We have already posed the question, ‘If evolution, why religion?’ in a previous post. See it here. In summary, the point of that post was saying that if evolution is true, then it produced religion, and therefore religion would be a natural part of the human animal that helps survival, and would therefore be nothing the atheist should be upset about. If evolution is true, then it produced not only all our physical traits, but all our psychological traits as well, including the need for religion.
There is an argument for the existence of God called the argument from religious need. It says that all peoples in all times and locations have demonstrated some sort of need for religion, since all cultures have some expressed religion. This argument would admit the existence of the atheist, but hold this to be an exception, with religion being the common rule. The argument would point to cultures that have tried to stamp out religion but failed, such as communism. Religion seems to be a trait of all people groups, and this argument would say that no need exists unless there is a true fulfillment. If we are hungry, there must be something that can truly fill our hunger. Even though we might ocasionally eat poison, we have a need for good food, so good food must exist. We have a need for religion, so good religion must exist.
Personally, I do not find this argument to be a strong argument like the Kalam Argument or the Vertical Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. It is more of a soft argument, or better yet more of an explanation that would satisfy someone who is already experiencing a religious need. But I do not think it would make an air-tight logical argument. Others disagree, and point to Bible passages such as Romans 1 for support.
However, I recently heard Ken Samples give a very interesting twist on the whole idea of evolution and religious need. The widespread existence of religion is undeniable, for it is in virtually every culure. My first point, in the link above, expresses that if evolution were true, it would have produced religion, and religion would be a natural part of our survival and humanity. Samples takes it one step further, and shows an even more gnarly problem for the atheist evolutionist.
From the atheist perspective, not only has evolution produced religion, but religion is false, a lie. Yet we have huge percentages of the population believing it is true…….believing a lie. The atheist is seemingly forced to believe that evolution has produced in humans the necessary need to believe a lie. And if evolution has produced the need to believe the lie of religion, evolution could have us believe any other lie. To the atheist evolutionist, evolution has produced people like me, who are convinced there is rock solid evidence that God exists. Free will is not an answer, for as we have shown before, those who believe that nothing exists but matter and energy are forced to believe that free will does not exist, that humans act the way they do because of blind natural forces. (see here) So if evolution caused me to belive a lie, how do we know that any other part of our knowledge is true, and not a lie?
So if evolution is true, and all that exists is matter and energy, then blind natural forces have shaped the majority of the human race to somehow need to believe the lie of religion in order to survive. And if we know this is a lie, then we have no basis for trusting any of our knowledge. Besides the fact this ends in a self-refuting circle (e.g., ‘everything I know might be false’), it presents an even further complication for the evolutionist that holds to naturalism.
But the logic of the Christian apologist ends in no such issues. The existence of God is demonstrated by arguments for His existence that start with the observable world, such as the one here. These are sound and demonstrable, and do not have the logical inconsistencies presented by naturalistic evolution.