ಠ_ಠ nathandemick.com

A Holiday Message from Nathan Demick: Why I'm not an Atheist

If you browse the internets with any degree of frequency, no doubt you've seen an essay by Ricky Gervais making the rounds. Gervais is a British actor, most famous for creating the TV show "The Office." In this essay, entitled "A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist," he promotes his atheistic beliefs, apparently as a counterpoint to whatever religious symbolism is still left in our culture's Christmas celebration.

Gervais starts out by attempting to be humble. When people ask him why he doesn't believe in God, he says, "I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite." Unfortunately, his honest answer, as detailed in the rest of the essay, felt very patronizing to me. I've attempted here to form a counter-point: "A Holiday Message from Nathan Demick: Why I'm not an Atheist."

Many people use the idea of empirical science as their reason for not believing in God. "In the ancient past," they reason, "man had no idea how the world worked. They created this idea of a "god" to explain natural phenomena. We now know how the world works, and the supernatural has no place in it. We can't test the existence of a deity, so therefore there is none." Yes, it's impossible to prove there is a God. But there are many pieces of evidence that, if we choose to consider them, point to his existence.

Consider the "lowly" cell: although it is the most basic component of biological life, it is ridiculously complex in its' own right. Just one cell is a marvel of biological engineering... but science doesn't have an answer for how cells originated. There are theories and conjectures, but no repeatable tests that can prove to us how life started. We can believe that life formed through naturalistic means. Or we can believe that the complexity of life was started by God. To be honest, both views seem a bit ridiculous at first glance. "Life was created by an all-powerful, invisible man." Or, "Life formed spontaneously out of nothing." But the first is less ridiculous, because of what I've learned through science.

If, while on a walk, you come across an arrangement of rocks (let's use Stonehenge as an example), you might consider how the stones came to be in that formation. Well, even primitive structures like Stonehenge are obviously the result of someone's will. How can we consider the intricacies of life to be the result of some ex nihilo naturalistic phenomenon? It's like finding an iPad on the ground and saying, "Hey, that's a pretty cool rock!" Science tells us that nature does not produce order from disorder, or life from nothing.

In Romans 1:20, Paul writes, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Nature itself (and science, which is the observation of nature) is evidence for God.

Just as we must choose between atheism and theism, a theist must choose what deity to believe in. That choice is made by examining the philosophy that a religion espouses, and deciding whether the physical evidence and our observations about life fit in with that philosophy. Studying religious texts is the easiest way to do this in many cases. In the case of Christianity, this would mean determining whether the Bible (a combination of Jewish and Christian religious writings) is a valid source of knowledge.

One way of determining its' validity is to look at its' contents. For example, the Bible claims to have been written by God through the inspiration of human authors. Part of their writings include predictions of the future. If these predictions were verified to be false, we could immediately determine the text to be unreliable. However, the oldest copies of Biblical texts have been dated to long before the events they predict (for example, when Jesus was supposed to appear — Google "Daniel 9"). Is this proof that God exists? No, but it's another chunk of evidence that you should consider before making your decision.

Some people today reject "Christian morals." They feel that such rules infringe on human rights — to live in whatever way seems best to them. "That's the way I am; I can choose for myself," they might say. Well, consider the psychotic serial murderer. Why can't he live his life in the way that comes most naturally for him? "It's not right," you might say. But who are you to say what is right for others? Does society determine what's right? In 1940's-era Germany, "right" was genocide against "ethnically inferior" people. Without an absolute source of truth, the morality of our actions is completely relative.

The Bible claims that humans were created to live in a certain way. Humans were created perfect, but made the choice to decide good and bad for themselves. When our ancestors did this, they introduced evil into the world — man's will instead of God's will. This is evident when we consider what's observable about people: we have capacity for greatness, but also depravity. In this case, the Bible perfectly describes the human condition, which is another piece of evidence that I consider in my choice.

These are some of the things I think about when others question my belief. I'm sure that this was a bit more rambling and disjointed than I'd hoped, but let me know in the comments if you'd like clarification. Just as I use the critiques of others as an opportunity for reflection, I hope you will too. In the end, your decision is your decision; just make sure that you've considered the evidence first.

1293029035 · 1 comments