1. Atheism is irrational
It’s simply irrational to look at anything with the kind of design we find in this world and to assume that no intelligent mind was behind it. I am not suggesting that this solves all problems in discussing the existence of God. I realize apparent flaws in the design raise other important questions. I also realize that moving from belief in a designer to a specific designer is a different matter. And it’s also wrong to assume that affirmation of intelligent design is equivalent with belief in young- earth creationism. It’s not.
Yet if one considers, for example, the design in the human body, it’s enough to compel belief in an intelligent origin. When we study any single part of the human body (eye, ear, hand, etc..) and consider the synchronization of each part with the whole, the design is breathtakingly awesome! No designer? Irrational!
The response is often, “Well, if God is a detailed being, who created God?” But this is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue does not belong to a category of things that smell. The question itself is flawed. Since God is not in the category of created things, asking who created God is irrational. Only what begins to exist is caused to exist.
Prior to his death, a doctor friend of mine often said, “Anyone who knows what I know about the human body and tells you that there is no creator who designed it is lying to you and himself. There is simply no way to know what I know about the human body and deny that there is a Creator who designed it.”
2. Atheism is too simple
“How had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
3. Atheism is dishonest
Atheist, Steven Weinberg, suggested that, “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.” The biggest problem with this comment is that there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support it.
Many atheist give the misleading impression that science supports their position. It’s widely popular for atheists to suggest that biological evolution leads one to conclude that the material universe is all there is, was, or ever will be. This is the philosophy of naturalism. Honest scientists know that it’s just outside the scope of science to settle matters of this kind. Questions about ultimate origin, transcendent meaning and ordered morality are just not the business of science.
Evolutionary biology (for all it offers scientifically) cannot be used to address matters related to God’s existence. “There is no God” is a faith-based statement. It’s a kind of religious position. Until we can separate philosophy from science, we will not have an unbiased scientific enterprise and people will keep falling for the unsupported notion that scientific evidence points to an evolutionary process as our creator.
It’s sadly common in the academy for professors and students to experience social coercion to use science as a cover for the philosophy (or religion) of naturalism.
4. Atheism is arrogant
The arrogance of atheism has been established in the first two points. G. K. Chesterton said, “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”
Some might accuse those who believe in God of arrogance. The issue comes down not to scientific certainty but reasonable plausibility. The science of studying signs of intelligence provides this plausibility.
“Unlike other worldviews that I had considered, I never felt the God of the Bible was asking me to put on rose-colored glasses. Even the heroes of the Bible were described unsparingly in appalling moral failures—lies, sexual aberrations and murders. I did not have to give up the honesty and realism that I had valued. Cynicism claimed that the world— both inside and outside of our heads—was profoundly broken and bent. I realized that the Christian faith had been saying this for two-thousand years, and Judaism for longer than that” (Dick Keyes, Seeing Through Cynicism).
5. Atheism is unnecessary
The atheist’s problem with belief in God is not an absence of evidence but suppression of it. Many atheists hold their views as much or more on the basis of such wish fulfillment than on the basis of evidence (see: I hope there is no God!).
“As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, based on observable features of the world, can reliably distinguish intelligent causes from undirected natural causes” (William A. Dembski).
The atheist stands among those “who suppress the truth …. since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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. For although they knew God, they neither honored him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-21)
David B. Hart’s “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies” is perhaps the best available critique of so-called “new atheism.”