Why Atheism and Science Don’t Mix (But God and Science Do)

Could it be that Atheism and Science don’t mix, but God and science do?

I realise it’s a controversial claim in our secular age. After all, the belief that Christianity is anti-science and Atheism is pro-science is part of our cultural furniture here in the West.

But what if the opposite were true?

That’s the argument I’ve come across from several prominent thinkers and philosophers, most recently by Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, John Lennox, in his latest book.

To be clear, Lennox is not saying Atheists can’t do science: some of the smartest scientists are Atheists. Rather, Lennox and other thinkers are critiquing the worldview, the assumptions and beliefs of Atheism, not the people who believe it.

So, here’s what Lennox means:

In order to do science, we need to believe that our minds can discern truth

Lennox points out something that is obvious once you think about it: we can only do science if we believe our brains can discern truth about the world around us:

I do not think that this is hard to deduce from the fact that science proceeds on the basis of the a priori assumption that the universe is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to the human mind. No science can be done without the scientist believing so, so it is important to ask for grounds for this belief.

In other words, our brains can make sense of the universe around us, but why? It’s an important question to ask and answer for the sake of science.

But, he argues, Atheism doesn’t provide a satisfying answer. On the contrary, Atheism posits a mindless, unguided origin of the universe’s life and consciousness. And this destroys our confidence in our brain’s ability to know the truth.

But how?

Why Atheistic Evolution is a problem for Science.

American philosopher Alvin Plantinga shows why Atheism – or more particularly, Atheistic evolution – is a ‘game over’ type problem for our brain’s ability to know truth.

He captures his argument in what he calls the ‘Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism [Atheism]’ or EAAN.

Here’s the Reader’s Digest version of his argument:

Atheism is a problem for science because evolution is based on the survival of the fittest, not the survival of the truthful. And therefore, how can we be sure that our brains evolved to discern truth (as opposed to just helping us survive)?

(The short answer is we can’t.)

Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of the logic:

Step 1: The Starting Beliefs

We start by accepting two main ideas:

1. Atheism: The belief that there is no Creator God who designed our minds. Instead, we’re living in a random universe with only matter.

2. Evolution as the survival of the fittest: The idea that our minds (our brains) were built only through blind, random evolution by natural selection.

Step 2: Evolution by natural selection only picks winners, not truth-tellers

Evolution only ‘cares’ if your actions help you survive and reproduce. It’s all about your behaviour (does your behaviour help you survive). And not about what you believe (whether your beliefs are true or not).

Step 3: False ideas can be just as useful for survival

Because evolution by natural selection only cares about what you do, a false idea can make you act in a way that helps you survive just as much as a true idea.

For example: Running away because you believe a tiger is dangerous (True Idea) helps you survive. But running away because you believe a witch is trying to eat your soul (False Idea) also makes you run away and helps you survive just the same.

Step 4: We have a strong reason to doubt our mind’s reliability

Since evolution often rewards useful but false ideas, and there are ‘innumerable’ ways to be wrong but still survive, accepting Atheistic evolution means it is impossible to know if your brain has evolved to find truth.

Of course, if Atheistic Evolution is true (and therefore impossible to know if your mind can discern truth or not), then you’re left with a conundrum:

Step 5: Atheistic Evolution: The idea that eats itself

This realisation—that you can’t know if your brain is a truth-finder—gives you a strong reason to doubt the basic reliability of your own mind.

And if you must doubt your mind’s reliability, then you must doubt every single idea your mind produces.

Including Atheistic Evolution.

But if believing in Atheistic Evolution leads you to doubt Atheistic Evolution, then it’s an incoherent and irrational view.

Or as Atheist philosopher John Gray points out:

Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth – and so be free. But if Dawin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth’.

Even Darwin himself saw this problem. He wrote:

‘With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the conviction of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.’

But can’t science help us discern truth?

One counterargument is that, while our brains may be unreliable in discerning truth, modern science can help us overcome this limitation. I.e. Imperfect brains + science = truth.

But this belief relies on the assumption that our brains can reliably discern some measure of truth in the first place. But if the argument above is correct, then we have no confidence that our brains have evolved to know the truth at all (even imperfectly).

In which case, science + unreliable brain ≠ truth.

(To use an analogy, if you knew that your thermometer came from a factory where it was revealed that the thermometers were all faulty, could you ever rely on what the thermometer said?)

Another reason Atheism doesn’t make sense of our world

While there are other problems with Atheism, the fact that it destroys any reason to believe our mind’s ability to find truth is worth noting.

As Lennox points out:

It is for all these reasons that I reject atheism, and not because I believe Christianity to be true. I am a mathematician with a deep and lifelong interest in science and rational thought. How could I espouse a worldview that discredits the very rationality I need to do mathematics?

Whereas Christianity does provide a solid foundation for Science

Lennox then goes on to point out that, in contrast to the Atheistic-evolutionary view or reality, the biblical worldview does provide reasons for believing in our mind’s ability to discern truth. Namely, being created in the image of a rational God makes sense as an explanation for why we can engage in science.

Science and God mix very well. It is science and atheism that do not mix.

Article supplied with thanks to Akos Balogh.

About the Author: Akos is the Executive Director of the Gospel Coalition Australia. He has a Masters in Theology and is a trained Combat and Aerospace Engineer.

Feature image: Canva