You can begin watching the full debate of evidence for/against God by clicking on this (and subsequent) links. I've summarized the debate below (and added my comments) for those who don't have time to listen. (But you'd be missing a real treat!)
Craig opens the debate by claiming that the following evidences indicate the existence of God:
1. The origin of the universe (requires a "cause")
2. The complex order in the universe (defies the "astronomical" improbability of life)
3. Objective moral values (cannot be defined without God and are self-evident)
4. The historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus
5. The immediate experience of God (personal revelation)
Dr. Peter W. Atkins attempts to rebut Craig's arguments with a seemingly self-deprecating introduction. He ironically reveals that his college (Oxford) was founded to defend true Christian theology, but -- because of his intellectual prowess and "enlightenment" -- he now endeavors to destroy that same theology in the interest of "glorify[ing] the human spirit". He invites all to accompany him on the "strenuous journey" from darkness to light, to rise to "the highest altitudes of current thought" and "human understanding" (all very flattering and self-congratulatory to his adherents, no doubt).
Before embarking, however, Atkins asks that his listeners "shed the shackles of prejudice and conditioning" of the type imparted by religious upbringing. One must be reborn, he says, by becoming "intellectually naked" in order to understand his words, that he might bring "enlightenment to your brains and a bit of joy to your lives."
It seems Atkins' "scientific" philosophy takes on an air of religion itself.
Christ said: "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10). "Ye must be born again." (John 3:7) "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Atkins uses the imagery of Christ to destroy Christ. One speculates who is the thief referred to.
Akins argues that belief in God is not reasonable because:
1. God is a "complex" explanation (and "simple" explanations are usually best)
2. The universe really is made of "nothing"
3. We cannot calculate the improbability of life
4. Myriad universes theoretically exist
5. There is no evidence of "cosmic purpose"
6. Morality is organically evolved, not divinely imposed
Three minutes into his remarks, Atkins states "The challenge in this debate, therefore, is for me to show that everything in and of the world -- of the body and of the spirit -- can be understood without needing to invoke the action, or mere presence, of a God."
Before undertaking so great a cause, however, Atkins first derides "the warm, sentimental feelings that suffuse us in the presence of the Almighty" as "the apotheosis [the elevation or exaltation of a person to the rank of a god] of laziness...well-suited to arm-chair brains who prefer to indulge in adipose arguments", essentially calling those who believe in Deity intellectually lazy and fat, whose sensations of divine revelation are nonsense. "You're not here, I trust, because you're one of those", he sniffs. Not finished with his preliminary name-calling and put-downs, he asserts that "the invocation of God as an explanation of anything is an admission of defeat and ignorance, disguised as a pretense of understanding." Arguments opposing his own are thus preemptively tainted with failure, stupidity and dishonesty. Later, he claims that the atheist alone can see clearly, while "the religious...cloud the issue...on a cosmic scale".
Well, having laid that groundwork for understanding...
Atkins gallantly proposes that the atheist's argument fails it can be shown that:
1. The universe had to be designed.
2. Any aspect of the universe had to be made.
3. There had to be a seed.
4. The world has a purpose.
5. There is an after-life.
6. Miracles occur.
7. A god is necessary to maintain the workings of physical law.
Furthermore, he claims, the atheist's argument "begins to corrode" if:
8. There are aspects of the human condition that science cannot touch, such as the supreme joy of artistic creation.
Of course, disproving a theory requires only one dispositive. One need establish only one of the evidences above, according to Atkins, to debunk atheism entirely. His "challenge", he states, therefore, is "nothing less than complete explanation".
But then Atkins commits the very heresy with which he paints his opponents. He admits defeat and confesses ignorance, portraying his non-awareness as "enlightenment". In a truly "duh!" moment, Atkins explains that "Science cannot yet explain everything".
Some things can never be understood except on God's terms. Brigham Young taught (having learned from Joseph Smith) that "The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed." The limit of divine understanding has been delineated: The atheist will search in vain for God -- not until he finds Him, but -- until God reveals Himself. With metaphysical dexterity, God doesn't just reveal Himself to His children; He reveals Himself in His children! They become like Him, inasmuch as they keep His commandments. This divine transformation into deity -- not the mere observation of Deity -- is the only "revelation" that matters, the only "testament" of Deity that endures. (For what good is seeing God...and remaining unchanged, or being destroyed?)
Oblivious to the "scientific method" of divine discovery, Atkins confesses that science cannot yet:
1. Explain everything.
2. Tell us what went on at the event we call "the creation".
3. Provide a theory or simulation of consciousness.
As if that covers all the topics of which science cannot inform us. What science can do, Atkins asserts, is "elucidate the great questions that have, for centuries, been regarded as religion's own."
Really?
That's it.
According to his "nothing-came-from-nothing" cosmic view, we do not, in reality, exist except as subsets of "nothing". Not "from dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" but "from nothing thou art and unto nothing thou shalt return." The exalting, enlightening, ennobling, liberating gospel of Atkins is that we are, in fact, nothing. Our lives mean nothing. We become nothing.
I can see why Atkins suggests that embracing his arguments brings only "a bit of joy", for, after all, when all is said and done, there's nothing left!
In his great treatise on universal opposites, Lehi explains that "a bit of joy" is not merely a by-product of the human condition; personal joy is man's purpose for existence: "[M]en are, that they might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). Moses informs us that God's great work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). What could be more joyful than that?
Which "gospel" really is more satisfying and inspiring? Atkins' or Christ's?
Christ said: "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10). "Ye must be born again." (John 3:7) "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Atkins uses the imagery of Christ to destroy Christ. One speculates who is the thief referred to.
Akins argues that belief in God is not reasonable because:
1. God is a "complex" explanation (and "simple" explanations are usually best)
2. The universe really is made of "nothing"
3. We cannot calculate the improbability of life
4. Myriad universes theoretically exist
5. There is no evidence of "cosmic purpose"
6. Morality is organically evolved, not divinely imposed
Three minutes into his remarks, Atkins states "The challenge in this debate, therefore, is for me to show that everything in and of the world -- of the body and of the spirit -- can be understood without needing to invoke the action, or mere presence, of a God."
Before undertaking so great a cause, however, Atkins first derides "the warm, sentimental feelings that suffuse us in the presence of the Almighty" as "the apotheosis [the elevation or exaltation of a person to the rank of a god] of laziness...well-suited to arm-chair brains who prefer to indulge in adipose arguments", essentially calling those who believe in Deity intellectually lazy and fat, whose sensations of divine revelation are nonsense. "You're not here, I trust, because you're one of those", he sniffs. Not finished with his preliminary name-calling and put-downs, he asserts that "the invocation of God as an explanation of anything is an admission of defeat and ignorance, disguised as a pretense of understanding." Arguments opposing his own are thus preemptively tainted with failure, stupidity and dishonesty. Later, he claims that the atheist alone can see clearly, while "the religious...cloud the issue...on a cosmic scale".
Well, having laid that groundwork for understanding...
Atkins gallantly proposes that the atheist's argument fails it can be shown that:
1. The universe had to be designed.
2. Any aspect of the universe had to be made.
3. There had to be a seed.
4. The world has a purpose.
5. There is an after-life.
6. Miracles occur.
7. A god is necessary to maintain the workings of physical law.
Furthermore, he claims, the atheist's argument "begins to corrode" if:
8. There are aspects of the human condition that science cannot touch, such as the supreme joy of artistic creation.
Of course, disproving a theory requires only one dispositive. One need establish only one of the evidences above, according to Atkins, to debunk atheism entirely. His "challenge", he states, therefore, is "nothing less than complete explanation".
But then Atkins commits the very heresy with which he paints his opponents. He admits defeat and confesses ignorance, portraying his non-awareness as "enlightenment". In a truly "duh!" moment, Atkins explains that "Science cannot yet explain everything".
This is an understatement. In fact, it can be shown that "science" cannot now -- nor will it ever be able to -- explain most of anything!
Science is best suited for elucidating what we don't know rather than what we do. More often it tells us what is not true rather than what is. By a process of elimination of falsehoods, we "scientifically" arrive at the truth (in contrast to direct revelation, which by-passes "trial and error").
For example, the speed of light is "scientifically" observed and understood to be universally constant...unless (and until) it is shown not to be. Then our understanding would change. By science, we learn what isn't true. We "whittle away" at what isn't until we uncover what is. (Edison is said to have "scientifically" conducted over 2000 experiments on what doesn't make a light bulb until he found what does.)
Moreover, the vast majority of what has occurred -- and much of what is now occurring -- remains utterly inaccessible to "scientific" investigation. Furthermore, most of that which is to come will never again occur, rendering it unavailable for testing, peer review, and re-examination, components of the classic "scientific method".
Some things can never be understood except on God's terms. Brigham Young taught (having learned from Joseph Smith) that "The Lord must reveal Himself, or remain unrevealed." The limit of divine understanding has been delineated: The atheist will search in vain for God -- not until he finds Him, but -- until God reveals Himself. With metaphysical dexterity, God doesn't just reveal Himself to His children; He reveals Himself in His children! They become like Him, inasmuch as they keep His commandments. This divine transformation into deity -- not the mere observation of Deity -- is the only "revelation" that matters, the only "testament" of Deity that endures. (For what good is seeing God...and remaining unchanged, or being destroyed?)
Oblivious to the "scientific method" of divine discovery, Atkins confesses that science cannot yet:
1. Explain everything.
2. Tell us what went on at the event we call "the creation".
3. Provide a theory or simulation of consciousness.
As if that covers all the topics of which science cannot inform us. What science can do, Atkins asserts, is "elucidate the great questions that have, for centuries, been regarded as religion's own."
Really?
Science cannot answer "Where do I come from?" "Why am I here?" or "What happens after this life is over?" except in the chemical and physical sense -- ignoring the "reality" of consciousness and the soul.
Atkins intones: "And with your newly cleansed, de-prejudiced minds, you should be able to accept that science provides a richer, more comprehensible, more reliable, more deeply satisfying account of the cosmos than the primitive, pseudo-explanations peddled by well-meaning, but scientifically under-informed apologists." (One notes that Atkins' language positively drips with intellectual arrogance...and it sure is fun to listen to!)
How does the "gospel" of Atkins hold up? How does he (and "science") explain the existence of everything ex-nihilo [out of nothing]? In what has become an established habit, before answering the question, he first loquatiously berates believers as simple-minded, lazy drunkards sipping an elixir of credulity mingled with mental torpitude. When he finally gets around to it, his stunning rebuttal to the "God" argument -- his "simplistic" solution -- is that "nothing separated into opposites".
That's it.
Using the analogy of electrical "charge", Atkins describes how positive and negative charges combine to "cancel out", creating no charge; therefore, no charge, he concludes, can be expected to separate into positive and negative cha
See! Everything out of nothing!
By this same reasoning, we may expect no money (nothing) to decompose into credit (gold coins) and debt (credit card statements). Nothing becomes
Atkins obviously conflates matter with
By this same reasoning, we may expect no money (nothing) to decompose into credit (gold coins) and debt (credit card statements). Nothing becomes
Atkins obviously conflates matter with
Scientific investigation reveals that combining polar opposites of matter and anti-mater liberates pure energy in the form of high-energy photons (gamma rays); in other words, light. Light isn't "nothing". Just as matter (and anti-matter) are "something". Therefore, combining substantial opposites to make something cannot be used as a logical argument for everything arising from nothing -- or for the non-existence of God. Einstein's famous equation isn't "E = mc2 = nothing". It appears that Atkins peddles "primitive, pseudo-explanations" that are "scientifically under-informed".
According to his "nothing-came-from-nothing" cosmic view, we do not, in reality, exist except as subsets of "nothing". Not "from dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" but "from nothing thou art and unto nothing thou shalt return." The exalting, enlightening, ennobling, liberating gospel of Atkins is that we are, in fact, nothing. Our lives mean nothing. We become nothing.
I can see why Atkins suggests that embracing his arguments brings only "a bit of joy", for, after all, when all is said and done, there's nothing left!
In his great treatise on universal opposites, Lehi explains that "a bit of joy" is not merely a by-product of the human condition; personal joy is man's purpose for existence: "[M]en are, that they might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). Moses informs us that God's great work and glory is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). What could be more joyful than that?
Which "gospel" really is more satisfying and inspiring? Atkins' or Christ's?
Must Atkins really destroy everything in order to dismiss the existence of God? Apparently. Perhaps this explains why great atheists of the past century -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao -- have had no compunction about killing tens of millions. (It was "nothing", after all.)
Atkins argues against our collective reason and human experience -- even "unscientifically" -- that anything can happen without a cause. Identifying a "cause" of that great "acausal" event of creation would be "pure speculation", he insists. So he doesn't. He refuses to ascribe any cause to our existence. Silence, he supposes, is superior to the "false" (or at least "unprovable") explanations offered by priests, prophets and pedants.
He merely begs the question and utterly declines to explain by what, by whom, or how the universe came into being. He suggests without a shred of evidence that the universe could have "created" itself! In so doing, he pronounces that his (non)argument "diminishes the role of a Creator-God to zero," as if his saying so makes it so. Only in his high-flying imagination -- in "the highest altitudes of current thought" -- is God necessarily unnecessary.
In fairness, by the end of the debate, Atkins contends that discussions of "creation" prior to the existence of space and time are irrational. We simply cannot grasp or entertain such ideas because they are not of this world. Any description of a "causal" effect (even God) would be fatuous in Atkins' purely materialistic/humanistic view. It negates the possibility that any entity, force, or influence outside of the material realm may have influence upon that realm -- a very unimaginative, parochial, and arrogant supposition. Furthermore, it is entirely irrational to say -- not just that God might not be real, but emphatically that "God is absolutely not real...unless you prove me wrong, and you can't, so I'm right." (My failure to prove you wrong doesn't make you right; just as my failure to prove me right doesn't make me wrong.)
Perhaps Atkins' strongest "argument" against the existence of God is his refutation of the credibility of various statistics attesting to the "improbability" of a life-sustaining cosmos "as it tumbled into existence." Atkins is right. Man cannot compute with any certitude the "probability" of life arising from non-life. We can only speculate, given the so-far-unbroken chain of billions of "experiments" performed each day, by countless billions of people, wherein life fails to arise from non-life (despite our best efforts -- or non-efforts -- to make it happen). Several orders of magnitude of repeated failures to create life, undertaken under the best of circumstances, provide some indication of how truly remarkable (even "miraculous") life is.
I think Atkins' weak attack on the purported "probability" of autobiogenesis distracts from the glaring, universally-observed fact that all life, thus far, has only been observed to arise from life, never on its own. Wasn't the whole "a seed is necessary" argument the very one Atkin's claims would destroy atheism?
And yet the necessity of a seed is the only conclusion, thus far, that has been universally scientifically established.
Aktins' "explanation" for the origin of a complex cosmos is that it did so autonomously and by chance. The scientific work of Francesco Redi (in 1668) and Louis Pasteur (in 1864) showed that omne vivum ex vivo ("all life [is] from life"). Atkins unscientifically begs the question by stating "If something can happen, it may happen."
Atkins theorizes the existence of infinite universes, with equally infinite origins and outcomes.
Since the cosmos is, he asserts (no matter how remote the possibility of such happening on its own, by chance), then it could happen autonomously and fortuitously favoring life, and thus probably did happen that way. This circular reasoning, in Atkins' mind, passes for "the highest altitudes of...human understanding" and "scientific thought". Plus it's "simple" (if not simple-minded).
Atkins theorizes it is possible -- given an infinite number of worlds -- for a pile of bricks to be exploded with TNT and come down, by itself, re-organized as a house! Or, again, that a house made of bricks can be blown up...and fall back to earth as a house! Does this sound "scientific" to anyone? Where has this "experiment" been observed and replicated?
Were a billion worlds to be blown up, would we ever suppose anything approaching an organized house happening on its own? No. The rational mind recoils at the thought. But this outcome seems perfectly reasonable to Atkins.
Since Atkins allows for no outside "super-natural" influences to explain the organization and formation of this world (only materialistic/humanistic ones), our origin must be the product of automaticity and random chance at work on a cosmic scale, utterly untestable and irrepeatable.
In Atkins' view, this explanation passes for "good science".
Atkins argues against our collective reason and human experience -- even "unscientifically" -- that anything can happen without a cause. Identifying a "cause" of that great "acausal" event of creation would be "pure speculation", he insists. So he doesn't. He refuses to ascribe any cause to our existence. Silence, he supposes, is superior to the "false" (or at least "unprovable") explanations offered by priests, prophets and pedants.
He merely begs the question and utterly declines to explain by what, by whom, or how the universe came into being. He suggests without a shred of evidence that the universe could have "created" itself! In so doing, he pronounces that his (non)argument "diminishes the role of a Creator-God to zero," as if his saying so makes it so. Only in his high-flying imagination -- in "the highest altitudes of current thought" -- is God necessarily unnecessary.
In fairness, by the end of the debate, Atkins contends that discussions of "creation" prior to the existence of space and time are irrational. We simply cannot grasp or entertain such ideas because they are not of this world. Any description of a "causal" effect (even God) would be fatuous in Atkins' purely materialistic/humanistic view. It negates the possibility that any entity, force, or influence outside of the material realm may have influence upon that realm -- a very unimaginative, parochial, and arrogant supposition. Furthermore, it is entirely irrational to say -- not just that God might not be real, but emphatically that "God is absolutely not real...unless you prove me wrong, and you can't, so I'm right." (My failure to prove you wrong doesn't make you right; just as my failure to prove me right doesn't make me wrong.)
Perhaps Atkins' strongest "argument" against the existence of God is his refutation of the credibility of various statistics attesting to the "improbability" of a life-sustaining cosmos "as it tumbled into existence." Atkins is right. Man cannot compute with any certitude the "probability" of life arising from non-life. We can only speculate, given the so-far-unbroken chain of billions of "experiments" performed each day, by countless billions of people, wherein life fails to arise from non-life (despite our best efforts -- or non-efforts -- to make it happen). Several orders of magnitude of repeated failures to create life, undertaken under the best of circumstances, provide some indication of how truly remarkable (even "miraculous") life is.
I think Atkins' weak attack on the purported "probability" of autobiogenesis distracts from the glaring, universally-observed fact that all life, thus far, has only been observed to arise from life, never on its own. Wasn't the whole "a seed is necessary" argument the very one Atkin's claims would destroy atheism?
And yet the necessity of a seed is the only conclusion, thus far, that has been universally scientifically established.
Aktins' "explanation" for the origin of a complex cosmos is that it did so autonomously and by chance. The scientific work of Francesco Redi (in 1668) and Louis Pasteur (in 1864) showed that omne vivum ex vivo ("all life [is] from life"). Atkins unscientifically begs the question by stating "If something can happen, it may happen."
Atkins theorizes the existence of infinite universes, with equally infinite origins and outcomes.
Since the cosmos is, he asserts (no matter how remote the possibility of such happening on its own, by chance), then it could happen autonomously and fortuitously favoring life, and thus probably did happen that way. This circular reasoning, in Atkins' mind, passes for "the highest altitudes of...human understanding" and "scientific thought". Plus it's "simple" (if not simple-minded).
Atkins theorizes it is possible -- given an infinite number of worlds -- for a pile of bricks to be exploded with TNT and come down, by itself, re-organized as a house! Or, again, that a house made of bricks can be blown up...and fall back to earth as a house! Does this sound "scientific" to anyone? Where has this "experiment" been observed and replicated?
Were a billion worlds to be blown up, would we ever suppose anything approaching an organized house happening on its own? No. The rational mind recoils at the thought. But this outcome seems perfectly reasonable to Atkins.
Since Atkins allows for no outside "super-natural" influences to explain the organization and formation of this world (only materialistic/humanistic ones), our origin must be the product of automaticity and random chance at work on a cosmic scale, utterly untestable and irrepeatable.
In Atkins' view, this explanation passes for "good science".
But it's not good science; it's buffoonery. (Sweet-sounding buffoonery, I'll admit!) "Someone wins the lottery," Atkins rationalizes, fantastically grasping at straws, as if "one in a million", or even "one in a billion" approximates the inconceivably improbable possibility of a life-sustaining earth, solar system and galaxy all arising spontaneously and autonomously. "Well, it happens," he begs the question. That's his argument, in a nut shell. Without a shred of evidence, we are to believe, even as he urges us to disbelieve all that we have understood, observed, or learned before.
No matter what, in Atkins' mind, anything goes -- any imaginable universe -- so long as it is not a universe inhabited by a living God (and a resurrected Christ).
2 And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.
3 And he labored diligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people...
4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil. (Jacob 7:2-4)
In describing Bertrand Russell's purported "teapot orbiting Mars" analogy, we can easily laugh with Atkins as he mocks those who persist in believing -- despite the apparent lack of objective evidence -- in an equally inscrutable Deity. Likewise, his explication of morality as a natural by-product of evolution and intellect, not God, seems, at least, plausible.
I assume all of Atkins' humanistic explanations and rhetorical epicycles make perfect sense to those who do not understand -- not the sun-centered but -- the Son-centered nature of our cosmos.
Even a "non-scientist" like Lehi (or Joseph Smith, if you prefer) proposed a more "scientific" and readily observable explanation for the origin of everything than does Atkins:
2600 years ago Lehi succintly summarized the substance of this debate: that morality, opposition, and physical reality are self-evident and require the existence of God; that our own existence is irrefutable proof of the same -- as verifiable and irrefutable as the metaphysical verities of consciousness and reality.
In truth, the capstone of intellectual confirmation comes with the revelation of God Himself to the individual. We may not be able to deduce, with scientific certitude and direct observation, the origins of the universe. But we can know the Origin and that His word can be trusted.
The unbeliever, however, is forever precluded from obtaining that knowledge:
Whereas Christ preaches, "...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Mathew 28:20), Atkins preaches we are "gloriously alone" in this world. Atkins is no different from other Christ-deniers who have sown doubt and dissension among believers, who, themselves, have become detached from a knowledge of -- and personal experience with -- their Creator.
Atkins may never call upon the Lord his God. He may never allow himself to be "suffused" by "warm, sentimental feelings...in the presence of the Almighty", for his heart is hardened! To acknowledge God's existence, Atkins would be compelled to acknowledge the reality of sin, the justice of God, and his own need to repent.
Clearly, Atkins is having far too much fun to do that.
In his rebuttal to Atkins' opening argument, Craig asserts that Atkins has neglected to provide any evidence that God does not exist.
Atkins' response, again, is to substantially ignore the arguments -- the premises that, by deduction, lead to the conclusion that there is a God -- using pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to propose alternative explanations for evident realities, including the proposition that everything is, in fact, nothing. Atkins actually demands that the believer prove that no other explanation for the universe except one involving God is possible -- a universe, Atkins insists, in which almost anything is possible.
That's impossible. How can "impossibility" be proven under conditions in which virtually anything is possible?
In the end, Atkins insists that Craig doesn't know God because Craig can't know God. Even the "knowledge" of God, Atkins insists, is "self-delusion". Because Craig can't show God to Atkins, Atkins insists that God doesn't exist and that Craig can't know that God exists.
The similarities between Atkins and Korihor are astonishing:
The crux of Atkins' argument (and his disbelief) is exposed in this statement: "If you want to believe in God and the arguments Dr. Craig has presented this evening, you can only be confident about them after you are dead." This isn't true. Dr. Craig is "confident" about them and he isn't dead! Many have had interactions with God, they claim, confirming His reality to them, and they are not dead. Atkins' statement is a lie, or, at the very least, a claim, based on his opinion.
Could Atkins be speaking from ignorance, not knowledge, from darkness of disbelief, not "enlightenment"? Magnanimously, if not open-mindedly, Atkins concludes "If science fails to deliver, this side of the grave...then, by all means, turn to religion".
It is, in fact, the appalling arrogance and "high-mindedness" of Atkins that prevents him from doing just that. He sees himself as a "scientific" know-it-all, or, rather, a scientific can-know-it-all. In so doing, he seriously over-estimates the capabilities of the (secularly-speaking) "scientific method".
Alma has explained for us how one may "scientifically" come to know God (Alma 32). It begins with believing, which evolves into faith, then transforms into works -- or substance -- that which is real and verifiable and evident. It ends with the manifestation of God and godliness. However, disbelief precludes all such progress and manifestations. Therefore, the unbeliever is forever cut off from the presence (and essence) of God.
In debating atheism (the assertion there is no God) vs. agnosticism (open-mindedness about the existence of God), William F. Buckley calls Atkins on the carpet, as it were, for his emphatic assertion that there is no God:
Buckley: "The fact that we will never know does not mean that that which is not known can't in fact exist."
Craig: "Exactly! It just leaves you with agnosticism. That's no proof that there is no such Being."
Atkins: "Okay, but I think you can prove that there is no God. I mean, it's not a mathematical proof, I would not...you cannot possibly give a mathematical proof..."
C: "Give me any kind of proof."
A: "Here's an 'any-kind' of argument: Everything that religion claims a God can do can be accounted for by science. So that's, if you like, one branch of the argument. So that there's no need, there's no 'necessity' for a God because science can account for everything." (Atkins' argument closely parallels the claims of Pharoah's priests, whose rods produced snakes like unto that of Moses.) "On the other side of the argument is the reasons why people do believe in God. One can understand why people believe in God. It's a sense of being alone, it's a sense of bewilderment, it's a sense of wishing for power over other people (that's the worst of the reasons) -- it's simply a sense of bewilderment, it's a sense of being alone...and, er, you [pointing to Craig] would know these feelings far better than I because you obviously believe in them." [Laughter from the audience.]
Clearly, Atkins' arrogance, projection of motives, and ignorance regarding the basis of Christian belief is revealed in this conversation leading up to the moment of the video first highlighted above. Atkins is absolutely astonished when Craig destroys his assertion that science is not "all-knowing".
A: "The fact that science is omnipotent and the fact that I can understand why people like you desperately want to believe in God, that is an argument against the existence of God."
C: "But two fallacious arguments put together don't make a sound argument, right?" [laughter]
After some back and forth:
C: "The first argument only...if granted, which I don't grant, I don't grant the premises but...the first argument would only prove that it's not necessary to believe in God in order to explain certain things. That doesn't prove God doesn't exist. The second argument commits a genetic fallacy of saying that because you can explain how people come to believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist. Neither of those warrant the conclusion: "Therefore God doesn't exist."
A: "I did not say it was going to be a mathematical proof."
C: "No, no, but it has to be valid...."
A: "It is valid in the sense that there is no need for a God and that everything in the world can be understood without needing to invoke a God. You have to accept that that is one possible view to take about the world."
C: "Sure, that's possible but...."
A: "Do you deny that science cannot [sic] account for everything?"
C: "Yes, I do deny that science...."
A: "So what can't it account for?"
C: "Well, I...had you brought that up in the debate I had a number of examples that I was going to give...I think there are a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we're all rational to accept..."
A: "Such as...?"
C: "Let me list five: [1] Logic and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle; [2] Metaphysical truths -- like there are other minds other than my own, or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age -- are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven; [3] Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything "evil" as opposed to scientists in Western democracies; [4] Aesthetic judgments...cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the "beautiful", like the "good", cannot be scientifically proven; [5] and finally, most remarkably, would be science itself: Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, the Special Theory of Relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points, A and B. But that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory."
It must be noted that the look on Atkins' face as Craig rattles off these "truths" is simply priceless. Atkins is dumbfounded.
B: "So put that in your pipe and smoke it." [big laughter]
I assume all of Atkins' humanistic explanations and rhetorical epicycles make perfect sense to those who do not understand -- not the sun-centered but -- the Son-centered nature of our cosmos.
Even a "non-scientist" like Lehi (or Joseph Smith, if you prefer) proposed a more "scientific" and readily observable explanation for the origin of everything than does Atkins:
11...there is an opposition in all things. If not so...righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now...there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man..." (2 Nephi 2:11-15).
2600 years ago Lehi succintly summarized the substance of this debate: that morality, opposition, and physical reality are self-evident and require the existence of God; that our own existence is irrefutable proof of the same -- as verifiable and irrefutable as the metaphysical verities of consciousness and reality.
In truth, the capstone of intellectual confirmation comes with the revelation of God Himself to the individual. We may not be able to deduce, with scientific certitude and direct observation, the origins of the universe. But we can know the Origin and that His word can be trusted.
The unbeliever, however, is forever precluded from obtaining that knowledge:
1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that...did not believe the tradition of their fathers. [check]
2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead [check], neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ [check].
3 And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God [check]; and their hearts were hardened. [check]
4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church [check]. And they were a separate people as to their faith [check]; and remained so ever after [check], even in their carnal and sinful state [check]; for they would not call upon the Lord their God. [check]
5 And now [in the past] they were not half so numerous as the people of God; but because of the dissensions among the brethren they became more numerous.
6For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words [check].... (Mosiah 26:1-6)
Whereas Christ preaches, "...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Mathew 28:20), Atkins preaches we are "gloriously alone" in this world. Atkins is no different from other Christ-deniers who have sown doubt and dissension among believers, who, themselves, have become detached from a knowledge of -- and personal experience with -- their Creator.
Atkins may never call upon the Lord his God. He may never allow himself to be "suffused" by "warm, sentimental feelings...in the presence of the Almighty", for his heart is hardened! To acknowledge God's existence, Atkins would be compelled to acknowledge the reality of sin, the justice of God, and his own need to repent.
Clearly, Atkins is having far too much fun to do that.
In his rebuttal to Atkins' opening argument, Craig asserts that Atkins has neglected to provide any evidence that God does not exist.
Atkins' response, again, is to substantially ignore the arguments -- the premises that, by deduction, lead to the conclusion that there is a God -- using pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to propose alternative explanations for evident realities, including the proposition that everything is, in fact, nothing. Atkins actually demands that the believer prove that no other explanation for the universe except one involving God is possible -- a universe, Atkins insists, in which almost anything is possible.
That's impossible. How can "impossibility" be proven under conditions in which virtually anything is possible?
In the end, Atkins insists that Craig doesn't know God because Craig can't know God. Even the "knowledge" of God, Atkins insists, is "self-delusion". Because Craig can't show God to Atkins, Atkins insists that God doesn't exist and that Craig can't know that God exists.
The similarities between Atkins and Korihor are astonishing:
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor...began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ [or if there were a Christ, He was not divine]. And after this manner did he preach, saying:Indeed, the entire chapter describing Korihor (Atkins) is instructive.
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope [religion], why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish ["unscientific"] things? Why do ye look for [believe in] a Christ [Creator-God]? For no man can know of anything which is to come [except by science].
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies [scriptures], which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers [lies, hallucinations and indoctrination].
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see [that would be "unscientific"]; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ [you can't produce any "proof"].
16 Ye look forward [back] and say that ye see [received] a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind [self-delusion]; and this derangement of your minds [intellectual laziness and adipose arguments] comes because of the traditions [religious influence] of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so ["unscientific" world view, not based in reality].
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men [there is no God], but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius [his brain], and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime [no objective morality].
18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness [arrogance, high-mindedness], yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof [from nothing to nothing]. (Alma 30:12-18)
The crux of Atkins' argument (and his disbelief) is exposed in this statement: "If you want to believe in God and the arguments Dr. Craig has presented this evening, you can only be confident about them after you are dead." This isn't true. Dr. Craig is "confident" about them and he isn't dead! Many have had interactions with God, they claim, confirming His reality to them, and they are not dead. Atkins' statement is a lie, or, at the very least, a claim, based on his opinion.
Could Atkins be speaking from ignorance, not knowledge, from darkness of disbelief, not "enlightenment"? Magnanimously, if not open-mindedly, Atkins concludes "If science fails to deliver, this side of the grave...then, by all means, turn to religion".
It is, in fact, the appalling arrogance and "high-mindedness" of Atkins that prevents him from doing just that. He sees himself as a "scientific" know-it-all, or, rather, a scientific can-know-it-all. In so doing, he seriously over-estimates the capabilities of the (secularly-speaking) "scientific method".
Alma has explained for us how one may "scientifically" come to know God (Alma 32). It begins with believing, which evolves into faith, then transforms into works -- or substance -- that which is real and verifiable and evident. It ends with the manifestation of God and godliness. However, disbelief precludes all such progress and manifestations. Therefore, the unbeliever is forever cut off from the presence (and essence) of God.
In debating atheism (the assertion there is no God) vs. agnosticism (open-mindedness about the existence of God), William F. Buckley calls Atkins on the carpet, as it were, for his emphatic assertion that there is no God:
Buckley: "The fact that we will never know does not mean that that which is not known can't in fact exist."
Craig: "Exactly! It just leaves you with agnosticism. That's no proof that there is no such Being."
Atkins: "Okay, but I think you can prove that there is no God. I mean, it's not a mathematical proof, I would not...you cannot possibly give a mathematical proof..."
C: "Give me any kind of proof."
A: "Here's an 'any-kind' of argument: Everything that religion claims a God can do can be accounted for by science. So that's, if you like, one branch of the argument. So that there's no need, there's no 'necessity' for a God because science can account for everything." (Atkins' argument closely parallels the claims of Pharoah's priests, whose rods produced snakes like unto that of Moses.) "On the other side of the argument is the reasons why people do believe in God. One can understand why people believe in God. It's a sense of being alone, it's a sense of bewilderment, it's a sense of wishing for power over other people (that's the worst of the reasons) -- it's simply a sense of bewilderment, it's a sense of being alone...and, er, you [pointing to Craig] would know these feelings far better than I because you obviously believe in them." [Laughter from the audience.]
Clearly, Atkins' arrogance, projection of motives, and ignorance regarding the basis of Christian belief is revealed in this conversation leading up to the moment of the video first highlighted above. Atkins is absolutely astonished when Craig destroys his assertion that science is not "all-knowing".
A: "The fact that science is omnipotent and the fact that I can understand why people like you desperately want to believe in God, that is an argument against the existence of God."
C: "But two fallacious arguments put together don't make a sound argument, right?" [laughter]
After some back and forth:
C: "The first argument only...if granted, which I don't grant, I don't grant the premises but...the first argument would only prove that it's not necessary to believe in God in order to explain certain things. That doesn't prove God doesn't exist. The second argument commits a genetic fallacy of saying that because you can explain how people come to believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist. Neither of those warrant the conclusion: "Therefore God doesn't exist."
A: "I did not say it was going to be a mathematical proof."
C: "No, no, but it has to be valid...."
A: "It is valid in the sense that there is no need for a God and that everything in the world can be understood without needing to invoke a God. You have to accept that that is one possible view to take about the world."
C: "Sure, that's possible but...."
A: "Do you deny that science cannot [sic] account for everything?"
C: "Yes, I do deny that science...."
A: "So what can't it account for?"
C: "Well, I...had you brought that up in the debate I had a number of examples that I was going to give...I think there are a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we're all rational to accept..."
A: "Such as...?"
C: "Let me list five: [1] Logic and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle; [2] Metaphysical truths -- like there are other minds other than my own, or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age -- are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven; [3] Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything "evil" as opposed to scientists in Western democracies; [4] Aesthetic judgments...cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the "beautiful", like the "good", cannot be scientifically proven; [5] and finally, most remarkably, would be science itself: Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, the Special Theory of Relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points, A and B. But that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory."
It must be noted that the look on Atkins' face as Craig rattles off these "truths" is simply priceless. Atkins is dumbfounded.
B: "So put that in your pipe and smoke it." [big laughter]
