Social researchers tell us that the percentage of people who are atheists is increasing in the West. It is interesting that most of them claim rational reasons for their non-belief in God.
However, research conducted by the American Psychological Association suggests this is not so. They conducted studies in which they interviewed atheists and graded the extent to which their atheism was influenced by experiences of disappointment, anger, hurt, or alienation.
What is fascinating is that 54% reported that they had relational and emotional reasons for non-belief. Another study of 429 Americans put the number even higher, at 72%. In other words, people were atheists for emotional reasons. Their non-belief had very little to do with being rational.[1]
After the harsh atheism of the mid twentieth century, Time magazine reported that there was a revival of belief in God amongst many of the world’s top philosophers. It said:
God? Wasn’t he chased out of heaven by Marx, banished to the unconscious by Freud and announced by Nietzsche to be deceased? Did not Darwin drive him out of the empirical world? Well, not entirely. In a quiet revolution in thought and arguments that hardly anyone could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers … but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic philosophers.[2]
It is significant that atheism’s preeminent intellectual philosopher in the late 20thcentury, Sir Anthony Flew, came to believe in God in 2004 at the age of 81. His reason he gave for doing so was that he’d gone “where the evidence led him.”
Notwithstanding the advent of the “Society of Christian Philosophers” in 1978, the interest in God by Western university philosophy departments has not generally been maintained. Atheism is now the only worldview most philosophy departments allow; and this is a pity.
Despite the fact that atheists claim their worldview is based on rationalism, in reality, it is a worldview with massive gaping holes. Atheism requires people to have a very blinkered view of reality, and requires them to hold scientific convictions that are irrational. Specifically, it requires:
- the belief that everything in the universe (or universes) came from nothing, as a result of nothing.
- the belief that the absurd level of order and ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe (which has allowed life) is the result of some unknown factor… when the only factor known that has ever explained such a thing is ‘intelligence.’
- an ignorance of world history and of worldviews that have been responsible for the best when it comes to civility and justice.
- the belief that the deep-seated moral code within us is simply a product of evolution which has taught us that things are more ‘efficient’ for our species if we co-operate and are nice. It requires you to believe this, even when evolution has taught us the most other animals to kill off rivals from other species, and sometimes even from within their own species.
- an ignorance of Jesus Christ and the historical evidence surrounding the gospel claims of his life, death and resurrection.
Put simply: the empiricist prison of atheism doesn’t match most people’s experience of life.
So, what can we conclude?
Atheism may hide behind the coat-tails of rationality, but when you sweep the coat-tails away, it is difficult to see anything other than wounded people… or those who are ‘wilful atheists,’ i.e. those who ‘want to’ not believe, because they want to ‘do their own thing.’
Evidence suggests that there is a mind behind the universe… and if this is so, we’d do well to find out about that ‘Mind’… and co-operate with the big plan.
[1] Bradley, D. F., Exline, J. J., & Uzdavines, A. (2016, March 17). Relational reasons for nonbelief in the existence of gods: An important adjunct to intellectual nonbelief. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advanceonline publication.
Exline, J. J., Park, C. L., Smyth, J. M., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Anger toward God: Social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 129-148.
[2] Timemagazine, 7th April, 1980.
