Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 9, 2012

Home > 2009 > OctoberChristianity Today, October, 2009
Contra Mundum
When Atheists Believe
The confounding attraction of the Christian worldview.




In recent years Great Britain's chief export to the U.S. has been a payload of books by atheist authors such as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and literary critic Christopher Hitchens. They contend that faith is irrational in the face of modern science. Other prominent British atheists seem to be having second thoughts. Is there some revival sweeping England? No; they are examining the rationality of Christianity, the very beliefs Dawkins and others are so profitably engaging, but are coming to opposite conclusions.

Well-known scholar Antony Flew was the first, saying he had to go "where the evidence [led]." Evolutionary theory, he concluded, has no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. When I met with Flew in Oxford, he told me that while he had not come to believe in the biblical God, he had concluded that atheism is not logically sustainable.

More recently, A. N. Wilson, once thought to be the next C. S. Lewis who then renounced his faith and spent years mocking Christianity, returned to faith. The reason, he said in an interview with New Statesman, was that atheists "are missing out on some very basic experiences of life." Listening to Bach and reading the works of religious authors, he realized that their worldview or "perception of life was deeper, wiser, and more rounded than my own."

He noticed that the people who insist we are "simply anthropoid apes" cannot account for things as basic as language, love, and music. That, along with the "even stronger argument" of how the "Christian faith transforms individual lives," convinced Wilson that "the religion of the incarnation … is simply true."

Likewise, Matthew Parris, another well-known British atheist, made the mistake of visiting Christian aid workers in Malawi, where he saw the power of the gospel transforming them and others. Concerned with what he saw, he wrote that it "confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my worldview, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God." While Parris is unwilling to follow where his observations lead, he is obviously wrestling with how Christianity makes better sense of the world than other worldviews.

While we can't reason our way to God, I've long believed that Christianity is the most rational explanation of reality.

Could this signal a trend? Well, not yet. But it does illustrate something I have been teaching for years: Faith and reason are not enemies. We are given reason as a gift. And while we can't reason our way to God (only the power of God can transform fallen men—I've seen that in prisons for over 32 years), I have long believed that Christianity is the most rational explanation of reality. And that fact, winsomely explained, can powerfully influence thinking people to consider Christ's claims.

A strong empirical case can be made to show that Christianity is the only rational explanation of life. For the past six years, I've been teaching students in the Centurions Program to draw a grid listing the four basic questions that most people ask about life: Where did I come from? What's my purpose? Why is there sin and suffering? Is redemption possible? Then, on the other side of the matrix, we list the various philosophies and prominent world religions. By examining how each view answers the four questions, we can determine which worldviews conform to the way things really are. This is the correspondence theory of truth—a thoroughly rational test.

Students quickly see that only Christianity teaches that humans are created in the image of God, thus protecting their dignity. It's no coincidence that Christians have waged most of the great human rights campaigns.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 78 comments

CS

October 31, 2009  10:09am

What fact are referring to, Whitledge? There hasn't been anything factual in any of the posts of yours that I've read, just opinions and theories. You've proven nothing. You can't prove that my beliefs aren't factual, because you can't prove that their is no greater purpose, and you can't prove that God doesn't exist. The FACT is that no one can scientifically, philisophically, or otherwise, prove or disprove the existence of these things, not you and not me. That's where faith comes in, which is believing and living according to something that you can't necessarily see or understand all the time. If you have no faith, that's your choice, but stop trying to disprove something that you cannot, because it's a waste of time. In the mean time, I'll have FAITH that one day you might see REAL TRUTH, as it is. I wish you all the best, Whitledge. God Bless.

Anonymous

October 31, 2009  2:59am

Trolls posts replying to these topics are so predictable. But is the problem with reading comprehension sincere or deliberate? Obviously, Colson & Larson didn't try to document and prove a trend. (And they said that.) Rather, they considered the examples cited as illustrating the fact that: "Faith and reason are not enemies." But as to the troll's irrelevant challenges in posing their own talking points, why not post them in various Internet discussion forums where that is the purpose? After all, it would be nice if the posts appearing below these articles actually related directly to the article at the top of the page. Yes, insight would be nice as well but first I'd settle for relevance.

Jeffrey L. Whitledge

October 30, 2009  5:37pm

@lswansonkennedy - I never applied "good" or "bad" value judgments to survival and reproduction. When I say that a particular trait evolved because of the survival and reproductive advantage that it confers, I am not saying that it is good that it should have done so. Merely that it has done so. The great cats, for example, have sharp teeth and claws so that they may better kill their prey. This is because those are the cats that survived and reproduced more successfully compared to the ones with dull teeth and claws. Whether or not that is a good or a bad thing is completely irrelevant. It is just a fact. My point was that the universe doesn't care whether something survives or not, so "ultimate" judgments like that are meaningless. By far most species that have ever lived on the earth are gone now and forever. And all organisms die eventually, regardless of their success. Yet the universe remains. If that is depressing, then I suggest shifting perspective to more immediate concerns.

Jeffrey L. Whitledge

October 30, 2009  5:12pm

@CS - I would not say that someone who is the result of an unplanned pregnancy necessarily has more or less of a purpose than anyone else, though it could be argued that their answer to the question "why am I here?" might most accurately be made with reference to the carelessness of her or his parents. But there are many shades of "purpose", and I think the best purposes are the ones that people make for themselves. What I don't understand is why you think a fact can be made wrong because it is unpleasant or a belief can be made right because it is comforting.

lswansonkennedy

October 30, 2009  12:39am

Part 3/3 - Here, we are still left with questions of ultimatum: DNA perpetuation for what? More DNA perpetuation? In your argument, there is a presupposition that survival advantage and DNA perpetuation are “good” and that life-shortening and counter-reproduction are “not good”. These presuppositions - that DNA survival is better than DNA destruction, or that infertility is inferior to virility, or that a long life is better than a short life, are essential to your argument, yet they are not substantiable without acknowledging ultimate purpose.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper

Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Kyria.com
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com