“Deism, historically, produces atheism. First you make God a landlord, then he becomes an absentee landlord, then he becomes simply absent.”

Bishop N. T. Wright

We begin with an outline of evolution. The genomes of living organisms are prone to random variations, or mutations. If a mutation happens to confer a survival advantage (e.g. thicker fur) or reproductive advantage (e.g. greater plumage) upon an organism, then that organism is more likely to pass on its genes to the next generation. When a population of a given species becomes fragmented by some geographical change (e.g. mountain formation), then the isolated populations will diverge as they become subjected to different selective pressures and undergo different mutations. When the two populations eventually diverge to such an extent that they can no longer exchange genes, that is when speciation has occurred.

Evolution is thus a cumulative term for the ongoing processes of mutation, natural selection, sexual selection and speciation. Over the space of ~4.5 billion years, these processes have given rise to a tremendous diversity of life on Earth. Evolution is substantiated by many powerful lines of evidence, from the steering power of artificial selection and the existence of intermediate fossils to analogous anatomical structures and the geographical distribution of life. Especially powerful is the tree of cousinship which emerges from comparing the genomes of closely-related and distantly-related species. In a short video filmed at the University of Nebraska State Museum, Richard Dawkins offers a concise explanation of comparative genomics:

Evolution has obvious implications for supernatural belief systems, which typically posit the existence of a Creator God. Indeed, we are now aware that the approximately 8.7 million known species of life on Earth were not created individually by some external agent, but rather share a common ancestor with all other species; humans, for example, share 85 percent of their DNA with mice and 61 percent with fruit flies. Evolution thus makes God/Allah/Yahweh redundant and destroys the notion of human exceptionalism, the beating heart of Abrahamic monotheism. In The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, the great naturalist describes how his Christian faith faded away as he began to realise that his theory was correct:

Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can be hardly denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief… Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Given the enormity of evolution, to be a person of faith requires one to either ignore the facts of biology, to deny them, or to find a way to accommodate them. Quite often, those who take the latter route adopt the belief that God set the universe in motion and guided the evolutionary process (see The Language of God by Francis Collins). However, while this is certainly an improvement over creationism, introducing a supernatural agent into evolution does nothing to help us understand it better; there are no puzzles in biology which are more easily solved by invoking a deity. As the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has put it, “If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance ‘God’.”

In removing God from nature, we are left with a deity who got things going with the Big Bang, and that’s about it. We are thus no longer dealing with a personal god, but a remote entity whose existence, even if it could be proven, would concede absolutely nothing to the miraculous claims of religion. Indeed, positing the existence of a Prime Mover or First Cause is not an argument for Moses parting the Red Sea with his staff, Jesus rising from the grave, or Muhammad flying from Mecca to Jerusalem on the Buraq; rather, the believer still has to show how we get from an impersonal god to one who intervenes in human affairs. In a debate with Christian apologist Frank Turek, the late Christopher Hitchens makes this point effortlessly:

The desire to believe in a higher power is perfectly understandable; indeed, it can be comforting to believe that someone is watching over you. However, insofar as we value the truth, we must admit that the god of deism is not the mighty personality of Abrahamic monotheism, but rather a distant spectre – “an insubstantial shadow”, as Sigmund Freud put it in The Future of an Illusion. Alas, this admission is made difficult by the efforts of liberal theologians, who are shameless enough to employ deistic arguments as evidence for a personal god. In this article, we will thus spend a little time examining two of the most common arguments for deism. With any luck, it will enable believers on the fence to complete their journey to atheism.

*****

The Argument from Fine-Tuning

In essence, the Argument from Fine-Tuning states that the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe are set within very narrow ranges that allow for the existence of life. Proponents argue that this “fine-tuning” points to an Intelligent Designer who intentionally calibrated these parameters. In truth, however, there is a litany of philosophical and scientific problems with this argument. We will endeavour to explain each one in a clear and concise manner:

Anthropic Principle: This principle states that we can only observe the universe in a way that allows for our existence. It suggests that, rather than indicating fine-tuning by a Designer, the life-supporting conditions of the universe are simply the minimal requirements for us to be here observing them. It is not that the universe was specially “set up” for the emergence of life, but rather that life is a natural consequence in universes where the conditions happen to permit it.

Multiverse Hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests that our universe may be one of countless universes, each with its own laws and constants. If there are an immense (or even infinite) number of universes, it is statistically probable that at least one will have the precise conditions necessary for life. Thus, life-permitting conditions in our universe could be coincidental rather than the result of design. We just happen to be in such a universe, and, as such, ought to be overjoyed about it. In his timeless scientific reverie Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins elegantly weaves his lust for life with our cosmic story:

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked – as I am surprisingly often – why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn’t it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?

Assumptions about Life’s Requirements: The Argument from Fine-Tuning assumes that life as we know it is the only possible form of life, and thus that very specific conditions are required for it to come into being. However, we only understand life based on one example: our own carbon-based life in a universe with particular fundamental constants and initial conditions. It is possible that other forms of life might arise under entirely different constants or conditions, meaning that life might not be as rare or as “fine-tuned” as one might imagine.

Low Abundance of Life-Critical Elements: Let us consider the chemical makeup of the universe. Of the atomic matter which comprises the hundred billion galaxies in existence, just 2 percent is composed of elements which are heavier than helium. Of this 2 percent, only a fraction is composed of carbon, the main element of life; according to NASA, carbon makes up just 0.06 percent of the mass of the universe (Cameron, 1973). Thus, it does not appear as though a Fine-Tuner designed the universe to manufacture, in stars, the carbon needed for life.

Questionable Probabilities: Calculating the probabilities of fundamental constants being “fine-tuned” is speculative, especially with only one known universe. It can be argued that we lack a sufficient basis for assuming that the constants could be different, or that a life-permitting set of constants is truly improbable. Fine-tuning arguments often draw upon estimated probabilities, but without a reference class of many universes, these probabilities are arguably unfounded.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy: The Argument from Fine-Tuning appeals to ignorance by suggesting that, because we currently have no natural explanation of the universe’s parameters, an Intelligent Designer must be the cause. However, the absence of an alternative explanation does not inherently support the existence of a Designer; rather, it might just reflect our incomplete knowledge. As with anything in science, future discoveries could provide explanations that we currently lack.

Self-Selection Bias and Observational Limits: The Argument from Fine-Tuning is limited by our observational perspective. We can only see one universe, and, as observers, we are by necessity within a universe that supports life. This self-selection bias makes it difficult, if not impossible, for us to objectively assess how unusual or “fine-tuned” the fundamental constants of the universe really are, as we are only able to observe one possible outcome, i.e. a life-permitting universe.

*****

The Argument from First Cause

The Argument from First Cause, also known as the Cosmological Argument, states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause, often argued to be a necessary, uncaused being, typically identified as God. Once again, however, this argument runs into quite a few philosophical and scientific problems. As with the Argument from Fine-Tuning, we will attempt to explain each of these problems in a clear and concise way.

Infinite Regress and Special Pleading: The Argument from First Cause posits that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, which leads to a First Cause. However, if everything requires a cause, this should logically apply to God as well, leading to an infinite regress. Invoking God as an “uncaused” entity is a form of special pleading: if God can exist without a cause, then we could just as reasonably suggest that the universe or physical world itself exists without a cause, making the concept of God unnecessary. In his philosophical treatise A Refutation of Deism, Percy Bysshe Shelley takes up this point with characteristic wit and eloquence:

Thus have we arrived at the substance of your assertion, ”That whatever exists, producing certain effects, stands in need of a Creator, and the more conspicuous is its fitness for the production of these effects, the more certain will be our conclusion that it would not have existed from eternity, but must have derived its origin from an intelligent Creator.”

In what respect then do these arguments apply to the Universe, and not apply to God? From the fitness of the Universe to its end you infer the necessity of an intelligent Creator. But if the fitness of the Universe, to produce certain effects, be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to his end must exist in the Author of thus Universe? If we find great difficulty from its admirable arrangement in conceiving that the Universe has existed from all eternity, and to resolve this difficulty suppose a Creator, how much more clearly must we perceive the necessity of this very Creator’s creation whose perfections comprehend an arrangement far more accurate and just.

Modern Physics and Causality: Contemporary physics offers several theories that question the necessity of a First Cause. The Hartle-Hawking proposal, for example, implies that time may give way to space near the universe’s origin, creating a realm where only space, not time, exists. Without time, traditional causality may no longer apply, as causation presupposes a temporal sequence. If time did not exist at the “beginning”, then the universe’s origin might be causeless in a fundamental way, removing the need for a First Cause entirely.

Quantum Mechanics and Causality: In quantum physics, certain events appear to lack definite causes in the classical sense. For example, in a vacuum, pairs of particles and antiparticles (like electrons and positrons) can spontaneously appear and annihilate each other. This phenomenon arises from the inherent uncertainty in quantum fields, as described by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which temporarily allows energy to “borrow” itself to create these particles. If causality can break down at the quantum level, it’s possible that the universe itself could arise without a traditional “cause”, making the First Cause argument less compelling.

Ambiguity About the Nature of the Cause: As we stated in the introduction, even if the Argument from First Cause holds, it is by no means a given that the cause must be a conscious, intelligent deity. The cause could theoretically be an impersonal force or law, rather than a god. Thus, even if we accept that the universe or physical world requires a First Cause, the argument doesn’t logically lead to the existence of a personal God with attributes such as intelligence or intention.

Alternative Explanations for the Universe’s Existence: Cosmologists have proposed alternative theories that do not require a First Cause in the traditional sense. For example, Roger Penrose suggests that the universe goes through infinite cycles of expansion and contraction (“aeons”), where time and causality are redefined. Others propose models where the universe could be self-contained without a specific beginning, thus sidestepping the need for a First Cause.

Occasionalism and Anti-Causation: Ironically, the Argument from First Cause is at odds with theism itself – specifically, the doctrine of Occasionalism, associated with Al-Ghazali and Malebranche. Occasionalism rejects the idea that created things can cause effects on their own. Instead, it posits that all events are directly caused by God, who intervenes at every moment to sustain the universe and produce outcomes. Al-Ghazali critiqued Aristotelian causation, arguing that even seemingly natural events (e.g. fire burning cotton) occur because of continuous divine intervention. Thus, if causation itself is illusory, the First Cause argument collapses.

Conflict with Divine Attributes: The Argument from First Cause also contradicts the conception of God in theism – a timeless, eternal being who exists without past, present or future, and thus cannot undergo change. However, causing the universe implies a transition – such as from “not creating” to “creating” – which requires a sequence of events. Causation typically involves change, so how can a timeless being initiate a temporal effect, like the universe, without itself changing? This appears to conflict with the concept of timelessness.

*****

Conclusion

When the arguments for theism and deism fall away, what remains is atheism. Depending on the individual, the loss or absence of belief in a higher power can have profoundly different effects. For some, atheism can result in a booming appetite for science and the wonders of our cosmos; for others, it can lead to intermittent or prolonged bouts of depression and existential angst. That is the risk we take in choosing to live without illusions, in charting our own courses – that sometimes, we end up crashing on the rocks.

For the well-being of our species, it is surely better that some of us struggle with the consequences of critical thinking, rather than everyone suffering from its absence. That is the lesson of history, from the 20th-century totalitarianisms to the likes of ISIS – that we should take the risk of thinking for ourselves, rather than delegating thought to others; to base our beliefs on reason and evidence, rather than authority or tradition. To finish with a quote from Bertrand Russell, who boldly sets out his stall in What I Believe:

I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man’s place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.

*****

References: The Argument from Fine-Tuning

Anthropic Principle:

Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford University Press, 1986. This book introduces the Anthropic Principle, discussing how the conditions of the universe are compatible with life because we, as observers, exist in a universe where those conditions happen to allow for our existence.

Multiverse Hypothesis:

Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf, 2014. Tegmark posits that our universe is just one of many, each with different physical laws and constants. He suggests that if there are enough universes, it becomes statistically likely that some will have conditions suitable for life.

Assumptions about Life’s Requirements:

Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Penguin Press, 2006. Davies examines the Argument from Fine-Tuning, questioning that life must be carbon-based and require specific conditions. He discusses the possibility of alternative forms of life under different constants and conditions.

Low Abundance of Life-Critical Elements:

Stenger, Victor J. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Prometheus Books, 2007. Stenger discusses how the prevalence of inhospitable conditions and the scarcity of life-essential elements in the universe challenge the idea of one that is fine-tuned for life.

Questionable Probabilities:

Leslie, John. Universes. Routledge, 1989. Leslie discusses the difficulty of estimating the likelihood of life-permitting constants in a single universe. He argues that without a reference class of multiple universes, calculations of probability are speculative and lack a firm foundation, making fine-tuning claims uncertain.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy:

Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2004. Swinburne, although a proponent of theism, acknowledges that fine-tuning arguments must avoid appealing to ignorance. His book offers a theistic perspective but also considers common counterarguments.

Self-Selection Bias and Observational Limits:

Bostrom, Nick. Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. Routledge, 2002. Bostrom explores how self-selection effects may lead us to overestimate the significance of fine-tuning, given that we can only observe conditions compatible with our existence.

*****

References: The Argument from First Cause

Infinite Regress and Special Pleading:

Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Oxford University Press, 1982. Mackie provides a well-regarded critique of cosmological arguments, discussing the potential for infinite regress and the special pleading involved in positing an uncaused cause.

Modern Physics and Causality:

Hawking, S.W. and Hartle, J.B. ‘Wave Function of the Universe’. Physical Review D, vol. 28, no. 12, 1983. This paper advances the theory that near the universe’s origin, time transitions into a spatial dimension, eliminating the need for a temporal “beginning” and challenging traditional notions of causality.

Quantum Mechanics and Causality:

Krauss, Lawrence M. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. Free Press, 2012. Krauss discusses how quantum mechanics might allow for a universe without a traditional “cause” in the classical sense, challenging the cosmological argument’s assumptions about causality.

Ambiguity About the Nature of the Cause:

Rowe, William L. ‘The Cosmological Argument’. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Rowe examines whether the First Cause argument necessarily implies a personal God and considers the possibility of alternative, impersonal causes.

Alternative Explanations for the Universe’s Existence:

Penrose, R. Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. Knopf, 2011. Penrose argues that the universe undergoes infinite cycles of expansion and contraction. Each cycle ends in a state of low entropy that transitions seamlessly into the next, redefining time and eliminating the need for a specific beginning.

Occasionalism and Anti-Causation:

Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Translated by Michael E. Marmura, Brigham Young University Press, 2000. Al-Ghazali’s critique of Aristotelian causality is central to Occasionalism, which denies the independent efficacy of causes and instead attributes every effect to God’s immediate will.

Conflict with Divine Attributes:

Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. Wipf and Stock, 2000. Padgett critiques traditional views of divine timelessness, discussing the challenges of reconciling a timeless God with causal actions, like creating the universe, that seemingly require temporal sequence and change.