Why Would Anyone Not Believe in God?

If you read my blog project responding to philosophical challenges against Christianity, both morally and intellectually, the topic of why God doesn't give everyone undeniable proof will probably sound familiar to you. In part 2 I cited A. J. Ayer, a prominent atheist who had a near-death experience and saw a representation of God. Yet, afterward he still denied an afterlife and God's existence. Also in the conclusion I cited Romans 1:18-20, which had God allowing people who longed to be immoral to go their own way.

Here is more of a presentation of why that makes sense. I have two examples that are straight from unbelievers themselves, and others that are reported by Christians. A major appeal in this post will be to the fact that what believers can say about unbelievers makes so much sense. Here I wish to argue that just because a lot of scientists don't believe in God, doesn't mean they are probably right.

"...we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door," I remember reading in William Dembski's and Jonathan Witt's Intelligent Design Uncensored (I think). But it's a quote that has appeared in a number of different sources. I was happy to have a book, I found one and possibly have more, which has the full quote. This was said by Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." (1)

Interestingly enough, my other source offers a reasonable suggestion to why some atheists can have a "commitment to materialism" that leaves God out of the picture. Thomas Nagel, called a "first-rate philosopher of the mind" by Intelligent Design proponent Douglas Axe, said this: 

 "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
"My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind." (2)

In the post before this I cited Paul Churchland, who said, "We are creatures of matter. And we should learn to live with that fact." I don't know anything at all about Churchland except he was (maybe still is) a big expert of physicalism. I don't know why he said that. But it is all too easy to imagine a zeal for his beliefs, that God did not create us. We should learn to accept the fact that everyone's decisions, even moral ones, were forced to happen by atoms jumbling around in our brain, since there is no room for free will in a universe with no free causes(3).

Christians like the preacher Dr. David Jeremiah and apologist Dr. Frank Turek have had more than their fair share of experiences where people turn away from God, they refuse to become Christians, because their life would have to change. I met one person at school who said that too. (It was really sad. In order to be saved anyone just has to believe in Jesus. Still, what people can resist is the fact that by accepting Jesus as their Savior, they are inviting Him, the Holy Spirit, into their lives. He confirms they do very bad things in life, and they need to grow in Christ and stop.) I just recently came across a case where Christian apologist and astronomer Hugh Ross reported, after giving a lecture on evidence for Christianity, one physicist professor said he wouldn't believe because of sexual immorality(4). Not surprisingly, the freedom to sleep with whoever one wants can be very appealing to athe -- well, anyone really. It's a common example I've come across. Sex drive can be a drive for rejecting God.

Douglas Axe points out that scientists are people too(5). They have desires and can want to feed them. 

Now this isn't to say that all Darwinists are this way. Perhaps atheism is just more reasonable than Christianity anyway. And/or a scientist could buy into what they are taught and not really seek the other side, or get it from people arguing against and so could be selected with bias. And/or they could be really supported in their community of intellectuals and want to be right, and not bother to ask questions. And/or they could be overwhelmed by atheistic claims. Moreso, let's not forget Nagel's point that people "naturally" want to be correct. They might not really care and just give in to a picture of the world without God, and then resist theistic arguments. These examples go for both expert scientists and lay people.

Furthermore, being driven by desire -- even strong desire -- does not necessarily invalidate a conclusion. I like to think that my arguments work (they are unchallenged, with only 4 supportive comments so far from others), even though I was driven by a strong desire to prove that people have an objective right to live(6). Actually, my bias grew because as I learned, I got more and more convinced Christianity needs to be proven. 

As Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (More on that next post.) Another desire I have is for any reader to weigh my arguments on the basis of logic and evidence.

What matters is the argument. 

Citations:

1. Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, 31. Cited in Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: Wheaton, IL. 2004), 123, emphasis theirs.

2. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 130-31, emphasis added. Cited in Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life is Designed (HarperOne: 2016), 8.

3. For more on free will and Paul Churchland's citation, see "Revisiting the Non-Matter of Consciousness and Intelligence (yes, that is a pun)" 

4. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God (NavPress: 1993), 153.

5. Axe, Undeniable, 8. 

6. To learn more, see "Is Religion a Curse? My Thoughts on the Moral Implications of Jesus-God and no-god"