It is rare for a sermon to reach the front page of a national daily newspaper,
but that is what happened on October 28 2000. Archbishop George Carey was
speaking to a congregation on the Isle of Man, drawing attention to a culture
of "tacit atheism" that has become dominant in our land. Presumably, this
was considered newsworthy because the leader of Anglicanism has effectively
acknowledged that we live in a post-Christian culture.
The Archbishop's comments deserve to be digested and discussed, especially the word "tacit". Many people give lip service to a belief system whilst denying it by their actions (2 Timothy 3:5). We certainly have a form of Christianity in this country, but is this accompanied by an experience of the power of God? The Archbishop's comments would suggest that whatever many may say they believe, the reality is that they live without God in their lives: "tacit atheism".
This article is written in the conviction that this "tacit atheism" sermon was actually a significant step forward for an Anglican leader to make. Our society is correctly described in terms of tacit atheism - and my interest is in asking why we are in this situation and how it affects Christian scholarship, particularly origins issues.
Tacit Atheism in Science
Surveys of the religious beliefs of Americans have produced surprising results. About 91% of people believe in a personal God who answers prayer, but only about 40% of scientists put themselves in this category. Recent surveys of the membership of the US National Academy of Sciences (representing "top" scientists) reveal that less than 10% profess any religious beliefs (Larson and Witham, 1998). Furthermore, the group of scientists that is responsible for presenting "science" to the wider community (whether in books or through organisations) is dominated by people who have adopted atheism and a materialist philosophy of life. These findings are suggested to be of great significance. This is not because it shows that science is hostile to Christianity, for science is essentially the systematic investigation of the way God upholds his creation. The significance is this: science has become the tool for advancing materialism: the philosophy that matter is all there is.
Whilst some leading scientists (such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins) are openly hostile to Christianity, others advocate a less confrontational approach. They consider that science and religion are different compartments of the human experience of life. The "science" compartment addresses anything that can be investigated using the scientific method, resulting in knowledge. The "religion" compartment is where we can place ethics, morality, values, aesthetics, and the like. Knowledge does not appear in the religious compartment, because there is no way of finding out knowledge apart from the methodology of science. "Religion" is inherently a subjective, private matter. The "ought" word so often used in the context of morality is acceptable for individuals, but is deemed inapplicable for communities. This makes religion a very private matter.
This compartmentalisation of science and religion has been adopted by many scientists (probably most of the 40% mentioned above). However, it is fundamentally at variance with Biblical Christianity. This is because God's revelation is actually our only source of authoritative knowledge. Man cannot "know" anything without receiving truth from God. God's authority gives us knowledge in both "science" (where our knowledge is imperfect) and in "religion" (where God's revelation brings us knowledge in its fullness). The compartmentalisation of human experience has never been a part of biblical Christianity, because all truth is God's truth and all knowledge is unified in Christ. Consequently, there is a real tension between Christianity and that version of science that is offered to the public today.
The science that lays claim to all knowledge does it on the basis of a specific methodology - that it is possible (by investigation) to understand the natural causes of all observed effects. For every observation, science is considered the only way to research the causes and generate knowledge about it. There are no exceptions to this principle, it is claimed, and present limitations in our knowledge are expected to be overcome.
So this kind of "science" has an exclusive methodology that is autonomous. God is irrelevant to the process. The road to truth is via the practice of science and, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "Science is truth". Students of science today are taught how to gain knowledge by investigating the world, and they can do this completely independently of God. This is a key issue, and it places modern science firmly in the category of "tacit atheism".
Some scientists (particularly leaders) go all the way and declare themselves atheists. Others, who may have a personal faith, find it necessary to leave God outside the door of the laboratory. When they practise their science, they have to conform to norms that are policed by their atheistic leaders.
Tacit Atheism in the Humanities
The post-war consensus was that our social problems are due to ignorance and poverty; the vision was that the problems could be solved y education and social engineering. Science would provide the technology to make change possible and the humanities would provide the vision. However, instead of vision, the humanities have become increasingly affected by nihilism. Art, literature, music, the social sciences, psychology and philosophy all seem to have lost their way.
A major driver for these trends has been the exclusive claim of science to knowledge. The "natural" eats up everything else. Values, choices, ethics, beauty, vision, love: all these human traits are reduced to natural causes. "Love is just a brain state" says Dawkins. Relegated to the realm of subjective experience and denied access to knowledge, the humanities have become the seedbed for post-modernism and pervasive relativism. These disciplines have become similarly affected by "tacit atheism" and there is no place for God in their thinking.
If the intellectual world is permeated by "tacit atheism", it is not surprising to find that the population at large is similarly floundering. Since man is fundamentally a spiritual being, a yawning gap has emerged between man's intellectual world and his spiritual needs. This is filled by the irrational, the superstitious, and various forms of idolatry. New Age religion, the occult, mystical, ceremonial and sectarian religions are taken up by the population at large to satisfy these felt needs. We live (rationally) as though God does not exist, but we indulge ourselves with (irrational) religious practices because our hearts hunger for something that our minds do not allow.
A Vigorous Christian Response
If this analysis of the problem is valid, then the response the Church of Christ needs to make is necessarily radical. Calls to evangelism must include addressing the "tacit atheism" that has taken over the intellectual life of our nation. We need to restore a Christian foundation to knowledge. This means challenging the idea that science has an exclusive methodology that gives science alone the right to talk about "knowledge".
Our starting point has been given us by Solomon: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7). God's revelation of himself and his mighty acts is the foundation for all knowledge. If we do not set out in our science to study the way God upholds his creation, then eventually scientists will undermine the integrity of their own discipline. (People appear to be recognising this because, without God, we have no basis for being confident in the use of reason).
Similarly, in the humanities, if we do not start out with the knowledge that man is made in the image of God, then there is no bright future for aesthetics, for free agency, for psychology, for literature, for music and the arts. The alternative starting points require a submission to God's revealed truth. It requires that human autonomy is replaced by the spirit of discipleship. These prerequisites are deeply objectionable to the modern mind, but they are liberty and light for the Christian.
What we seek, then, is a restoration of the Christian mind in every area of life. We need Christian scholarship. We need people in the sciences and the humanities who will apply the word of God to their disciplines. Within BCS, this concern is articulated concisely in the Creation Manifesto, which sets out an agenda for scholarly activity not just in origins issues, but it intentionally addresses science in general and the humanities.
The Archbishop faces a serious problem within Anglicanism, for these issues have yet to be opened up and discussed by its leaders. A similar situation exists within Christians in Science, the most visible and influential of the organisations linking Christians who work in the field of science. It is probably true to say that creationists need to engage in the debates much more than we have in the past. Serious debate is urgently needed if the many faces of "tacit atheism" are to be tackled. It must be added that the problems are widespread in the U.K. and our understanding of "the Christian mind" is emaciated as a result of years of pursuing a different direction.
Those who want to develop this line of thinking further will find a recent book by Professor Phillip Johnson very helpful - although it is written with a U.S. readership in mind. The book, "The Wedge of Truth" (InterVarsity Press, 2000), is written to show how a Christian foundation for knowledge "fits into the specific Christian gospel, and how and where questions of biblical authority enter the picture". It is dedicated to the congregation of First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley, California, where Professor Johnson is an elder. I mention this merely to emphasise that this book is intended for Christians in general, not just for those operating within the world of scholarship. "As Christians develop a more thorough understanding of these questions, they will begin to see more clearly how ordinary people - specifically, people who are not scientists or profound scholars - can more effectively engage the secular world on behalf of the gospel" (quotations from page 16).
Practical Initiatives
The time appears right for some initiatives to be launched to take these issues further. The relaunching of Origins to differentiate the popular magazine from the technical journal is intended to contribute to the clearer articulation of scholarship issues. We encourage BCS members who share the vision and have ideas about written contributions to contact the editors so that we can plan future issues.
A second initiative is to develop a week-long summer school for students or prospective students, to stimulate the thinking though of the various disciplines from a Christian perspective. This initiative has resulted from our recognition that numerous Christian students are influenced during their studies by their peers, most of whom advocate a strong theistic evolution position. Consequently, most of these students are never exposed to the "tacit atheism" issues affecting contemporary scholarship, and the number of Christians who are developing the field of evangelical scholarship remains low. The summer school proposal is to help students grapple with the key issues, and will be much broader than addressing origins issues alone. Our emphasis will be on helping people to ask the right questions, not feeding them with pre-digested answers.
In summary, our goal is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This is what we mean when we talk about the restoration of the Christian mind in every area of life. We need to bring discipleship into Christian scholarship. We need people in the sciences and the humanities who will apply the word of God to their disciplines. We need people who will pray - to turn the vision into reality!
David J. Tyler.
This article is modified from "Tacit Atheism: a response to Archbishop Carey" that appeared in the February 2001 issue of Evangelical Times.
Reference:
Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. 1998. Leading
scientists still reject God. Nature, 394 (23 July), 313.
