Curtis Klingle

On Atheism

While investigating the subject of death and our psychological reactions in contemplating life’s final step, I came across a quote from a French author named, Simone de Beauvoir,

“There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.”

Those few words showed a remarkable insight into the topic, so much so that even the great J.R.R. Tolkien gave her words the accolade of being, “…the key spring…” of his epic work, “The Lord of the Rings,” and read the quote during an interview with a BBC reporter in 1968.

I added her words to my research and proceeded forward with the essay, but I kept being drawn back to that quote. They haunted my thoughts and moved me to begin researching de Beauvoir herself; I needed to know more about the person who had elucidated the problem of death with such comprehension and passion.

I discovered that Simone de Beauvoir left an inedible mark upon philosophical thinking regarding life, and existentialism. But sadly, while reading her background, I learned that this great mind had been an atheist. As a child, de Beauvoir had been a devout Catholic and deeply religious; she even had aspirations of becoming a nun. However, while in her teens, she renounced her faith and became an atheist. Upon reading that, I suspected what lurked behind her departure from Christianity, and my suspicions were confirmed; according to her biography, this almost sudden change came about after seeing, as well as experiencing the myriads of tragedies and the suffering and death in this world. Regarding her views Beauvoir wrote, 

“Faith allows an evasion of those difficulties which the atheist confronts honestly. And to crown all, the believer derives a sense of great superiority from this very cowardice itself.” de Beauvoir, Simone (1974). All Said and Done. New York: G. P. Putnam’s & Sons. p. 478.

It was when I read these words that I knew my essay “On Death,” had to be put on the back burner. These words and those who align with this way of thinking had to be addressed. What is more, I thought it a necessity to educate myself, and attempt to clarify for others a few of the more prominent attacks upon our shared faith. I am a firm believer in the adage, “Know thy enemy,” though please understand, it’s not that I believe atheists are our enemy, but we must understand what it is they believe in order to argue intelligently with them. Bear in mind, you may very well be the one who leads an atheist into the kingdom of heaven, so do not take this lightly.   

I have read the works of atheists and spoken to several over the years, and I even have dear friends who are atheists. I must say, atheists intrigue me. Most are well mannered, probably much more so than I. They are predominately moral people as well, again, likely more so than most of us that are believers in God. They come from all walks of life and demographics. While there is great variance in their backgrounds, I have found an anomaly which is very curious. It seems that, at least in my own interactions and readings, I have discerned that most atheists seem to have anger, if even latent, against God. I find it ironic that this anger is present against Someone they don’t believe is real.

In addition, and just as Beauvoir wrote, there are two commonly shared views among atheists regarding themselves and those at the opposite end of the compass that choose to believe. This handful of people, many of them equipped with superior intellect, reject a world view shared by the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, and do in fact think the rest of us are self-deluding fools for believing in God. They hold the belief that they are confronting the issues of life head on, and if one does not arrive at the same conclusion as they, that being that there is no God, then that person is a coward. If not deemed cowardly, then it is surmised that they are blind in their faith, only accepting the existence of God because they are unable, or perhaps too lazy to investigate the hard questions of life.

The other, or subsequent view is apparently a result of the supposed cowardice of the one who believes. It is declared that those who come to faith in God take on a supercilious attitude towards those (atheists) that do not believe in God. This is merely an assumption, or rather a presumption, or quite possibly a projection upon the believer. I personally have never experienced anything in my faith which made me feel superior to anyone else. I suspect this latter view may also be a slanderous attack which, by the way, falls upon some 80% of the population in our country alone that do believe in God. Furthermore, it smacks of hypocrisy. Even in de Beauvoir’s quote, you can sense in the first sentence some semblance of superiority being birthed, and it grows to maturity in the second sentence, which is in all likelihood, a lashing out against God Himself. I find these views to be fallacious, and they wreak of emotion rather than serious thought. I will say in the atheists’ defense though that there is no doubt that the pompous and pretentious are among the ranks of believers, as these infect all walks of life. However, I would have great difficulty in believing that these particular “Christians” de Beauvoir referred to were authentic in their faith, in fact, I would dare say that these would be the antithesis of a true Christian. I am also well aware that there are those within Christendom that are ignorant (not knowledgeable) and cannot articulate what exactly it is that they believe. “Blind faith” is common in all faiths, including agnosticism, theism, and wait for it: atheism; and yes, atheism is a faith (more on that later). To state that all Christians believe they are superior to non-believers is as reckless as it is thoughtless, and malodorously accusatory. If it is indeed an assumption, well then, we all know what happens when we assume something, but as a reminder, it makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me.” Moreover, for a Christian to elevate himself above others, exhibit condescending behavior, or display preferential treatment, does in fact go against the very teachings of the Christian faith, thus the authenticity of that person’s faith would be called into question once again. Romans 2:1; James 2:1; Leviticus 19:15

The fact is, these beliefs regarding those who believe in God are falsely ascribed to the mass of Christians, rather than the minority that behave in that described manner. Contrary to what is being declared, the apple really doesn’t ruin the whole barrel, in fact, given enough time, those apples are sorted out and discarded of by those who are the true followers of Christ.  

Atheists are rare in the United Sates, much rarer than one may think, making up some 4% of the U.S. population. However, their numbers are growing rapidly here, and in the United Kingdom the number of atheists is estimated to be as high as 38% of the population. Atheism is more than simply a disbelief in God or any god, it is in fact a philosophical stance, or as I previously wrote, a faith, or religious view. One of the definitions of religion is, “a particular system of faith and worship,” and to believe in something is to put your faith in that something. The atheist who denies that his belief is a faith, is also stating that he doesn’t believe in what he believes. It is a paradox. The atheist who denies that his belief is a faith is denying his faith, and he is in effect, painting himself into a proverbial corner.

Transmission of Faith

As I previously wrote, there are many arguments presented by atheists in opposition of faith in God. One of the premier arguments is that children who grow up in a particular faith will in fact adhere to that faith and its associated doctrines. Atheists argue that children of a particular religion are merely acting upon those things taught them by their parents, rather than genuinely believing in a particular religion.

Cambridge mathematician John Lennox, who is also an apologist, addressed this very thing in a debate with Peter Singer. Singer purported that those who believe in God are merely following what they were taught by their parents. He used Lennox’s own faith as the example. He postulated that Lennox was a Christian because his parents were Christians, so his faith was a product of the home and traditions of which he was brought up in. Later in the debate, Lennox addressed Singer’s statement, and I have included the following excerpt,   

“Peter, can I ask you, were your parents atheists?”

“My mother was certainly an atheist; my father was maybe more agnostic.”

“So, you’re perpetuating the faith of your parents too like I am?”

“It’s not a faith, in my view.”

“Oh of course it’s a faith. Don’t you believe it?”

Lennox’s absolutely brilliant rebuttal was greeted with laughter and applause from the audience; Singer was unable to refute that his belief that there was no God, was in fact a form of faith.

All parents instill within their children the “faith” of which they align and believe, much as we seen in the Lennox/Singer debate excerpt, whether that be faith in God, atheism, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Children will emulate their parents, even when the parents provide the child with ample avenues to exercise their own thoughts and form their own opinions. To not teach a child is to be remiss in your role of parenting. The new atheist movement’s unofficial spokesman, Richard Dawkins, made the following statement on this topic, “Faith can be very very dangerous, and to deliberately implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” I cannot but deduce that Dawkins meant any “faith” other than atheism (sarcasm). Dawkins is attacking Christianity in this statement and will willingly admit so. He considers all faith in God to be “blind,” but seems to have an especially vehement dislike for Christianity.

I picked up a copy of his book, “The God Delusion,” several weeks ago. While the book is an interesting read, it is filled with flaws in logic, and there is that not so surprising presence of negative emotion throughout. It is a systematic attack upon all religion, but primarily Christianity. The premise of Dawkins’ entire book hinges on the following statement, “If you tell me that God created the universe, then I have the right to ask you, ‘Who created God?’”

Against the First Cause Argument

This is an old argument along the lines of, “If God made everything, then who made God?” The “Who made God?” argument is a response to the concept of first cause. The first cause argument was introduced in the 13^th century by St. Thomas Aquinas. In it, Aquinas used reason and logic to point to the existence of God. This argument states that everything we can see was caused by something, and if everything is causal by nature, if you trace it back via what Aquinas described as a “chain of causality” you eventually come to the first cause, that being God.

Theists hold that the “Who made God” argument breaks down immediately. Atheists, such as Dawkins, are assuming that God is created as His creation is created. Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the three great monotheistic religions, all agree that God is outside of creation, thus, the argument is moot. It is nonsensical. This argument results in an infinite regress, e.g., “If God made everything, then who made God?” “If God made the God that made everything, then who made God,” and so on, infinitely.

In order to negate the necessity for a first cause, those who refute creationism or intelligent design, hold fast to the argument that the universe created itself from nothing. The belief that the universe created itself, brings up the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Professor John Lennox, speaking at Oxford University in 2012, quoted cosmologist Allen Sandage’s response to that query, “God is the answer to that question.” Lennox continued, “But people are now so desperate to show that the universe created itself from nothing which seems to me to be an immediate oxymoron. If I say X created Y, I’m assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y. If I say X created X, I’m assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of X which simply shows that nonsense remains nonsense even if high-powered scientists utter it.”

I will also add that Allen Sandage, who Lennox quoted, was among the most influential astronomers and cosmologists the world has ever seen. Sandage, a former atheist, became a Christian through his intense studies in cosmology and prolific discoveries in our universe. “If you believe anything of the hard science of cosmology, there was an event that happened that can be age dated back in the past. . . . Now that’s an act of creation. Within the realm of science, one cannot say any more detail about that creation than the First Book of Genesis.” [i]

The “something from nothing” argument, also known as the cosmological argument, is rooted in the “Who made God?” question. The Greek philosopher, Parmenides is attributed with the philosophical view of, “nothing comes from nothing,” Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit. He believed that non-existence cannot give rise to existence, and something that exists cannot cease to exist. Modern physics affirms this view in the law of conservation of energy. This would be the first law of thermodynamics, which states that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. In this, the total energy in the universe remains constant, it only changes forms. For example, if you set off a stick of dynamite, its chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy, potential energy, heat, and sound. Just so you know, to date, physics has found no evidence of “something coming from nothing.”          

As Lennox pointed out above, something cannot come from nothing, and I think GK Chesterton, in his often-witty way, refuted the “something from nothing” argument best, “It is absurd to complain that it is unthinkable for an unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then to pretend that it is more thinkable to believe that nothing should turn itself into everything” 

From a purely philosophical position, an infinite regress can arise in the “Who made God” argument, as previously pointed out. All three of the Abrahamic religions believe that God is “outside” of the universe and was the great causal agent behind the universe. This belief also answers the “Who made God?” question by stating that God is eternal, He is self-existent, therefore not needing a creator. What is more, when we go to Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can see that the causal agent of the big bang, what we call Creation, had to be outside of the event. Space, time, and matter did not exist before the big bang, but came into existence at the event, and they are interdependent. They cannot exist without each other. However, some folks are just obdurate and convincing someone who doesn’t believe in God, that the very world they are now residing upon was created by the Being they are arguing against, well, that is going to be a tough one. I cannot help but muse that we are considered the ones of blind faith.  

There is more evidence to support a Creator than the belief that all we see, including ourselves, are just the results of a random series of events. To cling to the latter wreaks of obstinance, and this fierce stubbornness is summed up well by atheist Thomas Nagel,   

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, pp 130-131, Oxford University Press: 1997

Even with the overwhelming evidence for God, or a creative designer, Richard Dawkins, who is a highly educated man, an evolutionary biologist, and a zoologist, declared that, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but a blind, pitiless indifference.”[ii]

As I ponder Nagel’s statement, as well as Dawkins’ words, I am deeply saddened for them both, and those who align in their faith of atheism. It truly is a faith of no hope. I cannot imagine awakening each day and not thinking of my Creator, the beauty of His creation, and all He has done for me personally. My favorite author, C.S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” It seems to me that to view creation and existence through the lens of atheism is not to see at all; the lens appears to be opaque, because all I see is darkness. 

The Problem of Evil – Beauty and Barbed Wire

Quite possibly the greatest difficulty in defending faith in God, is the problem of evil in this world. All of us, even the atheists know something is wrong with this world. Why do good people suffer and the evil ones continue to live if not prosper? Why are there natural calamities which destroy thousands of lives? Why are their Stalins and Hitlers? Why do children suffer a myriad of diseases? Why? Why? Why? John Lennox refers to our world and the problems within as, “beauty and barbed wire,” which is as good a term as any. It describes the dichotomy which arises in a thinking person’s mind when confronting this most difficult question. It is here too, that we find the source of most people’s frustration, irritation, even anger with God, and the greatest inhibitor to the faith. This is also the pinnacle point of turning away from the faith. If you will recall, what started this essay was my discovery of that beautiful mind, Simone de Beauvoir, who had renounced her faith in God, and had taken up a faith in atheism, in other words, one of hopelessness, because of the seemingly inexplicable paradox of a good God and the problem of evil and suffering.

I saw an interview Gay Byrne conducted with Steven Fry for his program, “The Meaning of Life,” Series 10, episode 2. Fry, a comedian, actor, and philosopher, is equipped with an absolutely brilliant mind. His responses during the interview were candid, if not brusk, and he was very articulate in conveying his thoughts on a variety of subjects. I did note that regarding the following particular questions, there was anger tainting his answers, but none were more laden with raw emotion than his final response.       

Byrne, “Your great hero Oscar Wilde converted to the Roman Catholic Church two days before he died. Is there any remote possibility that we might see a repeat of that history in the case of Stephen Fry, at the 11^th hour?”

Fry, “I don’t believe so. …I don’t think there’s any chance of mine, but on the other hand, I am always surprising myself. So, don’t call me a hypocrite.”

Byrne, “Ok, last question, the meaning of life. Suppose what Oscar believed in as he died, in spite of your protestations, suppose it’s all true and you walk up to the Pearly Gates and you are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to him, or her, or it?

Fry, “…I think I’ll say, ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you, how dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I would say.”

Byrne, “And you think you’re going to get in on that?”

Fry, “No, but I wouldn’t want to. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They’re wrong. Now, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods, then I would have more truck with it because the Greeks…didn’t pretend not to be human in their appetites and in their capriciousness and in their unreasonableness. They didn’t present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all kind, all beneficent. Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of God would do that? Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind… Why? ‘Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn’t exist. It is simply not acceptable.’ So, you know atheism is not just about not believing there is a God, but on the assumption that there is one, what kind of God is he? It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living.”  

It is evident in Fry’s responses that his issue is the “problem of evil” and suffering. While I don’t agree with his view of God, I must admit, there have been times when I questioned God’s motives for certain actions. For instance, I cannot imagine someone not initially questioning His shocking instructions to conduct genocide upon entering the Holy Land. However, as you study the Bible, you begin to understand the “why” to many of His actions and orders that He gave Israel’s leaders. Even with knowing these things and the belief that God’s goal is my growth through any suffering I experience and knowing the argument of the “problem of evil” and its associated responses, I still struggle with this problem at times.

The “logical problem of evil” and suffering is a philosophical argument. The argument states that if God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good) then evil shouldn’t exist. The existence of evil is thus logically incompatible with God, because a God all powerful and all good would eliminate all evil. The argument is very lengthy when studied step by step, but for the sake of brevity I have shortened it a bit.

The format of the argument looks like this:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. Evil exists.
3. Conclusion: A God with these attributes cannot coexist with premise 2: evil. Therefore, there is no God.

In an attempt to reconcile belief in God with a coexistence with evil, two responses were introduced by Alvin Plantinga:

• Free will.
• Greater good.

In free will, a free moral agent must have the ability to choose between good moral decisions and less than moral decisions (evil). It is impossible for God to give moral agents (us) free will without allowing evil. The “greater good” response argues that some evils may be allowed in order for personal growth to take place, such as in the case of hardships producing patience, and the fact that allowing suffering can produce compassion in individuals. Again, the information I provide here is very brief, so I would encourage you to study the argument yourself in order to have a deeper understating of the points within the argument. I will leave a link at the end of this essay.  

Regarding the response of free will, I think C.S. Lewis said it best,

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free. . . . If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will—that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings—then we may take it, it is worth paying.” [iii]

Bringing it Home

Regarding the “the problem of evil and suffering” on this “Silent Planet,”[iv] I have seen and experienced enough of it myself to be able to provide what would be deemed expert testimony in a court of law. I have been in law enforcement for many years, and I have personally witnessed what can occur when man chooses to do evil. During my time as a crime scene investigator, I was exposed to the depravity of my fellow man and the resulting death and destruction. I can assure you, man’s ability to do evil knows no bounds and each of us is capable of the most heinous of atrocities. However, the most disturbing, and what I would deem as the most intimate lesson in the “problem of evil” was when my siblings and I witnessed the horrors and the cruelties of this life via the instrument of cancer.

Cancer has been no stranger in our family. I lost a beloved aunt, and a sister to this disease. But neither of these losses impacted my soul to the depth of that which I experienced when my mother battled brain cancer. My sisters and I watched this beautiful, this selfless human being suffer as the disease waged war in her brain, and as the poisons of chemotherapy exacerbated her suffering. At the end of months of treatment, the disease was halted, but only temporarily. She was forewarned that it would return. After a little more than a year the cancer did return, and did so with a vengeance. Mom decided she would not attempt to treat the disease this time, to endure the ravages of chemotherapy once again was just too much. She resigned herself to whatever fate had in store, knowing full well what that meant.

The cancer cells, with no inhibitors present, proliferated quickly and once they gained a foothold, they accelerated at an exponential rate. We all watched helplessly as this woman, the one we as children thought of as a god, the woman who had birthed us, taught us, who had held us when we cried, who loved us unconditionally, this goddess of altruism and benevolence in motion, began to drift away. At first, it was little things, the inability to recall a name, little quirks, or obsessive actions, such as flipping a light switch repeatedly. But then came the distance in the eyes, that look of questioning, lack of recognition, that sense of her being far away. I can recall sitting with her on her bed, watching as she doodled with a pen in her hand, while the movie, “City Slickers” played in the background. I had already seen the film and was just watching her as she wrote on the notepad, most of which was incoherent. I was paying close attention to the hands that used to hold me when I was little, those hands that had seen so much labor and suffering. I tried to memorize every line, every crease, the color of her skin, her well-groomed nails; I wanted to, no, I needed to remember those hands. As the movie played, I could hear the scene begin where Billy Crystal’s character was speaking with the others about the cowboy called “Curly,” played by Jack Palance. Of course, that particular scene is a favorite, and I tuned my ears in to hear Crystal comically describe that “Curly” looked like, “…a saddle bag with eyes…” Of course, I erupted into a fit of laughter, and I watched as mom picked her pen up from the paper and looked deep into my eyes, I will never forget that look. She too began laughing, and I have often wondered if that laughter was because of the film, or just the fact that I was laughing. Either way, it was the last time I heard laughter in her sweet voice.

From there came those rare moments of waking, but even those were laden with sadness, and rarely was there any lucidity. Then came the dutiful acts of sponge baths, rolling her from side to side, and the inevitable development of bedsores. I think it was the appearance of those that elicited those first feelings of resentment towards God. Even now, so many years later, the memory of seeing her raw skin brings tears to my eyes! But let us not forget the wasting away! Cancer is evil and I am convinced it was designed in the bowels of hell. Its sole purpose is the destruction of its host, but that will not happen until it has drained every tear from your eyes and caused as much pain as possible in its victim. I think cancer also attacks you on a spiritual level too as it tries to take everything from you, everything, including your faith; it wants your soul.    

In those last couple of days there were moments, to my own shame, that I wished for death to take her. Just seeing her that way made me angry. In my selfishness, I longed for her death because I was tired of my own suffering. When the moment came, the never-ending vigil of sitting up with her had caught up with us all, and in our exhaustion, we all went to separate rooms for a few hours of sleep, thus, she was alone at the time of her departure. Even now I sense guilt creeping up in my heart. Sleep? Why should I have slept when she would never arise again? Why couldn’t I just stay awake a little longer! I abandoned her in much the same way the disciples abandoned Christ in the Garden in his greatest hour of need, selfish, self-centered sleep.

We arose early in the morning to find only the shell, that broken and wasted body that she had left behind. The horror of seeing her that way. What little dignity she had been able to retain during it all, in the end, it too was taken from her; lying there with her eyes partially opened, a death stare peering out from half raised lids, her mouth agape. Why?! Why?! Why?! I felt my anger at God rise, and my body embraced it. My heart breaks all over again as I reflect on those days, and I can feel that old hurt rise up in me. What is more, upon her death that bitterness with my Creator held for over two years.

I never lost my faith as so many others have when confronted with suffering and loss of this magnitude, which is after all, the problem of evil personalized. But I must confess, out of anger I turned my back on Him. So yes, I completely understand why someone turns away from the faith in times of loss. What is especially interesting to me comes in the form of a contrast. The contrast is between my own reaction and that of Simone de Beauvoir. I include her moving words again, 

“There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.”

The quote is from de Beauvoir’s book titled, “A Very Easy Death,” which is something of a journal of her experiences of her mother’s battle with cancer and subsequent death. I read the book hoping for more insight into her mind. Her mother’s death affected her deeply and she wrestled as we all do with the loss of a loved one. However, de Beauvoir was already an atheist, thus, she had no comfort in her mother’s death. Her mother died, and to de Beauvoir, that was it; exit to the great void. When my own mother died, even with my resentment against God, I was confident that she entered into Christ’s presence the moment she left this world. I’m not sure what I would have done without the faith and belief that she would live on.  

Turning Away

One of the saddest stories I am aware of regarding someone renouncing their faith, is that of Charles Templeton, and it is directly related to the “problem of evil.” Templeton became a Christian in 1934, and experienced what can only be described as a spiritual encounter with the Holy Spirit, and quickly became one of the most well known evangelists of that era. Templeton met Billy Graham in 1945 and worked directly with him preaching and evangelizing while touring Europe for Youth for Christ. He and Graham became close friends, but beginning in 1948, his world view had begun to change and he questioned the inerrancy of the bible, even discussing the topic with Graham. Even with his doubts, Templeton continued to preach to crowds ranging from 10,000-30,000 into the 50’s, but in 1957, he publicly declared he had become agnostic. He lost his faith in God. The turning point came because he could no longer accept that a good God would allow the suffering that mankind had to endure, which in essence, is the problem of evil. In 1996, he published, “Farewell to God, My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith.”  

Many years later in 1998, investigative journalist Lee Strobel, interviewed Templeton at his residence in Toronto and included his conversation with him in his book, “The Case for Faith.” The conversation between Templeton and Strobel was very moving, and at times heart wrenching.

Templeton, “‘I suppose you want me to explain how I went from the ministry to agnosticism?’  

(Strobel) ‘Was there one thing in particular that caused you to lose your faith in God?’

He thought for a moment. ‘It was a photograph in Life magazine,’ he said finally.

‘Really?’ I said. ‘A photograph? How so?’

He narrowed his eyes a bit and looked off to the side, as if he were viewing the photo afresh and reliving the moment. ‘It was a picture of a black woman in Northern Africa,’ he explained. ‘They were experiencing a devastating drought. And she was holding her dead baby in her arms and looking up to heaven with the most forlorn expression. I looked at it and I thought, is it possible to believe that there is a loving or caring Creator when all this woman needed was rain? How could a loving God do this to that woman? “…when I saw that photograph, I immediately knew it is not possible for this to happen and for there to be a loving God. There was no way. Who else but a fiend could destroy a baby and virtually kill its mother with agony––when all that was needed was rain?’” Later in the conversation Templeton added, “‘…It’s impossible for me—impossible—to believe that there is any thing or person or being that could be described as a loving God who could allow what happens in our world daily.’”

Again, the problem of evil argument came to the surface.

Strobel continued in his interview and asked Templeton’s views on Jesus.

Strobel, “‘And so how do you assess this Jesus?’

‘He was,’ Templeton began, ‘the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness.’”

I must admit, when I read those words, I was taken aback, which were the same sentiments that Strobel wrote. My mind questioned how a man who did not believe in God, yet believe in Jesus, who declared he was God’s son?

As the interview came to a close, Templeton continued to expound on his adoration and admiration for Jesus and how he tried to emulate him in his own life. It was evident in Templeton’s words, that he was becoming emotional. He said, “‘In my view he is the most important human being who has ever existed.’” Immediately following this statement, Strobel wrote, “That’s when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him.

‘And if I may put it this way,’ he said as his voice began to crack, ‘I…miss…him!’

With that, tears flooded his eyes. He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me. His shoulders bobbed as he wept.”

Templeton died two years later.

I too wept as I could almost hear Templeton exclaim that he missed Jesus. “I miss Him!” I felt so sorry for this man, who at one time was an ardent defender of the faith, but who had lost his faith, or rather turned from God. 

There is a stark contrast to be found between these two men. Lee Strobel was formerly an atheistic journalist who came to know Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savoir while investigating the Christian faith for his book, “The Case for Christ.” Interestingly, when Strobel began his investigation, his goal was to disprove the validity of the gospel record and the existence of Jesus Christ. God apparently had other things in mind. Templeton, a former evangelist, a “man on fire” for Christ, was a man that lost his faith while actively working in the ministry.

Observations

This study has taken me along some paths I have never traveled, and others I truly had no desire to tread upon a second time. It has given me a deeper insight into the mind and into the heart of those who do not believe as I do, and I don’t merely pity them, I can empathize with them. In fact, I grieve for them. Faith is hard, real faith that is. Real faith is based on evidence and requires thought. The etymology of the English word, “faith” is rooted in the Latin word, “fides” which means, trust, confidence, reliance, credence, and belief. Blind faith isn’t faith at all, but laziness, if not foolishness of the highest order. Put to the test, blind faith will fail. It cannot but do so, because there is no footing, no foundation, it is a house built on sand.    

I think I discovered a few things about myself, and have honed and sharpened some areas of my own faith that were assailable because they were weak. I also learned some things about those who have fallen from the faith and abandoned their God. Some of these findings may even be applicable to some who never really believed. I offer the following as a sort of hypothesis in hopes that it may help someone who is struggling with their faith, or who has possibly abandoned God and is searching for a way back to Him. Either situation in my view is potentially grave and I am at your service if I can assist you in any way. I know very little, but what things I do know are yours for the taking.    

I believe that I can safely deduce that those that turn from belief in a Creator to atheism share a minimum of three things in common. The first commonality being there was a crisis of faith in their lives in which they questioned God. Please bear in mind, it is perfectly normal to question Him, and I believe He expects, as well as encourages us to question Him. He is, after all, our Father. However, these questions should lead one seeking truth to a stronger belief in Him. I also believe that if you are asking the questions and genuinely seeking the truth, not simply your own wants or desires, then you will find evidence of Him, and to a greater degree than what you were originally seeking. We all have crises of faith. All of us are experiencing trials and they are where the crises of faith begin. We are either coming out of trial, in the middle of one, or are preparing to go into one; trials are continuous, and each can be a crisis of faith.  

The second commonality is that all, without exception, who experience this crisis have an emotional reaction to the event or events. This certainly is understandable, as we were made in His image, and like Him, we are emotional creatures. This emotional content is typically in the form of disappointment, or anger in God. The catalyst for the crisis could be a myriad of things, but are typically: loss, sickness, silence from God, or possibly what is seen as indifference from Him. These elicit a wide range of emotions, but disappointment and anger are especially common.    

The third step is a combination of the two, consisting of emotionally charged queries of God’s motives. These motives are questioned as the person is looking to levy blame against someone for the pain and suffering experienced in the crisis, and ultimately, God is viewed as being responsible. Remember the problem of evil argument as you think on these things.

As blame is assessed and levied, the next step is a determination of whether this was an act of commission or omission by God. It is almost always viewed as an act of omission. (Why didn’t God do something?) It is at this point that a distinct separation from God occurs in the crisis. As I mentioned in my own experience, I turned my back on Him, which did separate me from Him. I sometimes wonder if the right additional catalyst had been introduced would I too have turned away?

Once this separation occurs, one can quickly don the cloak of resentment. Remember, the person has assigned blame for the emotional pain he is feeling, and because he is bitter and believes his “problem” has been treated unfairly, resentment will naturally arise. This resentment then rapidly becomes rejection, which then becomes obstinacy. As emotions intensify, thoughts eventually lead to doubt and the questioning turns to His existence. What you find is that when pursued to its roots, it unveils what is actually rebellion. It is not that the person no longer believes, it is a repudiation of God’s existence. This denial of His existence is a form of retribution against God for the anger and disappointment with God because of the suffering they have experienced. This will invariably be rooted in the problem of evil.   

This transforms into a reprisal and accompanying this is a conscious or subconscious demand for reparations. This vindictiveness is clear evidence that it is not disbelief, but incredulity. The fact that one holds an emotion as strong as anger against someone or something that they are claiming does not exist, God in this case, is in itself, contradictory, forming a dichotomy. To abjure one’s faith out of emotion rather than the application of rational thought to the problem, undoubtedly must cause cognitive dissonance. This state is troubling, if not painful. And the only way to limit the disturbance which this state causes is to lessen the source of the pain, which entails changing one’s thoughts and perspective, but to do so would require a reevaluation of their rejection of God. A reevaluation would undoubtedly show a tragic misstep in logic and reasoning thus, bringing the person back to the faith. However, rectifying the situation, taking the time to go back and think about it requires acknowledgement of an error made, and this will be avoided at all costs; thus, the rejection deepens and continues to do so. The remaining alternative, is to outright refuse to believe.  

Even one not well versed in critical thinking recognizes that running on emotions is never a good idea and always leads to ramifications. The unalloyed emotion of anger is dangerous to allow into virtually any rational thought. Of all of the emotions, it is hands down the one with the most propensity towards bad decision and destruction.

Closing remarks

Every human being has a God shaped hole running through the middle of them. I believe we all search for Him, but for whatever reason, atheists did not find Him, or they outright rejected Him. I would ask, where is that rejection rooted? As we have seen, it seems to be rooted in frustration, disappointment, and ultimately emotion. Every person is created in the image of God, and every man or woman must be treated with respect and courtesy, sympathy, and compassion, even they, if not especially those who do not believe in Him. If you are a believer in Christ, then you have received a mandate to do just that. Always bear in mind that you may be the only Christian they ever encounter.   

One of the things that I find most appalling is for those so called “Christians” who respond to an atheist’s statements or arguments against God with carelessness and callous words. For example, one shameful retort is along the lines of, “Well I guess they’ll find out when they die if God is real or not.” How about, “I reckon non-believers will find out just how hot hell can be when they get there.” These are confrontational, unwarranted, and so un-Christlike that those who state them may want to check themselves. Those atheists they ridicule may very well be closer to God than they themselves are.

Where were you when God found you? You did not find Him, He found you. Scripture tells us that if we seek Him, we will find Him, but that is only because He has been waiting for us. It is He who woos us, not the other way round. It is with these thoughts in mind that we should develop a deeper compassion for those who do not believe as we do. Ridicule and animosity should never enter our minds when dealing with an unbeliever. We should also discover for ourselves what it is we believe. As I previously wrote, blind faith is no faith at all. You’re being led around by your nose by whatever is the flavor of the day. True thought takes work. Not just a little work either. It is quite possibly the hardest and most difficult endeavor that you will ever undertake. Thought can be at times, and in most cases is, difficult and sometimes even painful. One thing you learn is that you are not as smart as you thought. Learn what it is you believe and be able to argue it.

Think about this for a moment. When you meet Christ, you will receive a life review, everything you ever said and done will be examined in detail. Would it not be wonderful to find that because of your empathy and compassion for someone who was lost, someone that had rejected God, finally found Him because of your words and your actions?

We should each be living by the admonishment of Charles Spurgeon,

“If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and uprayed for.”

C. Klingle

---

[i] Allan Sandage, quoted by Dennis Overbye, Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Story of the Scientific Quest for the Secret of the Universe (New York: Harper-Collins, 1991), 185–186.

[ii] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (Basic Books, 1995)

[iii] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), pp. 52-53.

[iv] Reference to C.S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet: The Space Trilogy, (Dubland, Ireland: Harper-Collins Publishers, 2013)