One of atheismʼs champions, Richard Dawkins, believes that the greatest contribution of Charles Darwin was to make atheism “intellectually satisfying.” I think that Dawkins is wrong on two counts.

There is increasing evidence that the appearing of the universe (complete with a host of physical laws by which it functions in a precise manner) cannot be a product of chance. The former leading atheist, Antony Flew (There Is a God), contends for theism precisely for this reason. His analogy is that even an infinite number of monkeys pounding on computers would never compose a Shakespearean sonnet. Six monkeys did so pound on a computer for a month. Was anything intelligible produced? Not a single word resulted. It was "The British National Council of the Arts" that actually sponsored this project.

But I think the problem gets deeper. Atheism demands a naturalistic worldview. Scientist Carl Sagan summarized this view in his statement, “The universe is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.” The inescapable implication is that every event, including what we think, is physically determined by chance. Most evolutionary psychologists agree that free will and reason are not compatible with naturalism. If my beliefs and those of Dawkins are the product of chance rather than reason and choice, why are his views any more trustworthy than mine? Even Darwin was troubled by this problem.

With “nothingness” as the First Cause and pure chance as the guide, there is no meaningful purpose for our existence. Hence, according to atheistic evolution, we come from nothing, for no reason, and go back to nothing. Everything dies and ends in the nothingness from whence it came. And no one could have ever done other than what has been determined by chance. Why am I not intellectually satisfied?

by Daniel Arsenault

Chapter Director, University of Alabama