The following is a brief excerpt from a larger book.
For a fuller treatment of this subject as well as a better context, see:
I’d Like To Believe In Jesus But..(The harder, less frequently discussed questions) By Bob Siegel
Published by CSN Books Copyright © 2007 by Bob Siegel All Rights Reserved
Published by Campus Ambassador Press Copyright © 1999 by Bob Siegel All Rights Reserved
This article is not to be reproduced without written permission from the author.

Premise:

On college campuses, I frequently attract attention to my outdoor open forums but putting up a large, challenging sign that says in big bold letters: “Atheism Is Inconsistent.”

The sign is not intended as an insult. It is instead an attempted return to the rich heritage of universities in which different philosophies were constantly tested and debated. Debates can be done civilly, with respect, although I must admit that these days the appearance of such a sign looks unusual and provocative. Still, it does bring people around. Before long, I am confronted by that first brave soul, usually some confident looking intellectual who is just ready to teach me a thing or two. “Why is atheism inconsistent?” he asks.

“Because nobody lives as an atheist,” I say. “If we cannot live according to our own philosophy, the philosophy becomes questionable.”

“I live consistently as an atheist,” he answers. “I don’t believe in God. I don’t attend church. The Bible has nothing to do with my life.”

“I believe you. I believe you sincerely think that God doesn’t exist. I believe you live your life seldom, if ever, thinking about God. But if God did not exist, certain other truths would follow. Neither you nor anyone else live consistently with the implications of His nonexistence.”

“What do you mean by that?”

The implications of God’s nonexistence

There are only three possibilities that account for our universe. Any theory, scientific or philosophical, would have to fall under one of these broad categories.

A. It came about by accident, apart from a creator.

B. It always existed, apart from a creator.

C. It has a creator or creators. (It is easy to assume with our bias that creation was the work of a monotheistic God. To enter this discussion with an open mind, we must admit the initial possibility of several creators. For the sake of easier communication however, we will refer to the idea of “creator or creators” with the familiar word, “God” and the familiar gender, “He”).

Theories A and B would indicate that life is meaningless. Our intuitive and universal belief that life should have meaning had to come from somewhere. Even those who aren’t searching for a general purpose to life think often about personal value. The very idea of such value had to have a source. Therefore, we can conclude that value and meaning came from a source outside of ourselves. Theories A and B do not account for such possibilities. For this reason, we are left with Theory C; “Some kind of God exists.”

Defense For the Premise

People claim to live without a sense of God, but the real truth of the matter is that no one lives as if he/she were here by accident.

When asking a skeptical science student how our beautiful and complicated world came about by mere chance, I was exposed to an interesting answer; “Look, it took billions and billions of years. It only makes sense that things would finally come out right.”

“What do you mean by ‘right?” I said, “If life is an accident, there is no such thing as right and there is no such thing as wrong. If life is an accident, what is, just is. All opinions about right and wrong would be just that, opinions.”

Do you consider yourself to have personal worth? Do you attach importance to your life? Would you expect from others, the same respect, appreciation, love and acceptance that they would expect from you? Do you feel a need to discover personal gifts and talents so as to make a valid contribution of some sort? Would you be bored and discontent doing unfulfilled work? Would you be satisfied with mere survival apart from happiness? Is happiness possible apart from what was just mentioned? If not, then we stand in full agreement. Without personal value, life is chaotic.

At the same time, if humans don’t have a universal purpose, there is really no such thing as genuine value. Value becomes a mere invention, a hopeless dream. All that we work for, fight for and stand for is ultimately unimportant. Even if we can’t find this purpose behind life, the acceptance of a mystery is preferable to disbelief. Without such meaning, individual pursuit turns into vanity. We very much like to feel that someday, somehow, our experience will count for something. But without God, such an idea is nonsense. Why? Because there can never be a purpose behind accidental creatures. Just think: Success, freedom, human rights, none of these “virtues” have any coherence apart from the notion that we are genuinely precious.

“Well maybe life is an accident. Maybe we simply create value to enjoy ourselves more.”

Why does one need to create value to enjoy himself more? If we really don’t have value, where did such a preposterous idea originate?

“Maybe our thoughts of value were also an accident. Not everybody agrees as to what is important and what isn’t.”

Certainly variations exist, but we agree on more than the average person takes time to notice. The ultimate certainty for human worth is frequently ignored, yet obvious as your own thumbnail. I am referring to the conscience, that inward reflection appraising all thoughts, all motives and all actions. With unexplained intuition, people sense a responsibility to live with ethics. This is a firm contradiction to the theory of chance existence. If my neighbor is a mere accident, I owe my neighbor nothing. I am without moral obligation. After all, where would a mere fluke obtain the right to pass judgment? There could be no standard with which to measure his/her idea. Let us, for a moment, examine the obvious. Why would we consider it despicable to lie, cheat, steal or murder? Why does one feel bothered over a selfish, inconsiderate decision? In fact, why should it be inhumane to walk out on the street and shoot the first person we see?

“Oh come on. Of course it would be immoral to kill. What right do I have to shoot another human being?”

A good question. What right do you have? But finish your question. What right does the victim have to not be shot? Does this challenge sound horrifying? Only because the world wide condemnation of murder is outrageously clear. Now think for a moment and try to analyze the situation. What really makes an action good or bad?

Once, while sparring with an atheist, I said to him, “If I were to conduct an experiment and steal your pencil, I could actually defend my move on the basis of logic alone. In fact, it would be impossible to condemn the theft by way of a proven standard. You will, of course, tell me how wrong it is to take what belongs to another. But such declarations flow from mere assumption. Could I not question your starting point? Why is it wrong?”

“It’s wrong because stealing is against the law,” he replied.

“But people willingly chose to establish those laws. Remember, moral presuppositions existed before the law was invented. As another person here by accident, no better and no worse than anyone else, I challenge those presuppositions. No, the law will not do. I will need a better reason if you want your pencil returned.”

“Law or not, everyone knows that it’s terrible to steal.”

“How do we know? The argument of ‘everybody says so’ can lead to frustrated, circular reasoning.”

“But these people are bearing witness to an obvious truth, ‘Stealing is wicked and corrupt.’”

“All you are saying is that stealing is evil because stealing is evil. Again, this is not an answer.”

“Here’s a reason: We should respect our fellow man.”

“Why should we respect our fellow man?”

“Because people have rights.”

“On what authority do we assume that people have rights?”

Do you see my point? We could go on for days and never get anywhere. Some of life’s most basic facts are really subjective unexplained feelings. This does not mean that the feeling is imaginary or mistaken. Not at all. We don’t ignore our sixth sense simply because it can’t be analyzed. It suffices to say that our knowledge of ethics is unaccompanied by reason.

To live consistently as an atheist, one must admit that all morals are invented. One must deny the validity of a universal moral standard residing in every conscience. In short, one must become a Moral Relativist. But Moral Relativism is quicksand. Nobody can live that way consistently. Sometimes a philosophy sounds clever in the classroom, but as soon as a student walks out the door of this classroom and finds that his bicycle had just been swiped, he no longer feels so sophisticated about the origin of ethics.

I usually meet moral relativists in the context of religious discussions. Sooner or later in our conversation, they express concern about religious hypocrisy. I always ask “Are you morally outraged by religious hypocrisy?” When they answer “Yes,” I say, “How can that be if there is really no such thing as morals?”

Forgive me for using more graphic and horrible examples: If someone broke into your house and murdered one of your loved ones right before your eyes, would you say to yourself. “Well, as one accident to another, I guess I can’t be dogmatic here. In my opinion, what this person did was wrong, but since that is only an opinion, who am I to judge?” I don’t think you would react that way. But such would be the consistent reaction of a Moral Relativist.

The last time you read in the papers that a woman was raped, did you think deep inside, “Clearly that rapist had a different set of values than me. Oh well.” I know. This would sound like a joke if it weren’t such a disturbing illustration. Of course you didn’t react that way at all. You cried out with indignation. You said, “This evil person must be brought to justice!”

There is no logical explanation for the conscience. An action is wrong simply because it is wrong. That’s all we know. Further information has never been needed to persuade us of the right decision. Looking only at ourselves, we come face to face with a most baffling mystery. This is where a creator moves easily into the picture. Perhaps our joint, intuitive sense of judgment and accountability finds origin in a Being who will literally hold us accountable. It would be difficult not to at least consider this possibility. The illogic of morality as an end in itself takes on a whole new light when we consider a probable source. We are now drawn back to a closer examination of the creation/accident question.

The conscience will immediately condemn any individual who fails to treat his fellow man with love and respect. This awareness of “due respect” supports the certainty of human value. We already established that value could not be authentic apart from a universal purpose. Simple as it sounds, we have stumbled upon a path for the searching soul. One can easily move from morality to value to purpose to a God who established this purpose.

“Hold on. This is sliding by just a little bit too fast. Let’s back up a minute. The conscience seems to be your focal point. I can concede the likelihood of God if there were no other explanation for morality. But many people pose plausible ideas for the birth of standards.”

The general humanistic explanation is commonly called The Wolf Pack Theory. The theory goes something like this: A long time ago, society learned that in order to survive, it would be mutually beneficial for people to treat one another with consideration. Laws were introduced in the event that some individuals did not wish to reciprocate. In other words, mere convenience is mistakenly called “morality”. It’s not that I sense any inherent value in humans. It’s just that I treat you well in the hopes that you will do the same to me. The conscience is a habitual system of thoughts, derived from the “wolf pack.”

This theory can be easily tested. First of all, those who appeal to the explanation, frequently do so in the name of relativism for the purpose of excusing some alleged sins. “Since morality isn’t real,” they say, “I’m entitled to develop my own rules. You therefore, have no right to judge my actions.” But if it is wrong for me to judge, then there is such a thing as wrong. With the same breath in which morality is questioned, morality is confirmed.

Another problem with the Wolf Pack Theory is that frequently people do convenient things at other people’s expense. They still feel guilty. Where did the guilt come from if self interest and convenience are supposedly the whole reason we even have standards to begin with? It’s easy to talk about cave men and the origin of laws, but the truth is, I have only the experiences of my own life with which to decide what is right or wrong.

Supposing you are undercharged ten dollars by the cashier at a grocery store. You know that it will not be discovered until the end of the day when they total the register. You will not be caught. You can get away with this. What is the convenient thing to do? The convenient thing is to keep the money, of course. But would this descion make you feel guilty? If so, how do you explain your guilt?

“Brainwashing could explain the guilt. It may be that people feel bad for simply acting contrary to the very way they were brought up. The origin of this standard is something they never questioned.”

People who ask for evidence of a God, usually consider themselves to be free thinkers, and I agree with them. This sudden, about face, insinuation that they are actually brainwashed is most interesting. After all, once we realize we were brainwashed, we are not brainwashed any more. Therefore, we should be able now to dismiss the voice of our conscience and sleep well at night. Try to imagine yourself keeping that money from the grocery store without guilt. The guilt should not be there. Supposedly you were just brainwashed into believing that it is wrong to rip people off, and you have now risen above such a delusion.

“Some people do commit crimes without any feelings of remorse.”

Yes, and there is a name for such people. We call them psychopaths, implying that there is something terribly wrong with their minds. A psychopath is one with a warped or broken conscience. Calling something broken is not the same as implying that it doesn’t really exist. The very label psychopath demonstrates that people really do see the conscience as something genuine, but malfunctioning, in a particular case. Likewise, some are born without an ability to walk, but we don’t take that to mean that legs are only imaginary.

“But many who have a working conscience still live immoral lives.”

That is the greatest argument that we didn’t invent our moral standards. If we were going to invent something, wouldn’t we invent something we could live up to better? Ever since the traceable beginnings of history, the world has known war, crime, greed, hatred and bloodshed. Our technology has improved, but our nature is barbaric as ever.

For a while, it was popular to believe that our species was evolving into a more civilized, compassionate being. The Nazi holocaust completely obliterated this fantasy. It made Nero’s Rome look like a picnic by comparison and yet it happened in the twentieth century. People representing every range of career, personality, age and social class performed deeds that stunned the world. The world should not have been shocked. When the pressure is turned on, man’s true nature erupts to the surface like deadly molten lava. People experience a wickedness which they never thought possible. Those who live in a peaceful environment can easily submerge this evil side, but the evil remains.

Even in everyday life, we see people making selfish, callous decisions all the time, while the conscience tells us not to behave that way. This suggests that the conscience is coming from some entity outside of ourselves.

“Isn’t it true that different societies produce different morals?”

Yes. But almost every single culture at least agrees that people should be treated with respect.1 This is the one moral which is universal. For example, in some middle eastern countries, it is considered polite for dinner guests to burp after a meal while still sitting at the table. In America, that would be considered impolite. What’s interesting is that both cultures agree that people should be polite.

“What about racist organizations or those older societies which corporately enslaved others? Here, we do not see even the standard of respect.”

They aren’t obeying the standard but the standard to respect people still exists. What we see is a redefinition of the term person or at least the term good person. When slavery or any other human evil is justified, some kind of rationalization occurs. Hitler succeeded in recasting the Jews as villains before persecuting them. He assumed that such propaganda was necessary. He did not assume that he could just kill Jews for no reason and have nothing to answer for. African Americans were labeled as sub-human by many in the Pre-Civil War South.2 Why? Because for wealthy slave owners to admit that all people were the same, would be to admit that slavery was evil. Humans are notorious for figuring out ways to disobey their consciences.

It is true however, that certain types of brainwashing do occur when rationalization is taught. Mark Twain illustrated this truth in Huckleberry Finn. Young Huck, because of his background, felt guilty for helping his slave friend, Jim, escape down the Mississippi, because he had always been taught that to assist a runaway slave was wrong. At the same time, Huck knew that he would feel guilty for refusing to help poor Jim. What was confusing for a young boy, need not be a mystery to us. We see the brainwashing of a cruel, slave trading society, against the accurate, natural principle of love and kindness.

Granted, individuals are exposed to contradictory influences and a large panorama of teaching, but this antithesis, at the very best, would create neutrality. We add to this neutrality, a rebellious period in which children question most, if not all, of their values. The rebellion is generally followed by a more mature time of inventory. People ultimately pick and choose. A specific selection is made concerning which standards will remain or disappear. There must be some underlying feeling on which this choice is based. If a woman agrees that lying is wrong, there was something in herself that provided a comparison.

Meanwhile, let me bring attention to the fact that our very condemnation of certain evil societies also argues against the Wolf Pack Theory, for according to Moral Relativists, whatever a society decides to do cannot be questioned. Why then, do we morally renounce the gladiator games of ancient Rome or the slave based economic system of the Pre-Civil War South? Are we not assuming a universal standard which transcends culture?

I once asked this question to a student who claimed that the conscience was a human invention to help society function.

“So then,” I said, “you have no problem with the early slave states, for they got together as a culture and decided that there was nothing wrong with owning other human beings as property. In fact, the institution of slavery was very convenient, for it boosted the prosperity of the South.”

Wanting to be consistent with his earlier point, the student finally said, “I suppose that would be true.”

“Let’s be clear,” I said “Let’s make sure there is no misunderstanding. Are you saying for the record that there is nothing wrong with slavery so long as a society agrees that there is nothing wrong with it?”

“I guess I am saying that.”

“I don’t think you really feel that way. You are claiming so now to win an argument, but if we had met in a different context, and we were merely discussing racism or politics apart from philosophy, there is no way you would assert that slavery can be justified in any situation.”

“Sure I would.”

“Really? Ok. Let’s try an experiment. You are on your way to class. I want you to ask the professor for just one minute of class time before the lecture begins. I want you to look your fellow students in the eye, and say to them (without telling anyone about the context of our conversation), ‘I just want all of you to know something about me. I do not believe that there was anything wrong with slavery in the Pre-Civil War South, because a certain culture had made a decision about morality, and I believe we should respect the varied opinions of all cultures.’ Would you be willing to give that announcement?”

He looked at me for a second and then said in a very cocky voice, “Yeah! Yeah, I’ll go say that.”

“Ok, I’ll be out here tomorrow with this same book table at 1:00. If you come back and tell me you made that statement, I won’t call you a liar. I’ll believe you.”

We made the appointment. I never saw him again. I’ll eat my hat if he made that statement. He discovered that day that he did indeed believe in the value of people, a value which would be impossible if life were an accident.

“Okay, I agree that life would have no real meaning if we are accidental. But what about theory B? Supposing the universe is eternally existent with a meaning inherent in itself? After all, people refer to God as eternally existent. If God’s meaning can be eternal, why can’t the same be true of our universe?”

Would a timeless existence apart from God explain the conscience? Not at all. Rules do not float around a godless universe like alphabet soup. Ethics are not interwoven with inanimate objects or chemical reactions. There can be no such thing as a mindless moral principle, because morality is bound up with personality. It is a running commentary on how personalities interact.

Speaking of human personality, it contradicts the idea of an eternal, godless, impersonal universe. Personality had to come from somewhere. Something had to always exist. You can’t get something out of nothing. No one will argue this point. It doesn’t take much stretch of the imagination to conclude such an obvious truth. Now then, if something had to always exist, this something had to be a thinking, feeling, sentient personality. If not, we would be at a loss to explain where personality came from.

“Personality could have evolved.”

Evolution is only an unproven theory. Even if the theory is credible to you, consider the fact that there are many Theistic Evolutionists, scientists who believe that for things to be constantly evolving from a lower order to a higher order, some type of supreme being must be ushering life along according to a strategy. Charles Darwin himself believed in God and did not write Origin of The Species to disprove God’s existence.3 But if you are talking about an evolution that moves according to randmoness and chance, we have a serious problem. Whatever the theories as to how many billions of years it took, you are still claiming that ultimately, the personal came from the impersonal. That makes no sense according to any logic I ever heard of. Also, an impersonal universe would have no meaning, leaving human life, once again, as an accident.

“Maybe we are all part of some eternal consciousness that is merely part of the universe.”

One would ask how finite people received an eternal nature and entered an eternal universe. All human beings have origin as well as death, two obvious mortal qualities. If we want to suggest that the first humans did not have parents we are either affirming that they were created or suggesting that they themselves were without a beginning. Either way, we have brought a God back into the picture. At the moment, we are trying to imagine life without that possibility.

“OK, maybe not eternal people, but perhaps an eternal underlying force of some sort. Maybe this unseen power holds the universe together and supplies meaning.”

We would at once ask if this power has feeling and intellect. If not, where did feeling and intellect come from? We are suggesting chaos and accident again. A power that arranges things must do so according to a plan. Without the plan, there is no point to the arrangement. With the plan, we are back to a personal power, a creator of some quality. Let’s face it: It really makes no sense to leave out God when discussing the meaning to life.

“But many seem to live sensible lives without even thinking about God.”

This is quite true. People frequently take the heavy questions for granted and concentrate instead on surface living. I once asked a college student if he ever thought about the meaning of life on a deeper level than school, work or socializing. He responded by saying, “What else is there?” The ability to ignore a question does not invalidate the answer.

Footnotes:

1) The Dubians, of Dubu Island, off the Southern shore of eastern New Guinea, have a rather unusual social system, one that people sometimes point to as evidence of a society which does not believe people should be respected. It seems, believe it or not, that the Dubians praise treachery and bad will. If, for example, one chooses to kill another, he should eat and drink with him first, so that the murder will seem especially traitorous. The Dubians have no chiefs, and no organization to speak of, but instead live in virtual anarchy. (Ruth Benedict, Patterns Of Culture pp. 130-131).

It is important to note that the near by neighbors of the Dubians consider them to be treacherous and the Dubians themselves, in order to praise treachery, are admiting in their own unusual way, that treachery is evil. Their choice to willfully pervert standards does not disprove anything I have said about a universal knowledge of right and wrong.

2) The Supreme Court’s fateful, Dred Scott decision of 1857 ruled that black slaves were,in fact, non- human and therefore the property of their owners, even if they should escape and make their way to the North.

3) Although he still believed in God when he wrote Origin of the Species, late in life Darwin had many doubts about the God of the Bible and considered himself to be an agnostic. This belief, however, still maintained that some kind of God might exist. Darwin stopped being a Christian partly because of the death of his daughter and not because of the theory of evolution alone (Rebecca Stefoff, Charles Darwin and The Evolution Revolution, Francis Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin p. 61, 68-9).

Although I myself do not believe in the theory of evolution, it should still be pointed out that Genesis was not written as a science book but rather as a history of the people of Israel. Only the first three chapters talk about the creation of the world and the fall of human beings into sin. This tells us something about the priority of the writer. He was obviously giving a quick review of an oral tradition already known to the people. Only when Abraham comes on the scene in chapter 12, does the narrative slow down and begin to give intricate detail. We conclude that specifics about creation were not the writer’s intention.

The first chapter of Genesis is written in a style of writing known as Hebrew Poetry. It is not seeking to give any kind of order to creation, as evidenced by the fact that the world exists with water and vegetation prior to the creation of the sun (Gen 1:14). The word for day (yom) is a Hebrew word that did not have to mean a literal 24 hour day but could also be referring to an event (Joel 1-3). This poem then, could simply be God’s way of discussing different events in the stages of creation.

The Bible portrays God as being completely removed from time ( 2 Peter 3:8, Revelation 13:8). Time is a human limitation. When we ask whether it took God six days or six million years to create the world, the question is irrelevant. In fact, it took God no amount of time at all to create the world, because God does not exist in time. To speak at our level, God is using language we will relate to. Since we live in time and space, it is possible that a very long process over the years (as we understand years) created the world and slowly brought about different forms of life.

Genesis then, leaves room for the theory of evolution or, perhaps, a better theory. I personally would put my emphasis on the words “perhaps a better theory” but for now, belief in an old earth along with Darwin’s theories, does not contradict the Bible in any way.

Share this on