For fear of finding something worse

Why prominent atheists are lamenting the decline of Christianity in the West

The secular future we were promised. A section of a mural called “The Prologue and the Promise” by artist Robert McCall, commissioned by Disney for its EPCOT Center.

In 2018, evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins tweeted a surprising cautionary note about the decline of Christianity in Europe, quoting Hilaire Belloc: “Always keep a-hold of nurse / For fear of finding something worse.” He linked to an article in The Guardian on a survey revealing that most young Europeans are non-religious and warned against rejoicing at the “death throes” of the “relatively benign Christian religion.” This is almost shocking coming from someone who once described indoctrinating children into Christianity as a form of child abuse.¹

Now, another prominent atheist, philosopher and educator Peter Boghossian, is grappling with a similar realization. In a recent Substack post, he reflects on a debate with Gavin Haynes and Hugo Martin, where he confronts the fallout of a post-Christian West. He writes:

Coming off the heels of New Atheism, this is the situation in which we find ourselves. Traditional meaning-conferring structures have collapsed, and the consequences have been devastating. We’ve done (perhaps irreparable) damage to our institutions, we’ve mutilated the genitals of children on an industrial scale, our trust in systems has collapsed, we’ve become highly susceptible to a wide range of absolute fictions, social cohesion has eroded, we’ve calcified our polarization, and we’ve all experienced a dearth of kindness.

Not all of this, of course, is directly attributable to the collapse of Christianity, but it would be dishonest to say a significant portion of the madness we’ve experienced was not a direct consequence.

Boghossian’s words capture a sobering truth: the utopian, reason-driven world the New Atheists envisioned hasn’t materialized. Instead, we’re left with fractured institutions, eroded trust, and a society vulnerable to chaos. But his solution—or lack thereof—reveals a deeper struggle. He believes Christianity’s claims are false, and therefore encouraging belief in them, even for societal good, is demeaning. But, he asks, is that worse than a descent into societal madness?

The secular future we got. Urban decay in Portland, Oregon. Credit: Rupert Thorpe

I agree it’s demeaning to encourage belief in lies. If I didn’t accept the truth of Christianity’s claims, I’d feel humiliated pretending otherwise, even if I thought it were for the greater good. But clinging to a lie, however well-intentioned, rarely leads to anything good. Boghossian’s dilemma resonates with me—not because I share his disbelief, but because I once stood where he does, wrestling with the limits of atheism.

In my twenties, raised atheist in a post-Christian Canada, I embraced Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of rational selfishness. It promised personal strength and independence, but when I began to think seriously about its premises, it crumbled under life’s big questions: What’s the purpose of existence? Where do we come from? What happens after death? It offered no coherent answers. Then, studying history, I was stunned to learn Christianity was the foundation of much of what I valued: human rights, the rule of law, prosperity, even modern science. Unlike Boghossian, this didn’t lead me to agonize over dignity versus pretense. Instead, it inspired me to wonder if Christianity might be worth taking seriously. That question launched a years-long journey from contemptuous atheism to devoted Christian faith, detailed in my testimony.

Boghossian’s quandary has a straightforward resolution: No one needs to feign belief to embrace Christianity, because Christianity’s claims hold up under scrutiny. This is why his oversight surprised me. A lot of Boghossian’s struggle to understand belief hinges on the improbability of Christian claims. In his debate, Boghossian speaks bluntly about miracles, like Jesus walking on water, assuming they’re “almost definitely false.” He once thought believers were just play-acting for community, citing a dinner with philosopher Daniel Dennett, who claimed entire groups, like Pentecostals, pretend to believe in miracles. Though he remains skeptical, Boghossian now acknowledges that some belief could be genuine, but the reality of miracles is perhaps irrelevant if belief in them is part of what prevents societal collapse.

By the way, the mutual Atheist-Christian tug-o-war over genuine belief and disbelief fascinates me. Some Christians assume atheists secretly believe but are rebelling against God. Meanwhile, atheists like Boghossian and Dennett seem convinced Christians are pretending, clinging to faith for a sense of belonging. Both sides miss the mark. I’ve known atheists sincere in their disbelief, just as Boghossian’s angst over societal decay shows his sincerity. But he and Dennett underestimate the transformative power of genuine faith. Christians don’t just seek community; many have been radically changed by belief in Jesus Christ, many even dying for their convictions.

As an atheist, I joined sci-fi clubs for camaraderie, drawn to the worlds of Star Wars and Star Trek, which inspired my career as a space scientist. Those communities mattered to me, but they didn’t reshape my values or demand any kind of sacrifice. I’d never die for Mr. Spock or profess belief in the miracle of transporters. Christianity, though, isn’t a social club built on fiction. Its impact on society—establishment of vital institutions, protection of the vulnerable, commitment to truth, social cohesion, and kindness as a virtue—stems from something far deeper, something real.

What convinced me, as a former atheist? Evidence, reason, and science. My journey to faith, rooted in my work as an astrophysicist, began with compelling arguments:

• The teleological argument: The universe’s logic and intelligibility suggest a purposeful intelligent design, not random chance.

• The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Combined with the inference of a personal cause, it points to the Abrahamic God.

• Objective morality: God offers the most coherent basis for justice, morality, and ethics.

• Fine-tuning: The universe’s precise conditions for life defy probabilistic odds.

• The ontological argument: The concept of a greatest possible being implies its existence.

• Life and consciousness: Their improbable emergence challenges materialist explanations.

• Near-death experiences: Credible accounts suggest a reality beyond the physical.

• Jesus’ life and impact: Historical evidence and His global influence over 2,000 years are unmatched.

• Genesis 1’s alignment with science: Its dozens of testable creation steps, from the universe’s origin to life’s progression, match modern cosmology and biology in precise order—odds of this being chance are incomprehensibly low.

Science bolsters this further. In my article on thermodynamics, I explain how statistical mechanics allows for extraordinary events we call miracles—like the parting of the Red Sea—within natural laws, though they’re so improbable they require divine intervention. Statistical mechanics and even quantum mechanics permit all but what I call “boundary miracles,” like the creation of the universe, the creation of life and consciousness, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These miracles, though they transcend physical laws, are still not a problem. Science may never be able to expand its domain to include whatever is outside the universe, but God, from his position outside the universe, can easily cross the divide between the supernatural and the natural.

Consider another miracle, one you can witness daily simply by turning to the first page of your Bible: Genesis 1’s remarkable precision. It outlines the universe’s formation, from the Big Bang to life’s development, in several testable steps, each aligning with modern science’s findings. The probability of this sequence being correct by chance is astronomically low. This isn’t guesswork; it’s divine inspiration, a living miracle we can verify today. If, in my worst moments, I’m ever tempted to question whether God is really there, all I have to do is recall the miracle of Genesis and my faith is reaffirmed.

Boghossian’s debate raises a deeper question. If the death of Christianity is fueling the decline, why not explore its truth? He understandably fears believing “false” claims, but the evidence ought to at least invite scrutiny. Christians don’t pretend for the benefits to themselves or to society; most of them genuinely believe. A society rooted in this faith, not as a cultural relic or a useful fiction, but as a conviction, reaps what even Dawkins and Boghossian lament losing. So, why not investigate the claims? The stakes—personal and societal—are too high to ignore.

---

If you liked this article, do me a favor and hit the like button below—it helps me know what resonates with readers and it boosts my writing. There’s also a share button if you want to send it to a friend who’d enjoy the science-and-faith conversation. If you’re a free subscriber who would like to support my ministry, you can upgrade to a paid subscription (which comes with some perks!).

1. Chapter 9 of The God Delusion (2006)