists cite
actually show that these evils were motivated not by Scripture, but by evil human
intentions perhaps seeking justification from the Bible for their crimes. Thus,
although we can agree with Spiegel that it is certainly our duty to admit faults,
nevertheless the New Atheists’ spin on Christian history is grossly inaccurate,
and thus not necessary to repent of. Further, atheists in the last century alone
have murdered thousands [of times more] people as in the ‘religious’ wars
and inquisitions of all previous centuries combined.
Clarifying a few arguments
It is also unfortunate that on page 45 Spiegel concedes to big bang cosmology as
part of arguing for a first cause of the universe. If it began at one point in time
(as he believes the big bang suggests), then it must have had a beginning. However,
the big bang does not require a single beginning, but could be interpreted as the
most recent fluctuation of an eternally oscillating universe.2 Thus, the big bang is a poor foundation for the
cosmological argument for God.
Universal entropy is better suited for this argument. Since a measure of usable
energy is lost every time energy or matter converts from one form to another, and
since there remains plenty of usable energy, it must all have had a beginning. Though
Christian apologists Geisler and Turek support the big bang, they explain this line
of reasoning more fully.3
Also, on page 49 the author appears to concede Dawkins’ conception of organic
evolution by natural selection. However, on the following page he refutes Darwinian
evolution, recalling
“ … the lack of transitional forms in the geologic record, problems
in accounting for the emergence of flight (in no less than four classes of organisms—insects,
birds, reptiles, and mammals), and diverse instances of irreducible complexity in
biological structures and functions” (p. 50).
Upon reflection, Spiegel’s apparent concession to Darwinian evolution on the
prior page was only for argument’s sake. In context, he was showing that because
Darwinian evolution as it is conceived can only operate on pre-existing life forms,
and because there is no possible natural explanation for the first life, therefore
all that is required to settle the question of God is examining the problem of the
first life. In this way, arguments about evolution are often false cloaks behind
which atheists have been hiding.
Spiegel dedicated his book to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, and attempted
to summarize the logic that Plantinga had rigorously defended elsewhere, showing
that the naturalistic view leads to another self-defeating and therefore totally
irrational perspective. In broad strokes, if all life formed by Darwinian selection
whereby fitness is the sole determinant of that which persists, then even our cognitive
faculties are the result of this process. If so, then “there is no necessary
connection between the survival potential of a cognitive system and the truth of
the beliefs it produces” (p. 58). Thus, in a naturalistic universe, there
is no reason why belief in evolution ought to be true.
Figure 1. The will of atheists to live in sin has been the primary
incentive behind their will to reject God.
After refuting atheism in such plain language, the reader is left wondering, “If
atheism is so incoherent, then why does anybody buy into it?” So this question
is answered next.
How atheists are made: not by any scientific evidence
First, the link between right living and “cognitive function” (p. 52)
is found in Ephesians 4:17–19, which the author exegeted. Verse 18 must be referring to people like atheists,
“having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God,
because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.”
According to Spiegel, “the root of the problem, apparently, is not a lack
of intelligence but rather a hardness of heart that is itself caused by immoral
behavior” (p. 52).
Matthew 15:19 states that immoral behavior proceeds from
the heart. So there seems to be a progression whereby evil hearts give birth to
evil thoughts which become evil deeds. Then, especially as immoral evils are perpetrated,
evil hearts become hardened. This destructive process cripples intellect, or darkens
understanding.
Spiegel outlines the slippery slope by which “sin corrupts cognition”
(p. 54). First there is a moral slip-up, followed by withdrawal from Christians.
Then there are doubts about the faith, with continued sin which ultimately leads
to willful rejection of God. This useful insight is mirrored by Søren Kierkegaard’s
quoted statement on page 57 that “people have hitherto been beating the air
in their struggle against objections, because they have fought intellectually with
doubt instead of fighting morally with rebellion.”
The sordid backgrounds of prominent atheists
Spiegel described features that the vast majority of atheists have had in common.
First, they had either dead, absent, or abusive fathers. But he notes this is only
a contributing cause. Atheists with such fathers include practically all the big
names from our time and prior: Hume, Shopenhauer, Neitzsche, Russell, Sartre, Camus,
Hobbes, Voltaire, Feuerbach, Butler, Freud, Wells, O’Hair, Daniel Dennett
and Christopher Hitchens.
Atheists also indulged in immorality, and Spiegel referenced that this has been
gruesomely described in Intellectuals by historian Paul Johnson. Rousseau
sired and abandoned five illegitimate children; Karl Marx had an illegitimate and
unacknowledged son; Leo Tolstoy was a seducer and adulterer; Hemingway was a womanizer;
and Bertrand Russell was a serial adulterer. Johnson clearly demonstrated that modern
era atheists “decided by their will to be immoral, not [by] their quest for
truth” (pp. 73, 74).
Other examples of atheists’ personal miseries were provided in The Making
of an Atheist, but even more could be added. For example, it has been revealed
in recent biographies that “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey preferred working
with prostitutes and homosexuals for sex experiments and surveys, and was himself
a bisexual masochist who encouraged his graduate students to join in orgies.4
The will to live in sin has been the primary incentive behind the will to reject
God.
Thus, the will to live in sin has been the primary incentive behind the will to
reject God. Spiegel quoted atheist Thomas Nagel as saying: “I want atheism
to be true” (p. 85). Similarly, author Mortimer Adler initially rejected belief
because it “would require a radical change in my way of life” (p. 85),
although late in life he rejected unbelief and became a Christian. The problem of
evil, and issues of science are largely smokescreens that mask atheist’s immorality
and guilt.
Restoring light to darkened hearts
When atheism fully sets in, what results? “Spiritual deadness ensures that
we can’t discover our spiritual deadness” (p. 90). Further, “it
is difficult for theists to reason with atheists about worldview matters when such
basic features of spiritual life are so denigrated. For this reason, we should not
expect atheists to respond positively to rational arguments” (p. 101). But
Spiegel balances this perspective with the admonition to always be ready to give
a reason to everyone who asks.
Spiegel enjoins the reader to John Calvin’s comments supporting the idea that
all people do retain some sense of God. Active rejection of God even belies some
awareness of Him. Romans states that the wicked “suppress” God, and
this action indicates that all have a ‘sensus divinitatus’.
In sum, poor fathering and poor moral choices instigate rejection of God. But the
continued denial of God diminishes our sensus divinitatus, which inexorably
leads to a breakdown of cognitive function. In this way, hearts are hardened.
So, what can Christians do if atheists are impeded from recognizing truth through
arguments? The first key is virtuous living, which both stands out as a “powerful
apologetic for unbelievers” and helps prevent believers from falling away
(p. 117). “The more virtuously one lives, the more truth one is able to access,
including truths about God and how to obey him” (p. 117).
Spiegel also notes with insight that to dwell on things that are excellent or praiseworthy,
as Philippians 4:8 commands, leads to doing things like reflecting
on the beauty of creation and therefore the Artist behind it. Avoid lewd entertainment.
Intentionally read good books.
“We should take advantage of the privilege to thank and praise God. It satisfies
emotionally and fertilizes faith” (p. 125). Atheists, unable to offer such
thanks, become frustrated by the impulse to do so when they are inspired by majestic
design in creation. Therefore live with understanding of their situation. “Be
willing to be shortchanged, belittled, ridiculed, and scorned, and not return the
same” (p. 128). This might influence a stubborn unbeliever, but it is living
the right way, regardless.
Readers’ commentsAlex F., Australia, 17 February 2012
John 3:21 (NIV)
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
Steven G., Canada, 18 February 2012
"In broad strokes, if all life formed by Darwinian selection whereby fitness is the sole determinant of that which persists, then even our cognitive faculties are the result of this process. If so, then “there is no necessary connection between the survival potential of a cognitive system and the truth of the beliefs it produces” (p. 58)."
If an atheist tries to assert that having true beliefs about the universe obviously conveys the best survival value then we can point to the naturalistic view on religion.
For the atheist, religions arose because it increased survival but according to their worldview all religions are false.
Therefore [under their worldview] we have a cognitive system [the mind] which produces false beliefs [religion] which have survival merit. Any product of the mind including the processing of the senses, and its logic may be similarly tainted.
John M., Canada, 21 February 2012
If our existence is but a cosmic accident,
a meaningless march along a millennial parade;
and all our musings are but pointless rhetoric, echoes from a pointless bang,
fading, assuredly, into a pointless oblivion;
then... for what does anything really matter?
(futility vs. hope Oct. 3, 2003) |
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Thomas, B.,
The God of Evolution, Journal of Creation 22(3):35–37,
2008. Return to text.
- “The desire for a cyclic universe is still very much
alive among non-Christian believers in the big bang.” Henry, J.F., Christian apologists
should abandon the big bang, Journal of Creation 23(3):103–109,
2009. Return to text.
- Geisler, N. and Turek, F., I Don’t Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, pp. 76–78, 2004. Return to text.
- See Bergman, J.,
Kinsey, Darwin and the sexual revolution, Journal of Creation 20(3):111–117,
2006. Return to text.
| Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. Help reach millions.  | | |
|
