The leading atheistic philosopher in the early twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, was once asked what he would say to God by way of explanation when asked why he didn’t believe in him. His reply was: “Not enough evidence; not enough evidence”… which raises the really good question: “What would enough evidence look like?”

What if God answered this question by creating a universe of unimaginable wonder – a universe constructed according to the rules of very advanced mathematics? Would that cause our atheists to accept the probable existence of God? And what if the universe had many factors finely tuned to a degree of many, many trillionths of exactitude so as to allow life to develop on at least one planet? Could atheists reasonably dismiss that as coincidental? How many trillionths would an atheist need before he or she reviewed their position?

In Bertrand Russell’s case, he simply refused to look at the evidence. During a 1948 debate with the Jesuit philosopher, Father Frederick Copleston, he said: “I do think the notion of the world having an explanation is a mistake. I don’t see why one would expect it to have.”^[1] This comment from a leading academic is an extraordinary one. Russell’s answer to the existence of mind-boggling complexity, codes, and fine-tuning of the universe, was simply not to ask any questions about it. This, I submit, can in no way be construed as intellectual honesty.

Let’s muse for a moment: What if Bertrand Russell was persuaded that God existed? He might still claim that it was impossible to actually know that God.

But, but, but… What if God came to Earth 2,000 years ago to show us what God was like – and to die to pay the price for our sins which would otherwise disbar us from him? What if God did that? Would that be enough to persuade Bertrand to accept God’s love and lordship?

Quite honestly, it is difficult to know what else God could have done to invite an atheist to respond to his love with his or her own. What else could God have done that would also preserve the need for faith to be freely chosen rather than forced? God knew full well that a forced relationship is not an authentic one.

Is that what Bertrand Russell wants – a totally unambiguous revelation of God’s identity and glory, a self-revelation even clearer than that revealed by the universe, and clearer than that revealed by Jesus? Does Bertrand want God to force himself on humanity? Because if so, it is not going to happen. God won’t force anything. He invites faith with a language that is only heard by the humble – in the language of the cosmos, and through the person of Jesus.

Not enough evidence? Really?

What do you think?

^[1]       Reported in: Howard P. Kainz, The Existence of God and the faith-instinct, (Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont Publishing, 2010), 21.