Explaining God Away

An evolutionary scientist says, “Ah, the answer is that it’s hard-wired into us by the process of natural selection.” That is, belief in God is something that helped our ancestors survive. Therefore, in a sense, evolution selected that trait, so that's why we all have it. But there's a problem with this.

The problem with saying that belief in God or morality is hard-wired into us—that our belief-forming faculties or moral impulses are the product of evolution and therefore can’t tell us the truth about things but only help us survive—is that you’ve proved too much. If we can't trust what our belief—forming faculties tell us about God and morality, because it’s just to help us survive, why should we trust our belief—forming faculties when they tell us evolution is true? How dare you use the scalpel on every other thing, everybody else’s belief, but not your own?

Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame has argued this at a very high level in a number of his books. He’s a philosopher, and he says: If we believe that everything in us is only the product of evolution, and that all our belief-forming faculties are there only because they help us survive, not because they tell us the truth, then we cannot trust our cognitive faculties to tell us what’s really out there. In fact, if anything, a mildly paranoid take on reality will certainly help us survive more than an accurate take on reality. And therefore, if we can’t trust what our faculties tell us about God or morality, how dare you say, “But you can trust what your faculties tell you about the theory of evolution?” Therefore, if we have a theory like evolutionary theory, we can’t trust our mind.

At the end of the Abolition of Man, regarding people who explain away religion and morality as “Well, it’s just evolutionary” or "It's just this, just that,” C. S. Lewis writes:

You cannot go on "explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on "seeing through" things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To "see through” all things is the same as not to see.

So if as Nietzsche says, “All truth claims are really just power grabs,” then so is his, so why listen to him at all? And if, as Freud says, “All views of God are really just psychological projections to deal with our guilt and insecurity,” then so is what he says about God. So why listen to him? And if, as the evolutionary scientist says, what our brain tells us about morality and God is not real, it’s just a chemical reaction designed to pass on our genetic code, then so is what their brains tell them about the world and evolution itself, so why listen to them? In the end, to see through everything is the same as not to see anything. And if we try to explain away belief in God like that, by appealing to evolution, then we’ve explained away everything. So we can’t explain it away.

Source: Timothy J. Keller, “Reason for God: The Exclusivity of Truth,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).