Given Enough Evidence?
Bertrand Russell and skeptical blame-shifting.
September, 2018
Bertrand Russell was among the leading atheists of his generation. His approach to religion typified an unfair, almost cartoonish attitude which eventually grew into the New Atheists of the turn of the century. Among Russell's more common general complaints about faith hinged on his own self-esteem. This was the idea that he, as a supposedly rational person, was not convinced of the reality of any god, let alone the God of the Bible. Therefore, per Russell, if there really was such a God, his disbelief would be God's fault, not his. In fact, when asked how he'd respond if he died and found himself face-to-face with a Creator, Russell delivered this retort:
"Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?"
While this claim is common from non-believers, it is false on factual, logical, and theological grounds. Obviously, the issue of whether or not the evidence for God adds up is a subject too broad for a short article. What's more telling is the claim that God, somehow, "fails" in the amount of evidence He provides. The real reason for this suggestion is an escape hatch; it's the atheist version of hedging your eternal bets. However, it's not an excuse that will work, nor should it, especially not according to what the Bible says about our resistance to faith.
The truth is that God will never hold a person accountable for the output of their intellect. However, He will always hold people accountable for the sincerity of their interest in Him. The Bible indicates that all who disbelieve are somewhere, somehow, deliberately choosing not to pursue evidence in the right direction. No atheist will ever be lost because they were not a "little bit smarter." Or, because they were not given "one more piece of evidence." But many will be lost because they were not a "little bit more open" to the evidence they were given.
Romans 1:18–21 and Psalm 19:1 summarize the idea that God puts "evidence" of Himself in our everyday experiences and in His creation. At the same time, people are not always sincere or honest about interpreting that evidence. We can see this in many issues in daily life, and we also see illustrations of it in the Bible. The Pharisees knew all the necessary Scriptures and saw Jesus perform miracles, but they rejected Him and claimed it was for valid reasons (John 5:39–40; John 7:17). People often claim they want "more" evidence, when in truth they're not open to the evidence they've already seen (Luke 16:19–31).
So, what is going to happen to the atheist who tries to tell God, "not my fault; you should have done more," like Russell? They'll be forced to admit that, in some way and at some point, they chose to interpret evidence according to their preferences, or chose not to follow certain evidence, and so forth (Romans 14:11). Faced with God, the atheist will be confronted with reasoning which was not "too rational," but which was "too biased." He'll be shown that his approach was not "lacking intellect," or "lacking faith," but "lacking sincerity."
Like a student who is brilliant but does not study for an exam, that atheist cannot claim, "you're failing me for not being smart enough." Or, "you didn't give me enough details about the test." God, like the teacher, will say, "I'm failing you because you didn't do what you could have done to pass. You chose not to look into certain things." A person who really, truly researches God and His creation will be forced to choose how to interpret what they see; the problem in the end won't be absence of evidence, but whether or not the person wants to know the truth (Matthew 7:7–8).
Ironically, Russell himself not only realized this fact, he sincerely believed it. And, as expected, he seemingly never applied it to his own approach. He once noted:
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."Of course, in Russell's customized definition, his own atheism could not count as a "myth." Tragically, reality has a way of cutting through our feeble attempts. God does us the honor of giving us all more than enough evidence so that no one is left irresponsible for their response. Russell himself discovered this, too late, when he finally met God in 1970, on the wrong side of eternity.
-- Editor
