Does God Love Atheists?

By Elizabeth Christine Kelly

Is there truth to the claims by many atheists that religion causes wars, is incompatible with science, and will soon be replaced by atheism? Would humanity improve if religion was eliminated? What effect does religious faith have on individuals and society?
This book examines numerous accusations against religion and presents a widely researched and concise investigation of these claims. As the attacks are wide-ranging, so is the scope of this book. From the oft-repeated claim that religious people are less intelligent, to Galileo's supposedly proving religion's anti-scientific bent, to criticisms of the Old Testament. This search for answers often has surprising results. Fundamentally, this book is not simply an investigation but also a call to reexamine the way that we hold this conversation. By increasing understanding of others' perspectives, we can hopefully move away from negativity. In our collective search for the truth, atheists and the religious alike should endeavor to maintain mutual respect and love.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elizabeth Christine Kelly
• Release date: Aug 1, 2015
• ISBN: 9781310640957

Book preview

Does God Love Atheists?

By Elizabeth Christine Kelly, MD

Does God Love Atheists?

Elizabeth Christine Kelly, M.D.

Copyright 2015 Elizabeth Kelly

Smashwords Edition

Contents

Does God Love Atheists?

Plea for Respect and Kindness

Foreword

Bias Against Religion

Atheists’ Assertions: Thinking Critically and Sorting Out Truth from Fiction

Science is Not the Answer for Everything

Atheist Beliefs

Faith

Final Thoughts

DOES GOD LOVE ATHEISTS?

An early Christian writer, Lanctanius, in his Divine Institutes in AD 308, explained, Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in the matter it is better to employ words than blows... It is true that (Religion) must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime... for nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion.

PLEA FOR RESPECT AND KINDNESS

The United States is blessed with a great diversity of people and a corresponding variety of religious and secular beliefs. Tensions may occasionally flare, but for the most part, Americans live side by side and show respect to those of other beliefs. Recently, the tension is coming from an unexpected source. Among some atheists and agnostics, sadly the level of tolerance for those who hold a religious belief is rapidly dwindling and the level of animosity rising.

There are now more individuals raised without a religious affiliation than at any time in our nation’s history. Just as people develop prejudices based on any number of factors, some atheists no longer appear to see religious people as individuals or take the time to understand and show respect for them.

Over the last decade, the number of books that attack all religious faiths has risen dramatically. The whole idea of a belief system or faith in general is treated with contempt. Dubious allegations and historical falsehoods are raised regularly against religions; something that would not be accepted in any other context (ethnicity, political affiliation, gender, etc). Like Bill Maher’s movie Religulous, the attacks become personal and degenerate into mocking. This is poisonous.

This book is meant as a plea for kindness and respect. Being raised in a religious tradition, I was taught that all human beings are brothers and sisters. That should be a non-negotiable value in a pluralistic society. There are many decent, respectful and kind atheists and agnostics. People, religious or non-religious, should treat all others with respect. Atheists and agnostics should be accorded respect and kindness, as should religious people. Bigotry or personal attacks only demean the attacker. It is important to discuss ideas and concepts and weigh each statement on its own merit.

FOREWORD

While I was studying to be a physician, many premed courses were required. In college, my focus was always on science. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, and particularly the biological sciences, were required study. I especially loved biology-anatomy, embryology, virology (the study of viruses) and other similar topics. In medical school I found the study of the illness and health of the human body endlessly fascinating. Science is an amazing and beautiful pursuit of truth.

What would compel a busy practicing physician, who has never written more than a five page paper in her life, to research and then write a book about science and religion? My love of science urges me to defend it from those who misuse it. Science can only answer questions accurately under certain circumstances. Science operates with things that can be observed, measured and independently verified, or that can be either mathematically proven or experimented upon with results that can be repeated. The existence of God is outside the competence of science.

It is misleading and wrong to cloak oneself in the mantle of science to bolster opinions about the nonexistence of God as if that is a scientific fact. Neo-atheist authors attack religious faith in the name of science and often try to present a view of religious people as less educated and non-scientific.

By misrepresenting science, the trust that people have for science and scientists, including physicians, will erode. Politicians have misused the truth for years and the public trust for them is extremely low. When atheists make such a false claim, as has Victor J Stenger titling his book God the failed hypothesis: How science shows that God does not Exist, it can only harm science. What poor science is this? I never realized that God could be seen by a telescope, or measured and weighted. What hypothesis can be made, tested and reproduced about God? Mr. Stenger cannot use Science to disprove God. This distortion of facts exhibited by Mr. Stenger's title can make science and scientists less trustworthy.

Is any belief in the unmeasurable illogical? What about neutrinos (small particles of neutral charge and very little mass)? Don’t physicists believe they are real yet they can’t be measured in any way? Even though brain waves can be seen on an EEG or brain activity can be seen on certain PET scans, this is no proof of what another person is thinking or what emotion they feel. Another person's emotions and thoughts are ultimately unknowable, yet we believe they exist.

INCREASED GULF

There seems to be more of a gulf today, and an animosity, between some atheists and religious people. While teaching a religion class, teenagers in my class reported cruel and unfair attacks by neo-atheists at their schools. The atheists accuse them of being less intelligent and non-scientific. They also accuse religious believers now and in the past of violence and evil. Religious students are the subjects of verbal assaults and taunting. It sounds like old fashioned bullying, and some atheists are proud of it. But mocking someone for their religious faith is akin to mocking someone for their skin color or ethnic group. The new idea that ugly attacks are perfectly fine against someone who is religious is misguided. Granted, people are always subject to attack, including children in school, but the Internet emboldens those who are cruel.

In the U.S., we celebrate diversity. We have Saint Patrick’s Day (when everyone is Irish), Puerto Rican Day parades, Black History month, hundreds of festivals for various groups and multiple ways to positively recognize others who are different from us. Yet religious faith, one of our deepest cultural underpinnings, and as much a part of the believer as is one’s ethnic heritage, is mocked and derided at an alarming rate today.

There is an anti-religious bias in society that extends back to at least Sigmund Freud, who believed that God was an illusion; just an extended father figure and humanity should set aside religious belief in favor of reason and science. (Sounds like the same arguments made by many today.) Though Freud is not as respected as he once was, the secularists have continued to espouse his ideas, and indeed don’t seem to have come up with many new ideas. It’s as if the 20th Century did not happen. Modern neo-atheists ignore the results of atheistic regimes of the last Century. A hatred of religion was seen in all communist nations who (rightly so) viewed religion as a threat to the authority of the State. Do the neo-atheists want to emulate the communist bias and promote it in our society? The modern rise of atheism in the U.S. is often anti-religious and carries consequences.

The anti-religious bias in the media has been present for many years. In television and movies, music and print, portrayals of religious people are either absent or often the religious character is portrayed mockingly. There are innumerable books and other resources that can point out specific examples. David Blevins was a reporter with Sky News and a Washington correspondent. He said in 2008:

It’s important to remember that what appears in the newspapers is not an objective summary of the significant things that happened yesterday but an ideological selection based on the prejudices, agendas and assumptions of a relatively small group of people...

Religion is viewed as obscure, life-denying or regressive, David Blevins goes on to say.

BIAS AGAINST RELIGION

This anti-religious bias among the media and some scientific fields was evident when an outspoken religious scientist was nominated to be the head of the National Institute for Health. The controversy began when Dr. Francis Collins, the Human Genome Project founder, was nominated to be the director of NIH. Dr. Collins is a devout evangelical Christian. Collins has written about science and religion and penned a book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Collins also founded a website called Bioslogos.org. On this website he asks the question, as an example of his thinking on the relevance and significance of the two fields where humanity seeks answers, What is the proper relationship between science and religion? Collins answers his own question, Science and religion are sometimes thought to offer entirely separate bodies of knowledge. However, science is not the only source of factual statements, and religion does reach beyond the realm of values and morals.

The furor that resulted from Collins’ nomination to be NIH director came from atheists angry about his religious views. Collins was not being judged or assessed based on his body of scientific work, but based on the belief that religion holds truths. His work has been brilliant. He was director of the Human Genome Project and defined the gene for cystic fibrosis (a devastating genetic illness that effects particularly the lungs and digestive tract) among other achievements. Unless they are anti-scientific, why should his religious beliefs be important? If otherwise qualified, why should the religious faith of the person who heads the Nation’s premier scientific research organization matter?

Kent Anderson, on his website, the scholarly kitchen, objected to Collins in this way, It seems anti-scientific to say that religious doctrines are as factual as the results of objective investigation and controlled scientific research. Stephen Pinker, noted atheist, objected to Collins’ nomination as NIH director in a long statement which included the following:

Collins has said that he came to accept the Trinity, and the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, when he was hiking and came upon a beautiful triple waterfall. Now, the idea that nature contains private coded messages from a supernatural being to an individual person is the antithesis of a scientific (indeed, rational) mindset. It is primitive, shamanistic, and superstitious. The point of the scientific revolution was to do away with such animistic thinking. This is not just autobiographical. Collins, in his book, eggs on fellow evangelical Christians in their anti-scientific beliefs. He tells them that they are right to hold fast to the truths of the bible and to the certainty that the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted."

Is Pinker saying the whole purpose of science and the scientific revolution was not to discover truth but to negate or disprove religion? Pinker’s anti-religious bias is evident in his seeming insistence that religion and science are opposites and incompatible. Is it possible that Pinker has not studied the work and beliefs of Sir Isaac Newton, or those of so many other religious scientists?

The greatest thinker of the scientific revolution, indeed one of the greatest scientific thinkers of all time, was Newton. Sir Isaac Newton was devoutly religious. In Newton’s own words:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all...The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.

It seems, the modern prejudice held by some, that science and religion are incompatible, was not held by the great scientists of the past, and surely not by all scientists today.

ATHEISTIC ANIMOSITY

Consider some titles of books written by Atheists. Dawkins’ The God Delusion, which seems to imply it is a form of mental illness to believe in God. Christopher Hitchens’ book God is not Great: Religion Poisons Everything similarly reveals a deep bias against any religion. When one has such obvious prejudice, it’s like being in a hole and only seeing the dirt walls and patch of sky and asserting that your view of the world is the only correct one. I would ask, in those atheist's opinions, if there could possibly be a good religion? Would they reject any religion that did not have perfect members? Can anything involving human beings ever be perfect?

Scientists would do well to ask for some evidence that a Godless society is best, or that people live better lives by becoming atheists before promoting the abolishing of religion or belief in God. A mountain of evidence, which will be touched on later in this book, shows that religion contributes to human happiness, well-being, and even flourishing. If one is truly in favor of human welfare, then stop denigrating the very thing that is proven beneficial for so many.

The Angry Atheist has become a phenomenon. One atheist described it as righteous anger, necessary to effect social change. But atheists also profess to want a more tolerant society. If so, why spend so much effort on the attack? I fear some atheists are instead promoting a bigoted society. Do these attacks really advance us as a society? As Gandhi put it, an eye for an eye and the whole world’s blind.

SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF ATHEISM AND RELIGION

Are the claims made by prominent atheist book writers, those on the Internet and others, against religion true? Are there benefits to being an atheist? Are there problems inherent in religious believers or religious belief? Science and history can help us to sort fact from fiction. In order to better critically evaluate the claims of atheists, I include information on evaluating studies and thinking critically. But I urge each person to investigate for themselves; keep reading and studying and looking for evidence! Also, because of the huge gap in knowledge about religion, and my belief that with greater understanding can come greater tolerance, I will attempt to explain some of the more common misconceptions non-believers have about religion, especially Christianity.




MORE MEAN, MORE SELFISH, MORE STUPID?

Christopher Hitchens wrote that We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish and perhaps above all more stupid. He also said, Organized religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children. Are Christians and those of other religious faiths stupid, evil, and ignorant? Let’s expose Hitchens claims to some scientific scrutiny.

EXAMINING STUDIES

Studies can be difficult to interpret. It is a challenge to know if a study is accurate or misleading. What makes a good study? In medical studies the best ones are known as double-blinded, case-controlled studies. Basically, there should be two groups of similar patients (the ages, illnesses or lack of them, sex and other important variables should be similar). Only one group should receive the tested medicine (let’s say aspirin) while the control group receives a placebo. Neither the patients in the study, nor the medical professionals administering the medication, know which patients are receiving the studied medicine and which ones are receiving the placebo. They are both blinded. Only the researchers who are analyzing the data know. All of these precautions help eliminate bias.

The findings of any study should rise to a point of statistical significance, or the point at which there is confidence that the conclusions are trustworthy. The larger the group studied, the more likely the results will be reliable. The more time spent on the study, the more likely it is to see accurate results. If, for example, the study is trying to determine whether aspirin prevents heart attacks, studying for only a single month would not be as accurate as a five year study.

An even better study is called a cross-over study. This may involve, for example, a blood pressure medicine; Group A takes the medicine for some months while Group B takes a placebo. Their blood pressures and any side effects are noted, as well as any adverse events like strokes or heart attacks. Then the individuals in each group are switched, where Group A takes the placebo and Group B takes the medicine. It can be demonstrated with even better accuracy that a medicine will lower blood pressure and help prevent strokes or heart attacks. (Ethically, if the data shows a big difference between the treated and untreated groups, a study is usually stopped early so the placebo group can start a beneficial treatment or the treated group can stop a deleterious treatment.)

These are the best-designed studies, at least as far as showing a difference between two groups. Unfortunately, in the topics of religious faith and differences between two groups, it may be impossible to have a well-designed blinded study. But, studies on the subject of religions should be examined to see if there are inherent biases.

A p-value is a term for the number used to analyze data to determine if a study result is statistically significant. A cut off can be used numerically to decide if the study results could be from pure chance. For example, in the aspirin study, we could try to determine if those taking aspirin had fewer heart attacks than those who did not take aspirin. If the medicine and placebo groups both had equal numbers of heart attacks, than the p-value would be 0.5 (out of 1 or essentially 50-50). A cut off number of 0.05 is often used as a statistically significant number.

Statistics are difficult to understand and interpret for almost everyone, and consequently many studies are reported in the media and widely believed, though they may be flawed. How many studies on what to eat or not eat have been reported in the media and later reversed. Are eggs healthy foods? First the media reported that the cholesterol level is too high and eggs should be avoided, then a reversal occurred, where they were fine to eat in moderation. The same is true of studies on butter. First it was not good to eat and margarine was recommended. Then, margarine was seen only for its trans-fats and condemned as a poor and unhealthy choice. This pattern repeated with estrogen, at one time touted as the cure all to be taken by every peri-menopausal woman, and then roundly condemned as akin to poison. The truth lies between those extremes. It can take years of study and repeated tests to approach closer to the truth. A study should be capable of duplication with nearly identical results.

What is the difference between correlation and causation? Another problem can arise when interpreting data