A reader who himself doesn’t see a difference between the two asked me how I could possibly believe there is one.
That question, which my correspondent considers rhetorical, deserves an answer, ideally a book-sized one. But we have the space we have, so let’s make do.
Let’s start with the difference between faith, belief that God exists, and atheism, belief that God doesn’t exist. (We’ll put to one side the fact that ‘God exists’ is a theologically dubious phrase. Actually, God doesn’t exist. It’s because of God that everything else does. But some shorthand is inevitable in this format.)
Neither the believer nor the atheist can provide laboratory-standard, peer-reviewed proof for his assertion. Therefore we are dealing with opposition not between faith and fact, but one between two a priori assumptions, two hypotheses, each raised to a fideistic height.
One of them is based on God’s revelation given by methods both natural (through the possibility of perceiving much of his creation experimentally) and supernatural (through the Scripture and church tradition). The other is based on nothing but man’s own fanciful speculation. As such, it is not even so much faith as superstition.
Even scientists declaring themselves to be atheists, and trying to use science to vindicate their atheism, nonetheless start from the premise of accepting the existence of rational and universal natural laws.
If they wish to be logical, then, while rejecting the existence of a rational and universal law-giver, they are forced to ascribe rational behaviour to nature itself. That is the most primitive pantheism, and only in our crazy world can it pass for serious thought. Strip their frenzied harangues bare of scientific cant, and they descend to the intellectual level of a prehistoric shaman.
It would be foolhardy to deny that, whichever way we go, we are guided in our choice by emotional need, not just a dispassionate weighing of intellectual pros and cons. But Christian belief offers much greater rewards in either area.
The idea of having been created and guided through life by a loving, merciful and self-sacrificial God is more emotionally appealing than the notion of man’s descent from a single-cell organism via an unsavoury mammal that looks like a ghastly caricature of a human being. And intellectually, a thinker who starts from the theocentric premise will be able to explain next to everything that matters, while his anthropocentric counterpart will explain next to nothing.
A Christian has a clear and on its own terms coherent idea of how things, including the world and man in it, got to be. An atheist doesn’t. He may make claims to that effect, but in fact he doesn’t have a clue.
He can come up with one wild guess after another, each refuted by another guess or even itself. For example, ask an atheist what constitutes the human mind and thought, and he’ll either regale you with silence or treat you to an outpouring of gibberish. Or ask him where that original single-cell organism came from, and he’ll spin a yarn tying himself in knots.
Yet even atheists are not entirely anthropocentric. They may believe at a moment of frank self-assessment that man is but a cleverer ape, but unlike their simian brothers they still wish to make the world intelligible – God created this particular ape infinitely inquisitive. In search of the answers they seek they first look into themselves, but find only themselves there.
Such particularism is stifling to a man seeking some sort of universality. So our atheist has to come up with a surrogate theory of everything, or at least almost everything. Once that theory is identified and verbalised, it’s turned first into an ideology and then into a cause – something to assert and, if need be, fight for.
While Christianity imposes intellectual rigour and uncompromising reason, such secular quests are free-for-all. Since they are all products of fanciful speculation, anything goes.
What they all have in common is an agued attempt to debunk God and everything metaphysical associated with him, such as the soul and life everlasting. All of life is brought down to earth and reduced to people’s interactions in a purely material sphere.
The teleological aspect is removed, and life has no purpose. Hence the atheist has to commit the logical solecism of defining the process of life as its own purpose. His aim is only to make this process smoother and more rewarding.
Yet even that reduced task needs solving, such is the innate emotional need of mankind. We must find absolution for our own wickedness somewhere. If God is off-limits, we can only be absolved by some mysterious secular forces, moving us around like pawns on a chessboard and overriding our will at least partly.
Such forces have to be like God but without being God. They must be universal. They must be good, activating a simple syllogism: I can only believe in something good; I believe in n; ergo, n is good. And they must be exclusive, precluding any just competition. If competition does arise, it can only be deemed unjust and thus deserving of annihilation.
Such wobbly thinking will inevitably produce a secular cult disconnected from both reason and reality. The highlighted words are a useful definition of any ideology, wherever on the political spectrum it finds itself.
An exponent of such a cult must himself be disconnected from both reason and reality. This, my psychiatrist friend tells me, is a useful working definition of madness. That’s why I often repeat that any ideology makes people mad. This medical outcome is inherent in the very definition of an ideology.
Thus a V&A curator who thinks Margaret Thatcher is as evil as Hitler is neither thinking nor comparing nor even talking. He is ranting and, as the Russian saying goes, if you see a madman, step aside. Whatever you do, don’t argue with the lunatic. You’ll be appealing to reason and reality, which have nothing to do with his rants.
Exactly the same goes for exponents of blood and soil nationalism, which often overlaps with right-wing populism. Exactly the same goes for any ideology that’s ground-based. Whatever it is, it’s clinically insane.
It’s only things we can’t see that can explain things we can see. In the Western context, only Christianity explains life and man cogently enough to make them intelligible. A philosophy of any kind – moral, social, political etc. – has to proceed from the Christian premise not to lose touch with reason and reality.
Original sin explains man’s behaviour more credibly than any secular theory, from Rousseau onwards. No secular moral teaching can come close to the truth and clarity of Exodus and Matthew. No psychologist (or even economist) will find a better explanation of human failings than the seven deadly sins. And no secular philosopher will be able to define the purpose of life as soundly as any parish priest can.
I’m sure I haven’t answered my reader’s question to his satisfaction. People who ask what the difference is between Christianity and any secular cult, such as socialism or the Masonic triad adorning the facades of public buildings in France, already knows the only answer he’ll accept: no difference at all.
No reasoning can make a dent in such visceral convictions, but one still feels duty-bound to try (Matthew 5: 16).
Thank you. I often wonder how much time you spend writing your articles. I imagine you sitting down at the keyboard and writing quickly and continuously, off the top of your head. Such a column would take me hours, if I could write it at all.
I’m glad you mentioned the idea of scientifically-based proof. There are fields of study that do not lend themselves to the scientific method and experimentation with reproduceable results. History is one such. There is no laboratory experiment that can prove George Washington was the first president of the United States. We believe what we read.
One also encounters the argument of proof in another vein: the theist is asked for proof of God. If the atheist is asked for proof, the standard response is that one cannot prove a negative. Convenient, that. (Some philosophers would argue one can prove a negative.) The atheist will probably try to show that science has answers for everything in existence. It does not, and some of these arguments are akin to saying that because I can create a document using a pencil, that proves that the pen does not exist. An oversimplification, but it illustrates the point.
Anyway, thank you for the response. I will borrow some if it and keep it in my notes.
Isaac: God didn’t create any people who don’t believe in him. He created all people with free will. This means they can choose to believe whatever they like. However, they pay for choosing wrong, both in this life and in the next one.
Nor do I think Christianity is true because secular creeds are wrong. Christianity is just true, and secular creeds are wrong specifically and demonstrably because they are hostile to it. And of course there have been some non-Christian thinkers. But they weren’t the ones who produced the greatest civilisation the world has ever known. Also, forgive me for mentioning this, but haven’t you once described Richard Dawkins as a great thinker? That makes your ranking of thinkers rather untrustworthy, I’m afraid. Dawkins isn’t a thinker ar all, never mind a great one. Are you sure you don’t regard atheism as a sufficient intellectual qualification? (Bentley Hart wrote brilliantly about Dawkins in The Atheist Delusion.)
Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky has proven that ‘free will’ -as is commonly understood, does not exist. But even if it did, one cannot choose what one believes. Although one can choose to behave as if one believes.
As for Dawkins; conservatives often call him names, but they never explain why he is wrong about…well, anything. As far as I’m concerned, The God Delusion has yet to be refuted. For the record, I don’t much like the man, but I struggle to find fault in his intellect.
The Atheist Dlusion is one such refutation, out of hundreds.
Unlike you, Mr Thompson, I have a very high opinion of Richard Dawkins as a man. I’ve read most of his books with delight, and I think they reveal a delightful personality. I can’t think of any man (except, obviously, Mr Boot) with whom I’d rather spend a moderately boozy evening. I regret that the only time I was within six feet of him was in an adversarial debate.
But The God Delusion is his worst book. After decades of death threats from pseudo-Christian weirdos, he finally cracked and resorted to incoherent ranting. It hasn’t been refuted because it contains nothing worthy of refutation that wasn’t refuted by the Fathers of the Church in their disputes with the pagan philosophers, almost two millennia ago.
But my favourite Dawkins book is also his favourite: The Extended Phenotype. I trust that everybody who offers an opinion about his thinking has read it.
This reply may not have been meant for me. I seriously doubt I ever described Dawkins as a great thinker.
When the judge asked Whistler how long it took him to “knock off” one of his paintings, he replied: “A couple of days and my whole life.” While I wish I could borrow Whistler’s talent, I still borrow his reply when asked the question you imply. In my case, it’s more like about an hour, an hour and a half — and yes, my whole life. I don’t always write well, but I always write fast. Actually, I not so much write as write down, things I always think about day and, unfortunately, night. That may explain the speed. Sorry about this exercise in egotism, but I think you asked.
I think the mere existence of atheists/atheism poses a mighty challenge to any religious faith. Why would God create millions of people who are incapable of believing in Him?
You talk about the failure of secular creeds to provide meaning, and I totally agree, they have failed, but why does that make you think Christianity is true? Is it not more likely that all these meta narratives are fantasises concocted by a particularly intelligent, and bewildered, ape. You seem to ignore or dismiss atheist thinkers who are not secular humanists:
Thomas Hobbes
Schopenhauer
Peter Zapffe
Thomas Metzinger
David Benatar
Thomas Ligotti
John Gray
The fact that atheism takes us to a dark place doesn’t mean that God is real. It means we are collectively, and individually, doomed. Read any poem by Larkin and you’ll see what I mean.
Yesterday I wrote and you published this comment: “Mr Boot please explain to me how Christianity is not a cult. As are all religions. Sets of ideas, good, bad, or indifferent, which are available to be adopted by any user.” Today, you wrote an extended reply, and I thank you for your consideration. Not surprisingly I am very far from being convinced that your answer provides any good reason for believing in the reality of Gods of any type. It is, however, an argument for the practical benefits of adopting a religion as a guide to (in some cases) good conduct, and this I will accept, both as a valid role for religion in people who lack other reasons for such conduct and for atheism in those who think that they can manage without. QED as I was long ago taught.