"One less god" argument (response to New Atheism)

"So you believe in one god, I assume. . . . But there are 3,000 to choose from . . . so basically, you believe in—you deny one less god than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more." 
(Ricky Gervais on the Stephen Colbert Show) 

This argument ("one less god") crops up in debate over the existence of God. I would like to share my answer to it. 

I want to compare faith in God and acceptance of the theory of Darwinian evolution. I am not necessarily pitting these against one another; it is simply an analogy to explain a point. 

Atheists generally accept the theory of evolution or, should I say, *a* theory of evolution. However in doing so, they accept one particular theory. They deny, for example, Lamarke's theory of evolution. Lamarke, for example, held that organisms adapt to their environment during their lifetime and then hand on these changes to the immediately next generation. This is no longer held. They also, I imagine, reject aspects of Darwin's original theory, such as the notion of pangenesis. Moreover, at one stage it was held that a fetus, as it grows, repeats the stages in the evolutionary process ("theory of recapitulation"). This is also now no longer accepted. In rejecting these aspects, atheists are not denying the theory of evolution as such, they are simply rejecting falsehoods in favour of a truer theory. 

In the same way, believers don't disbelieve in particular gods. We reject false perceptions in favour of belief in the true and living God.   

"What about the stars?" (a response to Ricky Gervais on the Comedy Central show)

Confession: I am a huge fan of "The Office." In that series - the UK version - Ricky Gervais mastered the character David Brent. "The Office" isn't just hilariously funny; in my view it shows penetrating insight into individual and social psychology, issues such as the nature of leadership, the roles people assume in society, coping with change, responding to right and wrong and male-female relationships. The culmination of the series is when David Brent and his colleague, Tim, find and are united with their soul-mates.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart: the actor/comedian Ricky Gervais and his most famous character, David Brent. Particularly when Ricky Gervais is ambitiously casting for a role to which he is far less suited: that of an evangelist for Dawkins-style new atheism.

Ricky Gervais is neither a philosopher nor a natural scientist and it tells. He also has an axe to grind in respect of his former church connection and an eat-drink-and-be-merry philosophy of life to justify ("I don't want to give up drinking and eating - what's the point?"). But since he is popular for his comedy he is guaranteed a hearing - most recently on US late night show, Comedy Central, hosted by Roman Catholic, Stephen Corbert.

In their brief 'debate' on atheism, Ricky Gervais' strongest line was as follows:

"… Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result."

These are clearly the statements of a non-scientist. The overstatement of the scientific endeavour and its achievements ("proved... all the time... same result") give away that Ricky Gervais is not himself engaged in scientific experiment or its analysis.

Leaving that aside, what can we make of his central assertion? 

The contrast it seeks to set up is between evidence-based scientific tests and their results on the one hand and non-evidence-based holy books on the other. In his worldview the former are objective and repeatable, while the latter represent fiction and are therefore unrepeatable.

So where do those holy books come from? What, if any, is their source?

Ricky Gervais would say they are fiction, the product of imagination. I would say they are a subjective response to something objective, which I would identify as revelation. 

To answer this qustion we need to distinguish between General Revelation (there is a God who created everything) and Special Revelation (God has been involved in human history - supremely in the person of Jesus Christ).

Let us consider the first, General Revelation. This is what God has revealed about himself to all people, regardless of whether or not they have access to the Bible. The fact that there is something, rather than nothing (the Kalam or Cosmological argument). The design apparent in the natural world and in our own bodies. Our conscience which gives us a sense of right and wrong - which cannot be reduced to Darwinian survival instincts. This evidence is very much repeatable. It does not rely on a print run - and is unassailable even in the event of a mass book-burning or internet shut-down. Responding to this objective evidence we believe that there is a God who created all things. 

Now the second aspect is Special Revelation. This is what God has revealed in human history over time and supremely in Jesus Christ - as recorded in the Bible. These historical events - and records of them - are the basis for our belief in the Christian God, the God who not only is, but also acts in history. So the question is: is it possible to obliterate historical events by destroying all records of them happening? It should of course be pointed out that destroying records of events doesn't mean the events in themselves didn't happen. Historical events are, of course, unrepeatable. But the events of the past continue to be accessible to us in a whole host of ways and we are able to study the past by means of historical research - just as we are able to study the natural world by means of experiment. In respect of the particular events of special significance for Christian faith, supremely the life of Jesus Christ, Christians would add that God has and will ensure that those records do make it to us - and they have in the form of the Christian Scriptures. Responding to this objective evidence we believe in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

So my answer to Ricky Gervais would be that his hypothetical mass destruction of all religious literature - presumably along the lines of 1792 or 1917 - is not the knock-down argument it might appear to be. The Holy Book of the Christian faith, the Bible, is not a work of fiction, but a record and a response to objective evidence in respect of the universe (not dissimilar to the empirical evidence on which science is based) and to objective historical evidence (which is accessible to historical enquiry). These don't necessitate religious faith; you are free not to believe. But they do provide an objective basis for believing. And the reflective atheist would do well to interact with that evidence rather than suggesting that only their worldview has any objective basis.  

I am reminded of a conversation said to have taken place in the wake of the Terror following the French revolution. Someone was allegedly boasting, "We will destroy every single religious symbol in France." A wise contemporary retorted, "What about the stars?" 

God doesn't exist because.... (Or: "I see no ships")

After 9/11 and the Twin Towers atheists decided that enough was enough; religion was no longer to be tolerated, but eradicated. And the New Atheism was born. Its advocates were nicknamed the Horseman of the Apocalypse, including Richard Dawkins, a biologist at the University of Oxford.

Richard Dawkins, once the voice of calm Anglosaxon reason in the face of religious obscurantism, has recently Twittered himself into a corner with statements advising the abortion of all Down syndrome children in the womb as a matter of moral obligation. He also let the side down by refusing to debate with Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.

But the Crusade continues. And the news feed on the social network sites deal up an almost daily diet of caricature mockeries of religion. Here is today' offering:

For those of you who don't know, Mr. Tickle is one of the Mr. Men from Roger Hargreaves series of children's books, and, naturally, a laughable, fictional character. Just because someone has written a book about something - so the logic goes - doesn't mean it is true.

My initial response was the following:

The problem with my response is that it focuses too much on atheism's historical record, rather than its underlying logical flaw, namely that God does not exist because I don't believe in Him.

The bottom-line, knock-down argument for not believing in God is that there is allegedly no evidence for God's existence and therefore to believe is absurb and without foundation. Whenever evidence is presented, such as the very existence of a universe (cosmological argument) or the argument from design (teleological argument), this is discounted. 'No evidence' in this case means 'no evidence an atheist would accept'. Believers in God defy reason by failing to believe in self-creating universes, self-designing organisms and self-regulating moral absolutes.

Generations of Soviet school children were told that God didn't exist because Darwin had disproved Him and Gagarin hadn't seen Him in space. Betrand Russell's prepared answer for the Final Judgment was: "Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?" This from the man who stated, "When I die, I rot." Bertrand Russell was cremated. Atheism's more contemporary advocates rely on more subjective analogies, such as the fairies at the bottom of the garden, the spaghetti monster or the booby trap for God. These add more heat than light to the debate and serve to bolster the subjective plausibility of atheism rather than its objective basis.


I am reminded of the words of Admiral Nelson (famous admiral in the British Navy who fought in the wars with Napoleon). When faced with the threat of enemy ships he famously put his telescope to his blind eye (lost in battle) and said, "I see no ships." As the saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (i.e. don't want to see).

By contrast hear the words of the 19th Psalm: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

And the Apostle Paul: "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."