Every time I have a conversation with a science-worshipping atheist, I get my suspicions reinforced more and more. It turns out that the argument on whether God exists or not is really irrelevant. A superficial hearing of the conversation may not portray that to the listener. But I’m becoming more assured of it. My personal feeling is that there is something deeper behind the disbelief, and I think the argument is only part of the picture.
There is a principle that I consistently uphold before talking about God with anyone, and it’s that they approach it not from a Christian understanding, but from a Muslim one. The precondition put forth is quite simple; before you ask me any question about God, I need that question to be filtered through “there is nothing like a likeness of Him”. You can read “Talking About God” to know what I mean by that. This precondition is so restrictive to the extent that it ends the conversation if it will not move onto something else other than the essence of God.
A very typical objection that I hear regarding my precondition is that it’s a “copout”. It’s an evasion and an open backdoor to get out of answering the so-called “important” questions about God. It’s really fascinating to me that the vastness of the universe is yet to be comprehensible, but somehow God who created it all will be quite easily understood. Hence, since science-worshipping atheists refuse to acknowledge things they don’t understand, and my precondition means they’ll never comprehend God; God does not exist. This make me wonder, if I don’t understand quantum mechanics, and no one has ever seen these ever so tiny things, should I refuse to recognize the existence of quantum particles?
Why such unjustified leaps in logic are made audaciously is beyond me. It’s the same issue with having explained the mechanism of how something works. Apparently it somehow implies that God does not exist. This is a kin to me observing a bunch of laptops, taking them all apart, putting them together bit by bit in different ways so as to figure out the function of each component, and once I’ve figured it all out, voila: the laptop manufacturer does not exist!
Many of these types of atheists that I’ve come across have a habit of hopscotching from answers to certain questions towards conclusions that have nothing to do with these questions, and seem to have no shame about it. The really puzzling bit about most atheists I’ve spoken with is their striking lack of recognition of their limited scope of knowledge and understanding. They’re either physicists, or chemists, or biologists, or whatever else they happen to specialize in, yet for the most part are not all that well versed in anything else.
Let’s take biology for example. The classic item on the science-worshipping atheist menu is the theory of evolution. It’s quite a delicious treat that leaves them very well satiated. It has all this so-called “evidence” that supports it and they claim that nothing else in science has the backing that the theory of evolution has. It’s a mindless process that with the time scale of the age of the earth being taken into consideration, makes sense how everything living on this planet has come about. It’s all random and undirected and whatever worked was able to be sustained, and through the approximately 4.5 billion years the earth has been around, it all worked out so I can finally write this article in Western Canada and you can read it wherever you happen to be across the globe.
Here is a slight problem that has to do with a bit of math. Let’s take collagen, the most common type of protein. It’s made out of 1,055 amino acids (building blocks) that are arranged in a specific sequence. If that sequence is off, you don’t get collagen. If you studied biochemistry you would’ve learned that collagen makes itself spontaneously and without direction. Bill Bryson in his “A Short History of Nearly Everything” gives a nice illustration on how unlikely the existence of collagen is:
…visualize a standard Las Vegas slot machine but broadened greatly – to about 27 meters, to be precise – to accommodate 1,055 spinning wheels instead of the usual three or four, and with twenty symbols on each wheel (one for each common amino acid). How long would you have to pull the handle before all 1,055 symbols came up in the right order? Effectively, forever. Even if you reduced the number of spinning wheels to 200, which is actually a more typical number of amino acids for a protein, the odds against all 200 coming up in a prescribed sequence are 1 in 10260 (that is a 1 followed by 260 zeros). That in itself is a larger number than all the atoms in the universe… (And) to be of use, a protein must not only assemble amino acids in the right sequence, it must then engage in a kind of chemical origami and fold itself into a very specific shape… (Furthermore) a protein is no good to you if it can’t reproduce itself, and proteins can’t. For this you need DNA. DNA is a whiz at replicating – it can make a copy of itself in seconds – but can do virtually nothing else. So we have a paradoxical situation. Proteins can’t exist without DNA and DNA has no purpose without proteins. Are we to assume, then, that they arose simultaneously with the purpose of supporting each other? If so: wow.
Bryson goes on with the rest of the cell and ends up with showing how everything in the cell needs everything and exclaims how could the first community of molecules ever arise in the first place. This is applicable on the larger scale as one goes into tissues, organs, and the body as a whole. Of course, after amazing the reader with all this wondrous information, Bryson tells us that it’s not all that wondrous and goes on to give the evolutionary tale. It’s the so-called “elegant” explanation of how everything randomly came about. However, if anyone who has studied statistics and probabilities tried to work out the numbers of how life came about through chance, the result would be a numerical figure that is so astounding we don’t even have a name to call it.
But hey, it just happened, and it is what it is, so just deal with it. “We live in the great improbability” is the atheist response. Despite that everything in biological studies is screaming “I have a non-random purpose and function that I’m fulfilling and it’s in synchrony with everything else”, I have to assume the contrary in order to be “rational”. By God, there is nothing more irrational than atheistic propositions.
Order, harmony, and synchrony are not only in biology. Take the night sky for example. Most atheists I’ve talked to have never actually gone out and examined the night sky. Sadly, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t really see it with all the light pollution from the city. The ancients from long ago have utilized the stars to serve them to navigate and tell time. Although it might seem all randomly scattered stars at first sight, a reflective gaze will allow one to see the patterns forming the constellations. These constellations are not just about horoscopes. Depending on the time of the year, the path the sun moves in will go through one of the 12 constellations. Knowing which constellation the sun goes through allows you to deduce which month of the year you’re in. Furthermore, if you know how to track the movement of constellations in the sky during the evening, you can tell what time it is without needing a watch. To top it all off, if you happen to get lost somewhere and don’t have your technology crutch, all you need to do is look up and you can use the stars to go in the appropriate direction to get to wherever you need to.
All that is random! Apparently I’m imposing upon the night sky what I want to see.
Take a look at the moon, which has a regular cycle of phases that has been important for keeping monthly calendars in many cultures. How about the gravitational field of the earth that is dependent on its size, which keeps the moon at a particular distance from it. The moon’s gravitational influence gives rise to the ocean tides, which have implications for ocean ecology. Any change in size of the earth, or size of the moon would’ve resulted in a different distance between the two, which would’ve produced a very different ecology on earth. But hey, it just happened.
Ever reflected about the distance of the earth from the sun? If we were any closer or any further we would’ve either burned up or frozen up. How about the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere? Lower means suffocation and higher means burning. What about the change in seasons and length of day and night produced by a particular angle and speed of rotation and revolution of the earth? Small-scale manipulations of conditions in botany labs change how plants grow, so how different would things have been if the speed or angle of the earth were other than they are? What about the atmospheric properties? What about….? Questions such as these can go on and on. But it seems that it’s all random and unrelated chance events that somehow all came to work together accidentally to allow for not only our existence and survival, but also our use and benefit.
If I were to gather a group of astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, ecologists, and any other kind of natural scientists, and had them relate what they know about the precise interplay of everything in the universe, and how everything is interconnected and how life just wouldn’t happen without it all working together, it will boggle the mind. But according to the atheist, it’s all a fluke. An accident. Random chance of events that just happened!
Interestingly enough, many of those so-called rational atheists who worship at the alter of science will reply by throwing the classic logical fallacy accusations. By saying that I’m arguing from incredulity in my previous examples, it automatically weakens them and they can even be discounted due to them having a logical fallacy. However, that doesn’t really address my assertions, which are backed by material evidence shown by science. Claiming that my argument is using logical fallacies does not necessarily mean that I’m wrong. In fact, rejecting my argument solely on the basis of it having a logical fallacy is a fallacious move in itself, which is called the argument from fallacy. It doesn’t actually show it be wrong merely by virtue of pointing that it’s employing some fallacy. What you should do instead is examine the simple scientific facts that I’ve stated and the proposition that is inferred. If you want to reject it you’ll need a counter argument that has something else other than a use of fallacy accusation.
At the end of the day, the bottom line with many of these atheists has nothing to do with philosophical arguments or science. These are just fronts being put up. Atheists who worship science like to accuse religious people of “evasions” and “copouts”, and claim that saying “God made all of this” makes life not interesting. Apparently the belief in God makes the main function of science, namely to workout the mechanism of how things work, not interesting anymore. The hypocrisy of these atheists is bewildering. While they accuse theists of copouts, they will seek at any cost to explain everything without God. It’s a goal in mind before attempting to answer any question. Science-worshipping atheists speak of objectivity and integrity, yet when it comes to this issue they’re subjective and dishonest. Give them any example of something that goes against all established experiments and theories and natural events, and they will come up with the most ridiculous far-fetched explanation to avoid attributing anything to God. I guess Ockham’s razor is only applicable when it’s convenient.
If we’re honest with each other about it, and we examine the full picture of how everything in the universe works, and combine that with all the theistic philosophical arguments that quite frankly trump their opposing ones, the scientism following atheist proposition that God does not exist cannot be described as anything other than laughable. Moreover, their consistent ludicrous proposals to explain the unbelievable synchrony and order, which was delineated using science, in order to avoid acknowledging the One responsible for all of it, can only lead to one conclusion. It is that these types of atheists are on a massive ego trip, and their staggering level of arrogance does not allow them to recognize something greater than themselves. Believing in God entails certain consequences to how they would live their lives, which means they can’t just follow their whims and desires anymore. The delusional prospect of not having to answer to a greater being at the end of the day is quite attractive. Their understanding of God is based on material presuppositions and cultural upbringings, which allows them to anthropomorphize and restrict His essence into a scientific hypothesis, as if they can measure and detect His existence through some lab equipment and manmade technology. Hence, they’re able to give preposterous explanations of how the world came about the way it is so as to take God out of the equation.
The sad reality is that after going through all of this, I’m reminded of the following verses from the Quran, Surah Al Kahf 18:54-57:
And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention
And nothing prevents people from believing when the guidance comes to them, and from asking forgiveness of their Lord, except that what happened to the ancients should overtake them, or that they should face chastisement
And We do not send apostles but as givers of good news and warning, and those who disbelieve make a false contention that they may render null thereby the truth, and they take My communications and that with which they are warned for a mockery
And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent before? Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; and if you call them to the guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case