By Melissa Moschella

By Steve Piraino

The weaknesses of atheism showed clearly April 7 in the debate co-sponsored by the Harvard Secular Society (HSS) and the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF) about the existence of a benevolent Creator. While Derek Araujo and Christopher Kirchhoff of HSS admonished the audience frequently to remember that the burden of proof must fall completely on the opposition, they had no plausible explanations for the existence and qualities of the universe. And they certainly didnít refute the arguments of the HRCFís Matthew Peed and John Pittard.

Imagine walking into a room and finding a 
complex object or system of objects which functions according to an apparent set of rules. Youíd assume logically that it was created by some independent, intelligent being. This is the basic logic behind the first proof of Godís existence. The Big Bang Theory itself implies the need for an uncreated being. In fact, many atheistic scientists ó like Stephen Hawking ó disliked the theory because they thought it pointed to the existence of a Creator. Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore any non-eternal being must have been caused by another. The Big Bang Theory proves that the universe is not eternal, so some outside being must have caused it. Furthermore, it must have been caused by an eternal being, for an eternal being doesnít need a cause. Its very essence is to be.

Araujo, however, who is president and founder of HSS, asks, ìWhy not admit the universe is uncaused?î His point would be valid if it were not for the evidence to the contrary. If the universe were eternal, it would need no Creator, but the fact is, as Pittard argued, ìit is clear that the universe has a beginning.î The only logical explanation for this fact is that an eternal being exists who created the universe. We generally call that being God.

The next argument HRCF presented involved the notion of free will. They posited free willís existence in men as self-evident. Free will and naturalism (the doctrine that everything is explainable by the laws of nature) are mutually exclusive. Therefore there exists an intelligent being outside nature which created man and gave him free will and reason. Failing to resolve the contradiction, Araujo and Kirchhoff denied free willís existence. Of course, if thereís no free will, their participation in a debate is a puzzlement. Since everythingís predetermined, why bother trying to convince anyone of anything?

Also, the HSS debaters couldnít handle an obvious implication of determinism ó that moral indignation at Hitler is about as pointless as moral indignation at a boulder which falls off the edge of a cliff which kills a crowd of people.
And what about human consciousness? We understand our understanding and will our willing. Where did such ability come from? Why did it just ìappearî several billion years after the universe began? Darwin canít even explain that one, and Derek and Christopher didnít even try.
Peed and Pittard, though, had to prove not only the existence of God in the debate, but also Godís benevolence. How can a good God permit so much suffering and evil in the world? Isnít it, as Kirchhoff pointed out, ìmore reasonable to believe that the universe is indifferent to human suffering?î
God gave man free will, without which we couldnít love or do anything virtuous. Without free will weíd be non-rational automatons. And while God can and does intervene in the universe, if He intervened to stop all evildoing and natural disasters weíd be effectively like helpless infants. And if God constantly intervened against natureís laws, thereíd be no pattern by which man could discover how the world works. Thereíd be no science, no pre-dictabilty of nature to rely on. The universe would be irrational.
Besides, suffering results in much good. The greatest things in life ó hope, triumph, forgiveness, redemption, dedication ó wouldnít exist without suffering. Suffering induces us to evaluate our lives and priorities. Suffering and sacrifice are powerful expressions of love. Theologically speaking, suffering is also an invaluable tool to attain redemption and relate to God, to recognize the need to trust in Him rather than ourselves. Suffering is a relative evil which a benevolent God permits because it serves our greater good. These are just opening arguments in the case for Godís existence. Itís clear that thereís much more than a shred of evidence to justify theism rationally.
Of course, we must admit that the cards were stacked against the Secular Society. HRCF had the added advantage of some powerful outside help, as well as having simple Truth and Reason on their side. But free will exists, and just because an argument is logical, rational, and true, humans are quite capable of denying it. The Harvard Secular Societyís atheism is a prime example.

Well, perhaps the victory wasnít exactly so clear-cut. Sorry, my secularist friends, but as is generally the case, our Christian brethren did, for the most part, succeed in at least convincing themselves. Nonetheless, something important did happen on Wednesday the seventh. In a few isolated spots on campus, tens, maybe hundreds of timid little creatures poked up their heads, sniffed the air and emerged from their cavernous dwellings. These are the secularists, hidden and oppressed for ages, denied social advancement and political office, forced to conceal their beliefs from employers, friends, spouses and parents.  They gathered, commiserated and found strength despite a shared sense of being alone and insignificant within a massive, uncaring universe. 

ìOur arguments are widely misunderstood,î 
explained a freshman sympathetic to the Harvard Secular Society (HSS). ìWe do not argue that man will ever answer every question through scientific reasoning.î In fact, if there is one thing that differentiates agnostics from theists, it is their acute sense of the limits of the human intellect. ìBut the limits to our understanding are limits in man, not in science itself,î she continued. The chasm between our current state of knowledge and complete understanding of the universe is enormous, probably infinite.

Indeed, it is the boldest of claims for theists to contend they have deduced the origin and purpose of the universe through Cartesian logic. ì[Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowhip] has come before you floating the hypothesis that there exists a benevolent Creator,î explained HSS debater Christopher Kirchhoff. ìThe burden of proof rests with them.î And with the burden of proof on their shoulders, HRCF proceeded to argue. 

ìSomething cannot come from nothing,î stated Matt Reed of HRCF, but the Secular Societyís Derek Araujo stood this argument on its head. ìIf were assuming that God created the universe, then what created God? If the answer is nothing, then youíre accepting that something can come from nothing, so why not just cut out the middle man and say the universe came from nothing?î In a separate argument, John Pittard (HRCF) claimed that science cannot explain the origins of its own laws. But if these laws originate in the mind of God, we are brought back to the question of Godís own origins, which theists do not account for. Whereas neither side of the debate can solve the problem of first cause, what are we to believe?

This is the question that led both sides to throw ìOccamís razorî back and forth like a rhetorical football. That is, whereas HRCF claimed that God is the simplest solution to the question of first cause, the Secular Society was quick to expose this claim for a sham. Arbitrarily replacing an uncaused universe with an uncaused being does not explain or simplify anything.

Yet there were two more main arguments for the secularists to refute. The first stated that kinds of circumstances required for human life to exist are almost infinitely specific; so it is almost infinitely unlikely that human life was an accident. Hence, the Creator. But unfortunately for the theists, other explanations, such as the theory of varying physical constants, already explain how the conditions necessary for human life may not be at all unlikely. Furthermore, as Araujo explained, ìthe way things look to us now, the universe will get bigger, colder and eventually unsuitable for life. If the universe was designed for a purpose, it was more likely made to contain hydrogen dust. The vast stretches of time and space are all but entirely lifeless.î 

Furthermore, were the universe created for humankind, we would not live within the confines of a logical system which necessitates all kinds of evil and suffering to have the order and predictaility so prized by theists.  ìWere there a creator,î explained one student who chose to remain nameless, ìhe would not be bound by his creation.  He could create any logical system he wanted and make Earth into heaven.î  That is, he could enable us to experience such ëhigher goodsí as love, virtue and accomplishment without contending with pedophiles, Nazis and the International Monetary Fund.

The last argument, while their most compelling, was also the most flawed. Such phenomena as human consciousness and sensation (including the sensation of free will) were used as evidence for the existence of a God ó because these things cannot be explained by scientists. But this amounts to taking anything that is beyond our present comprehension as evidence of a benevolent, complex, creator of the universe. Such reasoning renders the human intellect powerless to investigate the unknown. Imagine if past assertions that God causes such things as fire, thunder, rain, and biodiversity were left unchallenged in similar fashion. The world would be a simple place, and the HRCFís arguments would be accepted without qualm ó but they would still be wrong.