Science Leads Former Atheist Alister McGrath To Belief In God.


This is the testimony of former atheist Alister McGrath included in full (1). McGrath has done much work for the Gospel as he has take it upon himself to share the reasonableness for belief in God, Jesus, and Christianity. He currently holds a Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford (2). McGrath is also pretty smart as would be suggested by the fact that he possesses three doctorates! He has a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History. He is most noted due to his opposition to atheism, his writings on the relationship between science and religion, apologetics, as well as numerous books and textbooks. He is also currently an Anglican priest on top of all this (3).

“Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain.”

“Spiritually, God is the oxygen of my existence; I would find it very difficult to thrive without a belief in God. Of course, the word “God” needs some clarification. It means different things to different people, even though there are often clear areas of overlap. To clarify: I believe in the God who is made known and made available through Jesus-that is, a personal God who I believe knows me as an individual, cares for me, and enables and inspires me to live my life with a firm sense of purpose and a deep satisfaction in the service of others. That situates me within the generous parameters of Christianity.

I haven’t always seen things this way. When I was growing up in Belfast, Northern Ireland, during the 1960s, I came to the view that God was an infantile illusion, suitable for the elderly, the intellectually feeble, and the fraudulently religious. I admit this was a rather arrogant view, and one that I now find somewhat embarrassing. My rather pathetic excuse for this intellectual haughtiness is that a lot of other people felt the same way back then. It was the received wisdom of the day that religion was on its way out, and that a glorious, godless dawn was just around the corner.

Part of the reasoning that led to my conclusion was based on the natural sciences. I had specialized in mathematics and science during high school, as preparation for going to Oxford University to study chemistry. While my primary motivations for studying the sciences were the insights they allowed into the wonderful world of nature, I also found them a convenient ally in my critique of religion. Atheism and the natural sciences seemed to be coupled together by the most rigorous intellectual bonds. And there things rested, until I arrived at Oxford in October 1971.

Chemistry proved to be intellectually exhilarating. As more and more of the complexities of the natural world seemed to fall into place, I found myself overwhelmed by an incandescent enthusiasm. I chose to specialize in quantum theory, and found it to be mentally demanding, almost to the point of pain-yet rewarding. Although the quantum universe fascinated me, I was increasingly drawn to the biological world, intrigued by the complex chemical patterns of natural organisms. In the end, I decided to research advanced physical methods of investigating biological systems, under the supervision of Sir George Radda, who later became chief executive of the Medical Research Council.In the midst of this growing delight in the natural sciences, which exceeded anything I could have hoped for, I found myself rethinking my atheism. It is not easy for anyone to subject his core beliefs to criticism; my reason for doing so was the growing realization that things were not quite as straightforward as I had once thought. A number of factors had converged to bring about what I suppose I can reasonably describe as a crisis of faith-or lack thereof.

Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain. The opportunity to talk with Christians about their faith revealed to me that I understood relatively little about their religion, which I had come to know chiefly through not-always-accurate descriptions by its leading critics, including British logician Bertrand Russell and German social philosopher Karl Marx. I also began to realize that my assumption of the automatic and inexorable link between the natural sciences and atheism was rather naïve and uninformed. One of the most important things I had to sort out, after my conversion to Christianity, was the systematic uncoupling of this bond. Instead, I would see the natural sciences from a Christian perspective-and I would try to understand why others did not share this perspective.

In 1977, I read renowned biologist Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, which had appeared the previous year. It was a fascinating book, brimming with ideas and showcasing a superb ability to put difficult concepts into words. I devoured it, and longed to read more of his work, but I was puzzled by what I considered to be a rather superficial atheism, not adequately grounded in the scientific arguments that undergirded the work. Atheism seemed to be tacked on with intellectual Velcro rather than demanded by the scientific evidence Dawkins assembled. A brilliant scientific popularizer, Dawkins seemed to be propagandizing an aggressive atheism. And there is no doubt that his lucid and hard-line atheism-especially evident in his recent book, A Devil’s Chaplain-has done much to shape public perceptions of the credulousness of Christian faith. Belief in God, he argues, is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy: It cannot be sustained when we grow up and learn the realities of the scientific method.

Dawkins is now the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, where I earned a doctorate in molecular biophysics and first class honors in both chemistry and Christian theology-an academically enriching experience, which I look back on with great affection. I began serious research in Christian theology at Cambridge University, and was eventually drawn back to Oxford. I now hold a chair in historical theology-the systematic study of the development of Christian ideas down through the centuries.

To this day, I have never seen the sciences and religion as being fundamentally opposed to each other. As an historian, I am fully aware of important tensions and battles, usually the result of specific social conditions (such as the professionalization of science in late Victorian England) or the unwise overstatements of both scientists and theologians. Yet I judge that their relationship is generally benign, and always intellectually stimulating. My Christian faith brings me a deepened appreciation of the natural sciences, and although I am no longer active in primary scientific research, I keep up my reading in the fields that interest and excite me most: evolutionary biology, theoretical physics, biochemistry, and biophysics.

Why does faith bring this intellectual enthusiasm and satisfaction? In the words of another academic from Belfast who found faith at Oxford University: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen-not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.” C.S. Lewis wrote this in “Is Theology Poetry?” his famous essay on the explanatory potential of the Christian faith.

Lewis conceives God in a manner that illuminates the great riddles and enigmas of life, including how and why it is that we can make sense of the universe at all. His conception offers me an understanding of my own place in the greater scheme of things, and at the same time provides an intellectual Archimedean point from which I can make sense of the world around me. Above all, it sustains my sense of awe at the wonders of nature, and the greater wonders to which they point. There is a fundamental intellectual convergence between Christian theology and the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences-a convergence I explored deeply while writing three volumes on scientific theology: Nature, Reality, and Theory. How, some people might reasonably ask, can I argue for such a productive and helpful convergence when some scientists argue that atheism is the only legitimate outcome of the proper application of the scientific method? And isn’t atheism actually more economic in terms of its concepts? After all, one God is one more assumption than no God at all-and a very important assumption at that.

Yet, as physicist Richard Feynman pointed out many years ago, conceptual economy is no guarantor of theoretical correctness. The real problem is trying to work out the “best explanation”-to use a highly potent concept from Princeton University philosopher Gilbert Harman-to make sense of this astonishingly complex, puzzling, and exhilarating universe in which we live and think. The scientific method simply does not allow us to adjudicate the existence of God, and those who force it to do so (on either side of the debate) have pressed it beyond its acceptable limits. In one sense, both theism and atheism must be recognized as positions of faith, belief systems that go beyond the available scientific evidence.

This conviction naturally brings me into conflict with thinkers like Dawkins and his circle, who argue that the natural sciences in general-and evolutionary biology in particular-force us to atheism. Their highly contentious argument rests on decidedly shaky logical, philosophical, and evidential grounds; far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone. It is quite clear that the natural sciences can be interpreted as supportive of faith or hostile to faith, depending on your agenda. Any argument that they necessitate atheism is not adequately supported by any of the evidence available.

More importantly, from the scientific perspective, belief in a creator God-however that complex notion is understood-offers a powerful incentive to the investigation and appreciation of the natural world. To study nature is to study God indirectly. As many Christian writers of the Renaissance pointed out, the wisdom of an invisible and intangible God can be explored through an engagement with the visible, tangible realities of the world that appears around us.

My concerns about atheism, however, are by no means limited to my love for the natural world. As a professor of historical theology, part of my academic life involves studying the question of how culture impacts religious (and anti-religious) beliefs. As I studied the intellectual history of the modern period, it became increasingly clear to me that atheism is heavily conditioned by the assumptions of the Enlightenment-assumptions that have left a powerful legacy for our time, but whose imperatives are perhaps less revolutionary in an age without an entrenched royalty to overthrow.

As many cultural analysts have argued, atheism is the religion of modernity. But the rise of postmodernity has unseated this settled assumption. Atheism now seems a little old-fashioned, the establishment position of a previous generation. And in its place, postmodernity has recovered an interest in spirituality. I have no idea where this trend will take us, but certainly it seems to take us away from atheism.

Atheism is not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person. Belief in God gives us reason to examine the universe more closely, and generates a matrix that both encourages and facilitates an engagement with the world. Of course, I know this conclusion will be contested. The arguments remain open, despite rather crude attempts to close them down. I remain respectful of atheism, believing that I have much to learn from it and the concerns that it expresses. But I no longer share its faith. Or lack thereof.”

McGrath is noted for his views on Christianity and evolution as he is a proponent of theistic evolution. He has also debated notable atheists such as Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, and others some of which can be viewed on YouTube. In 2010 McGrath was included in “The 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors” list.


1. McGrath, A. Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond. Available.

2. Ian Ramsey Centre For Science and Religion. 2013. New Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion. Available.

3. Alister McGrath. Available.


21 responses to “Science Leads Former Atheist Alister McGrath To Belief In God.

  1. The world is complex. . .therefore the Christian God. . . . This is another form of “intellectual haughtiness” in my book. Probably the most honest thing to say might be, I chose to suspend reason and become a believer. I don’t think people generally choose to believe in one religion or another by studying biology, but maybe the writer is one. That’s fine, but says nothing about people who choose not to take the same leap.

    • He didn’t “suspend reason” and neither is he indulging “intellectual haughtiness.” He entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ, which is something atheists don’t understand, and never will until it happens them.

  2. And the satisfactory evidential basis for God is…? If it was so satisfactory, why the different beliefs or people of no beliefs?

      • Atheism doenst only entail rejecting God, it entails trying to give other answers to existential questions because it rejects God. Most of these answers atheism tries to give involved faith based assumptions. That is why it is a leap of faith. As one atheist explains:

        “[The atheistic worldview] is similar to the worldview of religion—neither can be shown to be true or false by science, or indeed by any rational technique. Whether theistic or atheistic, they are all matters of faith, stances taken up by tiny creatures in an infinitely rich environment.”

        -Crispin Sartwell (‘Irrational Atheism: Not Believing in God Isn’t Always Based on Reasoned Arguments And That’s OK.’)

        • No, atheism is only the lack of belief in a deity.

          As has been stated in Russell’s teapot analogy (and not reliant on evidence), it is a lack is belief UNTIL evidence is provided.

          Atheists as a generalization only share in the lack of un belief. After that, you’re going to get differing world views from atheists since it’s not a belief / non belief “system”.

          Equating a lack of belief with faith is ignorance.

        • Ummm…

          Atheism is a statement of disbelief in any deity.


          Atheism makes no claims of morality, no claim of certain knowledge of unanswered questions, and no answers to the great existential conundrums. That’s because atheism has no “revealed texts” or “holy books” that claim to have those answers.

          The only requirement of atheism is a lack of belief in some 3000+ deities.

          Christianity rejects one deity less is all.

    • Atheism entails no beliefs. If someone is an atheist, it means that they lack any belief in a god or gods. Every baby ever born has been an atheist, and if a person lived somewhere where they never heard of religion, and they didn’t invent their own, they would be an atheist. When it comes to unanswered questions like the origin of the universe, it doesn’t take a leap of faith to say “I don’t fully understand how that happened.” That’s what most atheists say, because even with theories of the Big Bang and inflation, no one understands it all. It’s okay to not know, but it’s not okay to pretend you know.

      • Sure an atheist lacks belief in a god or gods but that doesn’t mean they don’t hold beliefs. They believe in science and reason and logic etc.

        A newborn baby doesn’t have the cognitive ability to be an atheist or theist.

        It’s fine to ‘not know’ if that’s your conclusion. There are plenty of things I don’t know but the search continues. If though you’ve considered the presented evidence and using your reasoning faculties concluded that there are reasonable grounds for proposing that there is an intelligent source to the universe, you’re not saying you understand everything about ‘how the universe began’, you’re saying it makes sense to you that there is an intelligence involved. That’s not pretending you know something you don’t, that concluding intelligence based on your processing of the evidence. Plenty of highly reputed scientists have reached that conclusion.

        • “They believe in science and reason and logic etc.” … Nope, there are religions that don’t believe in any gods. Jainism, some branches of Buddhism. As an atheist all my life I can assure you there are legions of unreasonable atheists who don’t know a thing about science 😉

        • Sure an atheist lacks belief in a god or gods but that doesn’t mean they don’t hold beliefs. They believe in science and reason and logic etc.

          Anyone who isn’t crazy believes in those things. Muslims believe in ‘science and reason and logic’, what does that have to do with the truth of Islam vs Christianity?

          A newborn baby doesn’t have the cognitive ability to be an atheist or theist.

          Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know for certain whether a god or gods exist. Babies are born without beliefs. Therefore, since atheism merely requires the lack of a belief, while agnosticism requires the presence of a belief, babies automatically meet the definition of atheism but not of agnosticism.

  3. Very interesting story. I believe C.S. Lewis also took a long time to arrive at a faith in God “kicking and screaming” as he is quoted as saying.

  4. Pingback: Atheist Shotgunner #2 – Jason Mevin. | James Bishop's Theology & Apologetics.·

  5. -Their highly contentious argument rests on decidedly shaky logical, philosophical, and evidential grounds; –

    By all means, don’t actually discuss what those are…

  6. It’s always amazing, utterly astounding, to me how defensive atheists become over the words “faith” and “belief”. One mention and they lose their collective excrement.

    Atheism *is* a belief. The word is not intrinsically linked with religious faith; the two are not necessarily synonymous. A “belief” is merely a position that one holds without enough proof to categorize that position as fact.

    The earth is round – that is fact. I believe that most atheists are far more emotionally invested in their atheism than they would like others to know – that’s a position that I sincerely hold without objective proof. I.e. a “belief”.

    Without the ability to objectively prove the non-existence of a creator God atheism is merely a belief. You can call it your “default position” or your logical conclusion and/or proclaim which side bears the weight of evidence all you want, but the fact is that atheism is an unproven position, and therefore a “belief”. And the more you protest the word because of your own hang-ups about religion and the word’s association in your own minds, the more you demonstrate MY belief that your atheism is emotional, despite the protests.

    • Atheism is not a belief system, no matter how much your tiny mind tries to fit it into one. It is a rejection of a claim, in the context of this article, a christian claims there is a god, we reject that claim because no evidence is presented, just an attempt at an argument from authority backed by personal incredulity (author does not understand atheism, despite his claim he was once atheist).

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s