THE IMMORAL RELIGIONS OF ATHEISM AND EVOLUTION
By O. R. Adams Jr.
© O. R. Adams Jr., 2007
(BACK TO ARTICLES)
One definition of the word, religion, is "a cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Certainly the followers of both atheism and evolution fit this definition. These followers also have a further and more important aspect common with ordinary religions, and that is that much of what they accept is based on faith, and not on proved facts.
There are two things that, in my opinion, can neither be proved nor disproved. One is the existence of God, and the other is the origin of life.
The atheist claims that he doesn't accept as fact things that cannot be proved. He therefore could not logically accept atheism in the first place, because it has as its premise something that cannot be proved – that is that God does not exist.
As for the evolutionist, he accepts on faith many things that cannot be proved. This is explained in more detail in other articles on this website.
Another thing that both atheism and evolution have in common with the deity religions is that they are continually trying to argue in support of their religions, and to convince others, or convert others, to their beliefs. Both the atheists and the evolutionists have websites devoted to this very thing. They both had many writings devoted to that purpose prior to the existence of the internet. Both denigrate religion, and particularly the Christian religion.
Atheism and evolution go hand in hand. They each need one another.
Thomas Huxley became known as Darwin's Bulldog. As Adrian
Desmond observed, "Science in Huxley’s hand had a religious
potency." (Huxley, 626) The title of his important 1869
collection of essays, Lay Sermons, suggests how he saw scientific
thinking as the substitute for traditional easy answers to life’s central
(From the Biography of Thomas Huxley)
One of the best known of the current day evolutionists, Richard Dawkins, said in The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 6: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Charles Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist)
The above reference is from the website of EvoWiki, (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page) set up by the online encyclopedia organization, Wikipedia, for the purpose of promoting evolution and combating attacks against it. It does seem that this particular "science" is getting very political, when this kind of effort is put forward to try to promote and protect it. Why is it that it cannot stand on its own like other sciences? Why must it continually be protected from contradictory ideas and criticism? The answer is that Darwinian evolution cannot be supported by evidence, and fair and honest criticism of it is very destructive to the theory. Those who are involved in it want to protect their enormous sums of grant money, and their jobs. Rather than real science, evolutionism today seems to be as much politics as science.
Religious people often invoke the thoughts of great people in history to support particular religious arguments, such as the existence of God, or in support of intelligent design. Atheists and evolutionists do the same.
A good example was Carl Sagan. It seemed that he never could quite make up his mind whether he was a true atheist, or merely an agnostic. In a 1996 interview with National Public Radio, he seemed to adopt what he considered the views of Einstein and Spinoza, saying: "which is essentially that God is the sum total of the laws of nature. And since there are laws of nature ... if that's what you mean by God, then of course there's a God. So everything depends on the definition of God." I believe that he somewhat misconstrued the beliefs of those two, and particularly of Einstein, who commented on the "the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." (See my article, The Bases of Mathematics are Intelligently Designed)
Carl Sagan has misconstrued a number of things to make his points in attacking the Christian religion, and arguing in behalf of evolution. The following comments relate to his 1996 book, The Demon-Haunted World. On page 13 of the book, he remarks "that our ancestors were also the ancestors of apes." This is an odd statement for a person to make that claims that he does not believe in conventional religion because of lack of scientific proof for it. There is certainly no scientific proof of his statement. Also as is true with many of those philosophies, a number of things are misconstrued. On page 325, he states: "I meet many people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime." Speaking of religious people he says that what they wish to be true, they believe to be true, and that: "Evidence has little to do with it." Here we have Sagan engaging in exactly what he accuses the religious people of doing. There is no possible way that it could be proved that life came about by blind forces from "slime." This is typical of the whole book.
Sagan, in his book referred to above, makes a number of obfuscations concerning our founders and our Constitution. He states that: "Scientific findings and attitudes were common to those who invented the United States. Then he tries to make it appear that Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson were all scientists. The only one of them that came even close to such a description was Franklin. Also, these were far from all of our Founders. In an effort to make it appear that the God referred to in our Declaration of Independence was what he considered as Spinoza's God, he quotes from the Declaration: "the laws of nature and nature's God." He of course left out the part: "all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights." And: "with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence." When taken together, these declarations show a God that creates and protects – far different from the god that Sagan is trying to attribute to the founders, which was of course what he considered a "Spinoza God."
This spinning of things to try to make things appear different than the actual facts is something common to both atheists and evolutionists.
Some of the spinning in trying to convince us that great men in history were atheists shows either dishonesty or a lack of understanding of the English language. As an example see: http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism. This article lists Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein among the famous atheists of history. It shows a picture of Albert Einstein with the caption: "Albert Einstein was one of the 20th Century's best known atheists." Then as evidence they give statements from each that they did not believe in a "personal God." If these men did not believe in God, I am sure they were both capable of saying so. But instead, stating that they did not believe in a personal God leaves the implication that they believed in some kind of God.
As to Edison, the atheists manage to contradict themselves. In http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-e.htm is the quote from Edison:
Judging from the past, I cannot help thinking that the intention of the Supreme Intelligence that rules the world is to ultimately make such a type of man universal.
What is this capitalized "Supreme Intelligence" that has such an "intention" for man?
I would conclude that Edison was some form of a Deist, and believed in an impersonal God, as did Einstein. Consider the following from my article on this website, Evidence of Intelligent Design in Nature:
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . . His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. ("Einstein and God," Thomas Torrance, 2002-2004, http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm; citing Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York , 1954, p. 40.)
I wonder why they don't list some of best known atheists in history, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il?
Both atheists and many evolutionists strive for a moral base outside of religion. However, they must resort to very fallacious reasoning.
An Immutable Moral Base Requires Religion
There are many agnostics and atheists who are good decent people. However, these are the ones who are always searching and trying to find and exhibit some moral base without religion. Some of their ideas are good and many are shared by other good people, but none have any authoritative basis, because one has as much right as the other to think up and decide these things. So then we have a billion sets of morals to guide us in passing our laws and trying to manage our society. We are not quite that bad off yet, but thanks to such "thinkers," we are off to a running start.
An immutable moral base, that is not subject to change according to current whims of society, requires religion as its basis. And the religion I prefer is the Christian religion. Its basis, the Bible, is considered the word of God, and no human has any authority to change those words and the moral tenets prescribed.
I believe that there is no greater moral teaching than Jesus' sermon on the mount, and its presentation of such compassion and fairness, including the Golden Rule -- that one should do unto others as he would want them to do unto him. The Christian religion also presents the complete balance and equity that I see in all of nature. It is rather obvious that complete justice and fairness does not exist in all cases on this earth and in this life. For complete justice and equity to be afforded everyone, there necessarily has to be a life and judgment after death, which is one of the basic tenets of the Christian religion. This fits in with my concept of the balance and equity, and intelligent design, seen in all of nature.
(BACK TO ARTICLES)