Religious Implications of Atheism

Logical Arguments and Evidences are Counterproductive in Debates about Religion

One can relate to the Bible in different ways, believe it or not, but one thing is undoubtedly: on its basis it is possible to build a consistent theory of human psychology. It has stood the test for millennia. In natural sciences, no theory has been tested for so long.

One of the key points of the biblical concept is the story of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As an educational measure so that the first man could show trust and love, the LORD God commanded the man: “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:16–17). However, Eve succumbed to the temptation of the serpent (devil), lusted after the forbidden fruit of knowledge, ate, and gave it to her husband (Gen. 3:6). The devil always deceives by representing God as envious and wicked. However, the intellectual knowledge that devil offered, apart from trust and love for God, easily becomes evil. There have been and still are many evil geniuses in the world, people whose intellectual abilities are undoubtedly outstanding, but they are possessed by evil.

In the fallen world, knowledge has always been highly valued as a means that gives power over nature and other people. Pagan priests and magicians, Platonists, Gnostics and many others up to modern atheists—all gave priority to knowledge.

The biblical texts also praise wisdom and knowledge (and vice versa, ignorance and stupidity are condemned). However, the context suggests that wisdom and knowledge should follow sincere love for God and neighbor, truth and virtues. Thus, the Bible distinguishes between wisdom coming from above (which is full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and unfeigned), and earthly, spiritual, demonic wisdom (James 3:15).

King Solomon wrote:

“My child, if you accept my words and treasure up my commandments within you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding; if you seek it like silver, and search for it as for hidden treasures—then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Prov. 2:1–6).

At the beginning of the fourth century, the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire ceased ^[6], and, shortly after the accession of Emperor Constantine, Christianity rose to the status of a state religion. However, because of this entry into the Hellenistic world, Christianity was subjected to the colossal influence of Greco-Roman culture. From Neo-Platonism, ideas about intellectual knowledge as a self-sufficient virtue were perceived. Of course, we note only a general trend, and there have been exceptions to it always and everywhere.

Theology began to appeal to the intellect, to be presented logically, as a scientific system. In the West, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) succeeded in this. In his fundamental work Summa Theology (Lat. Summa Theologiae), he outlined five proofs of the existence of God based on the Logic (science) of Aristotle. Almost the same was done in the East. For a whole millennium, this has become a trend. Many books have been written where the existence of God was proved, based on intellect and common sense.

By the way, Islamic thought followed in the same direction (it is no coincidence that Tzortzis refers to the rational evidence of medieval Islamic theologians). Islamic theologians could simply rewrite the evidences for the existence of God from Christians, since in this respect Christianity and Islam speak of the same things. In general, the formation of Islam was influenced by Christian asceticism, Buddhism and Neo-Platonism. However, that is another topic.

In Christian countries, secondary and higher education included the study of various kinds of evidence of the existence of God. Then atheism appeared, other books were written, where, on the contrary, it was proved that there is no God, and with references to reason and common sense. They began to teach young people using these books. In the Soviet Union, for about seventy years, atheism was actively promoted, forbidding access to any positive information about religion. However, as soon as the communist regime fell, people began to convert to Christianity en masse. Old and new religious books were reprinted. After thirty years, some of the Christians, seeing the unworthy behavior of some representatives of the church, became disillusioned with Christianity and began to convert, some to another religion, some to Atheism.

It was the same in Turkey, where Mustafa Kemal began to instill secularism in the 1920s. Kemal admired science and saw the happiness of humanity in scientism. Nevertheless, propaganda of atheism did not help. After several decades, in Turkey people again began to turn to religion en masse.

This story repeats itself for centuries. Not all the numerous proofs, both on the one and on the other hand, somehow help. It is high time to understand that logical proofs in the field of metaphysics do not work! This is an area where everything depends on the choice between good and evil, between virtue and vice. Logic and common sense can play a supporting role here, but not the main one.

[00:10:50] Tzortzis: . . . But what have cosmologists said? They have said, for example, Alexander Vilenkin, in his book Many Worlds in One ^[7], which I believe is a friend of prof. Krauss, he says, “With the proof this we place, cosmologists can no longer be hide behind the possibility of the past eternal universe. There is no escape. They have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning”. And just to know, even prof. Krauss in his book affirms a beginning to the universe . . .

Comment 7

Great quote! In it, atheists expose themselves. Not a single discovery of physics is spoken of in such terms. Elsewhere in the book, Alexander Vilenkin frankly says that the atheists really did not want to, but there was no way out, and they had to admit the fact of the beginning of the world, which was inconvenient for them. Moreover, it began from nothing, and not from the previous infinite universe.

From the fact of the beginning naturally follows the question of the Cause of this beginning and this fact confuses atheists. Therefore, in the atheistic USSR, the Big Bang theory was denied for thirty years, insisting on the postulate of the infinity and eternity of matter, that is, the “Big Bang” was viewed as the transition of uncreated and indestructible matter from one state to another. In 1955, a Soviet author wrote in an astronomical journal, “The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of an infinite universe is a fundamental axiom at the basis of Soviet cosmology . . . Denial or avoidance of this thesis . . . has nothing to do with science.” ^[8] This is how Soviet atheism, which proudly called itself “scientific”, considered Marxist-Leninist axioms, that is, statements taken on faith, as its foundation.

In fact, the so-called “scientific” atheism has nothing to do with science. It is a set of atheistic dogmas, as a sacrifice to which hundreds of real scientists were expelled from the profession, and many were arrested and convicted. ^[9] For example, the world famous scientist Academician N. I. Vavilov (by the way, he was a deeply religious Orthodox Christian) was sentenced to be shot ^[10] because he dared to criticize the erroneous views of Lysenko for the sake of scientific truth.

[00:24:00] Tzortzis: Before I get into that, we have to now discuss what a miracle is? The word comes from the Latin word miraculum, meaning something wonderful. And the traditional Western philosophical definition of the miracle, as summarized by David Hume in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. ^[11] He says that it is a transgression of natural law. We do not agree with that definition. Because what are natural laws? Natural laws are just inductive generalizations of patterns we can see in the universe . . . That the profound Islamic theologians and thinkers have done, they redefined that a miracle is, based on the Qur’anic discourse. And they have said, that a miracle is an event that lies outside the productive capacity of nature. Which means, when you go to a nature of the event . . . there is no naturalistic cause or link between the event and the nature of the event . . .

[00:32:10] Krauss: Well, first of all, I want thank the people invited me, who been very gracious to me . . . That does not mean I respect ideas. Some ideas are ridiculous. And that is perfectly reasonable. In fact, ridicule an ideas is that makes progress.

Comment 8

Here Krauss introduces himself as a clown, determined only to make fun of. He does not want to ask, understand, or come to know the particulars. How can one make fun of what he do not know and don’t understand? In order to more or less understand Christianity or Islam or Buddhism, they need to be studied much longer than any science. For example, in the Russian Empire, one had to study theology for twelve years.

It would be better if Krauss said that laziness is the engine of progress. Then you could at least smile. His ridicule of ideas is not at all funny. This is a crude propaganda trick. The real engine of progress is the desire to find out the truth. Unfortunately, Krauss does not show such a desire.

It is a pity! One might suggest that he analyze atheistic literature from the mid‑nineteenth century to the mid‑twentieth. There are so many ridiculous ideas, mistakes, and contradictions with the data of modern science that one can laugh!

[00:33:42] Krauss: Debates that I watched were always exactly the same. So I thought will be different this time. And it is always begin to you and I have to respond to you. And I will to some extent, but it is hard respond to nonsense. And in fact, the point of this is not a question does God exist, that is “Islam or Atheism, which is more sensible”. I was just shocked because I thought that you would not try to pretend you know science. Because you do not. And we will go through that in real detail. Everything you said is nonsense what regards to science.

Comment 9

Here the style of speech is not at all decent for a scientist. There is a kind of discussion ethic in academia. If the interlocutor thinks about the opponent’s statement that “this is complete nonsense,” then the most rude thing that can be said aloud is “I don’t understand you”.

In fact, it is completely inappropriate to compare religion and natural sciences, although this is often done. If you compare religion with anything, then you need to take examples from the sphere of art or human relationships. It would be rather silly to come to a museum and start criticizing the masterpieces of art in terms of probability, causality, the laws of mathematics and physics. And nobody does that. How to prove beauty, can it be scientifically falsified? Beauty and love, cannot be proven or recognized as scientific, but from this they do not lose their value. Beauty and love occupy an important place in human life. The same can be said for religion.

[00:34:30] Krauss: Let me just first begin with the fact that the premix of this debate is, in some sense, inappropriate . . . First of all, it is suggest that Islam is something special. It is not! It is not special at all. It is one of a thousand religions, or more, that have existed since the dawn, which claim divine revelation. All of which claim perfection, proclaim infinite knowledge, uniqueness, beauty et cetera. So Islam is just a religion like any other religion. And there is no difference. It proclaims just as Rig Veda . . . ancient Egyptians, that the universe had a beginning. Nothing special . . . Okay . . . Islam one of a thousand religions. All of which make same claims.

Comment 10

Even within the same religion, there can be different trends and significant differences of opinion. For example, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox in Christianity, Sunnis and Shiites in Islam. Even about these confessions within one religion, one cannot say, “It’s the same everywhere. Nothing special.”

It is completely incomprehensible how, from the fact that there are a thousand religions in the world, it can be concluded that there is not a single unique one among them? For example, there are millions of paintings in the world. However plots, maybe only a few dozen. Does it follow from this that among the hundreds of thousands of paintings with a similar plot, there is not a single unique one? Why does one sell for two dollars and the other for a hundred million? In addition, it is sometimes difficult for a nonprofessional to distinguish a fake from the work of a genius. The nonprofessional will say, “In one picture, a fruit, and in another picture, the same fruit—the same thing, nothing special.” The expert will say, “One picture is a simple consumer goods, and the other is a unique masterpiece.”

Therefore, those people who have not yet grown to understand it may simply not notice the value and uniqueness of something. For example, paintings by the French artist Camille Pissarro sold very poorly during his lifetime. One day they paid for his painting with just one cake. During the Franco-Prussian war, soldiers lodged in his house (in his absence). They used canvases instead of aprons, laid them on the floor, and threw them in the trash heap. About one and a half thousand paintings were damaged. Now paintings by Camille Pissarro cost hundreds of thousands of dollars! It is impossible to assess anything adequately until the very criteria by which they are judged are inadequate. It makes no sense to throw pearls in front of pigs, for them it is no more valuable than sand.

Krauss’s attitude to religion does not allow throwing pearls in front of him. How can Krauss, who has not studied Islam, be so self-confident in claiming that Islam is no different from other religions? He says that in Islam, as in Rig Veda or beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, it is stated that the universe had a beginning. Yes, but the beginning of the universe is understood in different ways everywhere! The so-called Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) profess that time, space, matter (and all the laws of physics) were created by God out of nothing (Lat. ex nihilo, Gr. οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων). In this they fundamentally differ from other religions, where it is said that the universe is either eternal or has a beginning, but is created by God from himself or from eternally existing material. Many religions (Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism), gravitated towards pantheism, that is, towards the elimination of the substantial difference between God and the universe. Therefore, these religions essentially deified nature. Atheism simply replaces God with nature. That is why atheists insist (without proof, of course) that at least some attributes of the material world (the path is not matter, so at least its laws) exist eternally (and even outside of time). This is where “the needle of Koshchei the Deathless” is hidden.

Could the Universe Have Come into Existence

from Non-Existence by Physics?

From time immemorial, people believed that without a cause nothing comes from nothing. ^[12] This principle was formulated back in the fifth century BC in the philosophy of the era of Parmenides and has since been considered an obvious truth. Therefore, the best way to get people’s attention is to show that it is not.

In the 1830s, the Scottish illusionist John Henry Anderson (1814–1874) came up with a trick, the demonstration of which gathered full houses. The magician shows the audience his top hat, demonstrating that there is nothing in it. Doubters may even pick it up and check it out. After several magical passes, he puts the hat on the table or makes an arc movement with it in the air, as if scooping something up, and immediately pulls out a rabbit or even two in a row from the hat. The secret of performing the trick is that the illusionist discreetly puts the rabbits into the hat from the secret pockets of his tailcoat or from under the table.

Now, getting a rabbit out of a hat, in which initially there is nothing, you will surprise no one, but the concept of the formation of the universe from “nothing” has become the excitement of people’s minds. The prerequisites for this concept have been gradually taking shape since the beginning of the twentieth century. Protestant rationalism grew out of atheistic scientism and positivism. These doctrines deny philosophy and absolutize the role of natural sciences and mathematics not only in the epistemology of science, but also in explaining everything in general. They say that physics and mathematics can explain any phenomenon (even in the field of culture and anthropology!), If not just today, then in the near future. Several generations of scientists have already been brought up in the mainstream of this paradigm of thinking.

It is not surprising, therefore, that when physical and mathematical models had developed sufficiently, cosmologists began to try to answer the philosophical question about the beginning of the universe. ^[13] In 1973, the Soviet physicist P. I. Fomin and a little later the American physicist E. Tryon ^[14] announced the possible emergence of the universe from “nothing”. ^[15] In 1988, the journal Priroda published the last article by Ya. B. Zeldovich entitled “Is it possible for the universe to form ‘out of nothing’?” ^[16] with a positive answer to this question. ^[17] In 2012 L. Krauss published the book A Universe from Nothing. ^[18]

These and many other similar works of scientists on the emergence of the universe can be figuratively summarized like this:

“With the help of what did the universe come into existence?”

“With the help of physics (i. e., the totality of the laws of matter).”

“With the help of what did physics come into existence?”

“Eh . . ., hmm . . . with the help of physics.”

This type of “proof” is called a “vicious circle”. There is a tale about Baron Munchausen, who pulled himself out of the swamp by the hair with his horse. Alternatively, the same, about the boy who pulled himself out of the swamp by the laces of his own shoes. This is a metaphorical image of how physics created itself with the help of physics. The universe, as it were, pulled itself out of “nothing” by its “own laces”. This metaphor was even taken seriously as an explanation, and the process itself was called “bootstrap”. The universe, as it were, spontaneously aroused in itself all the energy that was necessary for the “creation” and “revitalization” of matter, and initiated the explosion that generated it. This “self-extension”, of course, is absurd and is a logical error, but nothing else can be invented in this atheistic paradigm. Scientists and positivists categorically reject philosophy, since for them “god” is physics, and its “prophet” is mathematics. Therefore, when asked about the origin of physics, they have to build a vicious circle of evidence. After all, otherwise their minds will go off the “rails” on which they were put at school and at institute. ^[19]

Let us explain the above with examples. Spontaneous electromagnetic radiation by atoms or spontaneous fission of heavy atomic nuclei occurs due to the instability of their energy (or other) state. The time of this event cannot be precisely determined, but is described probabilistically, according to the corresponding distribution function.

However, can we talk about the spontaneous emergence of the laws of physics (as Krauss says)? Of course not. For spontaneous occurrence of a photon, at least a hydrogen atom is needed. If the atoms (matter) themselves do not exist, then there will be no phenomenon of spontaneity, no wave functions of electrons, etc. The same can be said about the vacuum, which has energy and is capable of producing particles. Krauss wrote in his book A Universe from Nothing:

“The existence of energy in empty space-the discovery that rocked our cosmological universe and the idea that forms the bedrock of inflation-only reinforces something about the quantum world that was already well established in the context of the kinds of laboratory experiments I have already described. Empty space is complicated. It is a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time so short we cannot see them directly.” ^[20]

But this means that the “empty space” that cosmologists study is not “nothing” at all, but a physical (material) object under the conditions of space-time and the existing laws of physics.

Cosmologists talk about quantum fluctuations of the physical vacuum, about the spontaneous emergence of particle-antiparticle pairs in very strong electric fields from “nothing”, about fluctuations of the scalar field (which allegedly gave rise to the universe). However, all these examples are taken from the material world with already existing physical laws. Thus, by “nothing” cosmologists mean, as it were, a special “pra-matter” that existed outside space and time. All theories that talk about the possibility of the emergence of the universe from “nothing” require the preliminary existence of the laws of physics and a special “nothing” that has the potential to give birth to quantum particles.

However, it begs the question: how did the laws of physics themselves emerge if there was nothing material yet, and why the original “nothing” could have any potential. Krauss quotes Richard Feynman in Preface of A Universe from Nothing: “The laws of physics could be like an infinitely layered onion, with new laws becoming operational as we probe new scales.” In addition, a little earlier, he recalled about the famous “story of an expert giving a lecture on the origins of the universe (sometimes identified as Bertrand Russell and sometimes William James), who is challenged by a woman who believes that the world is held up by a gigantic turtle, who is then held up by another turtle, and then another . . . with further turtles ‘all the way down!’” ^[21]

In fact, there are not only turtles, but a whole zoo: an elephant, a boa constrictor, a tiger, wild boars and a whale that swims in a bottomless and endless ocean. Krauss and those to whom he refers are arguing with representatives of the Abrahamic religions, in whose cosmogony there is nothing of the kind. But for the sake of argument, wanting to ridicule religion, Krauss mentions this “zoo” of Hinduism. However, he does not realize that he is ridicule of himself.

Only someone who is very stupid will take the ancient metaphor literally. The opposition of ancient myths and scientific cosmogony is already a myth in itself, a method of demagoguery.

People in ancient times were not stupid. For example, Thales of Miletus predicted a solar eclipse in 585 BC, having learned the necessary knowledge in the field of mathematics and astronomy from the ancient Egyptians. Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC argued that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. He also calculated that the Sun is about eighteen times farther from the Earth than the Moon. Copernicus created a heliocentric system based on ancient heritage (and referred to ancient authors).

Therefore, the ancient myth of the Earth on turtles was never considered as a scientific theory, but served as a metaphor that illustrates the state of mind of a rationally thinking man in the street. If the Earth were floating directly in the ocean, a natural question would immediately follow: is there anything further, at the bottom of the ocean and below it? But when there is a long chain of mysterious creatures between the Earth and the ocean, human curiosity is largely satisfied, and the person is no longer interested in whether there is anything at the bottom of the ocean.

Using this metaphor, the ancient authors wanted to show that no matter how deeply scientists advance in the knowledge of nature and space, they would discover more and more “animals” (essences, laws of matter) and further advance along the chain of knowledge. However, no matter how far they go, there will always be an unknowable ocean ahead. This is what the ancient people understood and what modern atheist scientist does not understand.

Physicists are constantly finding more and more “turtles”—more and more new laws, effects, and essences. Of course, the reliability of physical facts is beyond doubt, but the endless sequence of correct explanations itself now plays the role of a zoo from ancient myth. Physicists have learned to split protons, but how long can subatomic particles be split? Is there anything smaller than the Higgs boson? Physicists are constantly discovering new elementary particles, but how elementary are they? Atheists stubbornly refuse to notice the obvious fact that no matter how far science has advanced, there will always be an ocean of the unknown in the distance.

About the same thing was said by one of the giants of science, Sir Isaac Newton. His quote is widely known, in which he uses a metaphor that is close in meaning:

“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” ^[22]

Since the time of Isaac Newton, our knowledge of the Universe has expanded significantly, but we also stand only on the shores of the “great ocean of truth”. Physicists have always been and will be doing the same thing as Newton: looking for “a smoother pebble or a prettier shell”, while before them there will always be an unexplored great ocean of truth.

The situation in atheistic cosmology resembles not only a metaphor with turtles, but also a trick with getting rabbits out of an “empty” hat. The only difference is that quantum cosmologists imperceptibly take out of their pocket or from under the table not rabbits, but the formulas of quantum mechanics, wave function, scalar field, etc. and put all this into the original “nothing”.

For example, in the theory of the quantum creation of the universe, it is postulated (i. e., it is proposed to believe!) That the universe arose from an unreal quantum field that did not exist in the physical sense, that is, it is a purely mathematical abstraction, called by A. Vilenkin “literal nothing”. ^[23] Then watch his hands! This mathematical “literal nothing” due to spontaneous fluctuations was able to give rise to a pseudo-real particle, representing the embryo of the future universe. Moreover, it, in turn, with the help of quantum tunneling overcame the barrier separating the abstract mathematical world from physical reality!

Good trick! However, physics cannot arise from mathematics just because some physicists want it, and they skillfully juggle formulas. Materialists go beyond the applicability of scientific theories that describe our world when they try to talk about something “before” the world came into being. The trick does not cease to be a trick from the fact that “serious people” with high ranks and regalia and with an intelligent look perform it. “A smart face is not yet a sign of intelligence, all stupidity on Earth is done with just such an expression.” ^[24] In any case, all this rhetoric does not remove the main question: how did the laws of physics arise and why are they exactly like that?

Maybe there will be a boy who will say, “But the king is naked!” It is only in fairy tales that you can lift yourself into the air by your hair or by your laces. Ontologically, physics (that is, the totality of the laws of matter) cannot create itself. Albert Einstein once remarked that it is impossible to solve a problem by thinking the same way as those who formulated it. To solve the problem of the emergence of the material universe, it is necessary to go beyond the “level of physics”; after all, not without reason, the outstanding thinkers of humankind spoke about metaphysics and philosophy.

Could physics give the initial impulse for the emergence of the universe, if it did not exist at first? The question is rhetorical. What comes first, physics or metaphysics, matter or spirit? There must be a final limit, beyond which there is no longer physics. This limit is non-being (Lat. nihilo, Gr. οὐκ ὄν). This is absolute non-being (non-existence, nothingness), a denial of any existence (any of its forms), and a denial of any being. It lacks any essence, potency, inner laws and anything else. In non-being, there are not only the laws of physics, but also even the laws of abstract mathematics.

A great many scientific books and articles on the emergence of the universe from “nothing” have been written. Although the approaches and methods in these scientific works may differ, they are all based on one glaring logical error and can only fascinate science fanatics. The error lies in the fact that the authors speak the language of physics and mathematics about the moment of the origin of the universe, about the initial singularity, ie in the language of the material world, which did not yet exist at that moment. The universe arose not from a physical or mathematical vacuum, but from non-being (nothingness), in which there was no physics, no mathematics. Obviously, when there was no “physics” (ie the material world), there were no laws of physics either. Therefore, no scientific formulas and equations make sense in the original singularity.

It remains to recognize that the act of creating out of nothing requires a person, a creator, who is transcendental in relation to his creation. Moreover, this is not just a philosophical conclusion, but also a fundamental ontological Law, similar to the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics. Just like the Laws of thermodynamics, this Law is not proved, but enunciated inductively.