How can I put fundamental, dogma and atheism in the same sentence?  Put simply, because atheists hold to their beliefs just as firmly as religious people do; after all, both camps are zealots that have made conclusions about the same subject.  

The truth is anyone can believe in a dogma; you can be a religious nut, an atheist, an agnostic, or a politician.  You can even be a normal, rational person and believe in a dogma.  Just because it is a dogma doesn’t make it wrong—that would depend on what the dogma says.  So the question isn’t ‘Is adhering to a dogma bad?’ Instead, we should ask, ‘Is the dogma in question reasonable or valid?’ 

For the sake of comparison, let’s look at some of the fundamental dogma of Christianity.

• God created the world and its life forms in seven literal days

• The Bible is the inspired Word of God, not the work of Man

• The Bible is meant to be taken literally

• The Earth is relatively young (10,000 years or less)

Every atheist or agnostic I have ever encountered refuses to accept this dogma as valid (in fact, I know quite a few Christians that don’t accept it either).  They rightly point out that the burden of proof lies with the claimant.  It is not up to the atheist/agnostic to disprove the claims of the believer; instead it is the responsibility of the believer to back up his or her claims.  While I have no problem with that, many Christians, intimidated by this task, cop out and hide behind the ‘F-word’ (faith).  (For more on that, see the article, ‘Philosophy and the F-word’)

Before anyone gets too smug, remember that it is equally intellectually lazy to scoff at a belief without checking the facts, as it is to believe anything you hear without checking the facts.  Either way, you are making a decision based solely on emotion.  But Christian dogma is not the subject of this article—we will leave that for another time.  Right now, we are talking about the fundamental dogma of atheism.  Yes, they have one, and believe it or not, it is not as slam-dunk easy to back up as you might think.  

Here is the short list:

• The universe is self-existing and self created.

• The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

• Life began as a result of spontaneous generation.

• Mankind is a result of organic evolution.

• Morality is an artificial construct of humans-there is no transcendent moral standard

• Religion and religious belief/dogma is harmful to human development

• Religion is antithetical to reason

There are two others that are not universally accepted by atheists/agnostics, but a misunderstanding of them will taint the later topics, so I want to deal with them first.

• Science is an authority

• You can only rationally believe in that which can be scientifically proven.

Science is an Authority

“There may be no creeds in mathematics, but there are in accounting.”  

1. Observation - collecting data;

2. Hypothesis - forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data;

3. Testing - test the hypothesis by collecting more data, using a control;

4. Results - interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected.  The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.

5. Conclusion - stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others using this same method  

You can only believe in that which is scientifically proven

"Conceptions without experience are void; experience without conceptions is blind."

--Albert Einstein

I am not talking about morality or metaphysics (although you can believe in them, they are not scientific).  Ask yourself this question: do you believe in the existence of time?  Most people will say ‘yes’, however time is impossible to prove.  One cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell time.  We have measured it, but even Einstein proved that it is a physical property that is relative to the observer.  In the traditional sense, you cannot prove it because you cannot replicate it.  Once a moment in time is passed, it is gone.  One can measure an equivalent length of time, but that particular moment in time is gone.   

The Universe is self-existing and self created

“I have a question about the Big Bang Theory: what blew up?”

--John Clayton

Science is based upon the observation that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be tested and replicated through experiment.  Since no human was present at the birth of the Universe no one can speak with first person knowledge about how it happened.  It is a statement of philosophy that is accepted as scientific fact, even though that ‘fact’ is un-checkable in any scientific way.  Some however try.

The Continuous Generation Theory refers to irtrons- theoretical points that spontaneously produce hydrogen from nothing and spew it into the Universe.  So how do we recognize an irtron?  We can’t, because no one has ever detected one.  But unlike time, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would lead us to believe in the existence of irtrons—they are a made up thing to get around the question of Origin.  Additionally, to believe in the Continuous Generation theory, a person must ignore a lot of scientific laws ( The Law of Conservation Mass , The Law of Conservation Charge ,The Law of Conservation Angular Momentum ).

The Steady State Theory claims the Universe has always existed and that matter and energy have been recycled through time.  It is an idea that has no observed foundation; in other words, nobody has seen any matter be recycled in the purest sense.  When energy is spent, it doesn’t ‘re-energize’.  A sun that runs out of fuel doesn’t spontaneously acquire more fuel—it is burnt out and dead.  Cosmologists call this heat death.  The principle is called entropy, and is a scientific law (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is commonly called the Entropy Law).  To believe in either the Steady State Theory or its daughter, the Oscillating Universe Theory, you must ignore that law, and all on absolutely no evidence or based upon no observations at all.   

“Why is it more reasonable to believe that God has always existed than to believe that the Universe has always existed?”  It is a valid point.  It doesn’t help establish proof for the atheist’s own dogma, but it is a reasonable question.  Before they can chalk up any points, there is a snag.  All the mentioned laws are time based, that is, they only apply to conditions or matter and energy that are governed by time.  That means that the Judeo Christian God would be exempt, as this being (at least by the Biblical definition) functions outside of the dimension of time.  We as three-dimensional beings are not limited by two-dimensional laws, and in the same way, God (being greater than four dimensions) is not limited by fourth dimensional laws. 

Consider the following:

Either the Universe had a beginning or it did not have a beginning.  If it did not have a beginning, it has always been.

Either God had a beginning, or He did not have a beginning.  If He did not have a beginning, He has always been.

In frustration, the atheist often says, “Well, we are here, so it (the spontaneous, non directed creation of the Universe) must have happened.”  Aside from the logical fallacy (begging the question), it can get embarrassing because the only justification he can muster for ignoring the observed data is that the alternative scenario (special creation) doesn’t fit the dogma.  Isn’t that just like a religious nut that refuses to accept something he sees because it threatens his ‘faith’?

The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old

To examine this dogma, it is necessary to figure out why certain scientists believe the Earth is so old.  One way was looking at the strata in the Earth where fossils are found, different levels representing certain time spans.  Much of the general assumptions of this approach were shattered however, when similar strata was found after only a few hours when Mt. St. Helens blew her top in 1980. 

Most people, if they are familiar with dating methods at all, are familiar with radiometric dating.  There are inherent flaws with using this system, (for one, there is no way to verify them) which I will summarize using quotes from various scientists.

“…The ‘bottom line’ is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago.  That is an enormous extrapolation.  In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally ‘laughed out of court’ by fellow scientists and mathematicians.  Yet geochronologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists require, and because it makes these radioactive ‘clocks’ work!”   Andrew A. Snelling, “Radioactive Dating Method ‘Under Fire’! Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol 14, No. 2  p. 44  

One of the deciding factors for variation in dating keeps coming back to natural disasters (test results of a nineteenth century mining helmet that had been through a fire put it at five thousand years old).  One of the best places to get megalodon (a huge prehistoric shark) teeth is in the Dakota Badlands.  …So how did 60-foot sharks end up buried in a place so far from the ocean?  It isn’t a huge leap to conclude that at one time, the Dakotas were under water.  When we consider the number of fires in history, large meteor events, volcanic disasters, as well as the Ice Age and Global Deluge, it quickly becomes apparent the difficulty in finding uncompromised material to test.  Additionally, extrapolating the rate that the sun burns its fuel over 4.5 billion years (assuming the rate is even generally constant) would put the surface of the sun too close for the earth to sustain life.

Life began as a result of spontaneous generation

Abiogenesis (the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under the right conditions) is foundational to atheism.  Usually the presentation goes like this: Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas.  Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere.  Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together.  And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one celled animal].  Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas.  These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world.  They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth. (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life) 

What is the evidence for this event, as no one was there to witness it?  Scientists have thus far been unable to agree on the actual conditions of pre-life Earth, and have therefore been unable to reproduce those conditions in a laboratory. In certain attempts, various combinations of elements produced certain amino acids felt to be the building blocks for life, but have failed to produce actual life. In each incident, those amino acids had to be immediately removed from the setting that 'created' them as this environment was so toxic that these building blocks for life would be destroyed, and so they were no closer to engineering a feasible scenario.  Note that this arrangement itself was engineered by scientists trying to produce a specific result (by definition, Intelligent Design), not the random happenstance that their theory demands. Given this situation, upon what basis do they make such a conclusive statement?  Once again, scientists have entered into the realm of philosophy (an idea or hypothesis about what happened that may explain life that is void of any testable data), but (inexcusably), they have given no signal as to what point is fact and what point is still hypothesis.  Incredibly, their chief evidence is that life exists.  It had to come from somewhere, so it must have happened that way—they make the statement as though there is no other possible option. 

George Wald tips his hand in this conflict of interests: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.  Yet we are here as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation...Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.  I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." [emphasis added]  Even though he admits the only reason he believes in spontaneous generation is that he doesn’t like the alternative, he has the audacity to claim that it is scientific, which it cannot be as there is no data to test.  (For more, see our article House Without a Floor.)

"It is only an error in judgment to make a mistake, but it shows infirmity of character to adhere to it when discovered."

--Christian Bovee  

Mankind is a result of organic evolution

“From goo to you, by way of the zoo.”

--Frank Peretti

Evolution states that simple organisms develop into complex ones through a process that is a combination of random mutation and natural selection.  Beginning with the simple cell, life developed into invertebrates to aquatic vertebrates to land dwellers to warm blooded creatures and finally to man.  Beneficial mutation and transition are the core principles involved in the process, yet scientists have yet to produce any beneficial result by random radiation induced genetic mutation (a mutation that helps the organism), and there is not one credible transition fossil.  And it doesn’t even approach the principle of irreducible complexity.  Once again, the process is unobserved and is extrapolated because of a philosophy of the scientist.  

Morality is an Artificial Construct

Morality is a system of rules that govern human behavior.  Certain things are ‘right’ and other things are ‘wrong’.  There is a standard against which we measure what is right and what is wrong.  That standard will vary, depending upon a person’s upbringing or beliefs, but it is still there.  The origins of morality have been much debated, but since no one can pinpoint the actual beginning of man’s morality, there is no definitive evidence to examine.  Therefore any explanation of it falls into the categories of theory, philosophy and speculation.  While other groups are perfectly comfortable with this, atheists and agnostics prefer to claim factual knowledge about morality’s origin, even though there is no possible way of validating their claims. 

They say that they derived their morality from Nature.  Nature’s morality is survival of the fittest—Might is Right.  If it helps the species, then it is good.  That means murder is right, stealing is right, even rape is right.  Such morality today would seem barbaric, and so it seems to the atheist as well.  It is not uncommon to hear popular atheists champion certain moral causes such as environmental conservation and feeding the poor, even though this is wholly opposite to survival of the fittest.  How to they reconcile this?  As people evolved, they claim, their sense of morality became more civilized.  Instead of ‘kill or enslave anything that isn’t you’ as a standard, they began to see the benefits of doing things differently.  It is more civilized to care for the needy and to save certain species from extinction. 

A study of history, then, should show this pattern, if this theory is true.  Even if they might not know exactly when this system of developing morality began, the process should still hold true.  That is, when humans decide what is right and wrong for themselves, without any supernatural influence or outside standard, then the result should be a more enlightened, civilized and compassionate society.