Atheists, Unicorns and Narwhals

"God is a myth like the unicorn." 

"Prove to me that an invisible pink unicorn does not exist and I'll prove to you that there is no God." 

The unicorn is a common symbol for atheists. Atheists love to compare God to unicorns.

In his book, Illogical Atheism, Bo Jinn exposes the fallacious thinking of atheism. Bo includes a memorable discussion on the unicorn as it relates to the discussion on God:

"There is a theory that the myth of the unicorn first came about when ancient nomadic people of Europe discovered strange objects washed up along their shores. These objects were long, pointed conical and had the weight and texture of bone. So, the nomads inferred that they must have been the horn of some kind of animal. The only animals they knew of with horns were land animals like the antelope and the elk. But these horns looked like they could not belong to either. The ancient nomads would have proposed the best possible explanation for what animal the horns might have belonged to, by observing their own surroundings and reasoning things out. So, they concluded that the best explanation was that the horns must have belonged to a large and powerful species of horse that roamed some far away land. If one considers the position of the ancient nomad, one might appreciate that this is hardly an illogical explanation. A horse was a land creature, it was large enough and strong enough to bear the weight of the big horn and since the horns were found washed up on shore one may assume that these large horses died at sea, their bodies were devoured by sea beasts and that the horns floated to their coastal waters. And that is how the myth of the unicorn came about." (Bo Jinn, Illogical Atheism: Book II, chapter 5).

The horn of course is the tusk of a narwhal.

Bo uses this story to make the following two points:

First: The unicorn is not a random concoction of some imaginative ancient person but rather a possible explanation for the horn. 

Let's add to this scenario. Suppose another nomad comes along and disputes the idea that the horn came from a horse-like creature. Perhaps this nomad has some additional evidence that suggests that the horn comes from a sea creature. Maybe he's seen a walrus and thinks that the horn is a tusk that came from a similar type of animal. Let's imagine a few more nomads arrive and argue about the origin of the horn. Most of them agree that it came from a creature that died at sea. They may not know that the horn is actually the tusk of a narwhal but the nomads have correctly concluded that it came from an animal that died at sea.

Now compare the nomads to practitioners of different religions. Does the existence of many religions indicate that there is no God as some atheists presume? Hardly. The many religions of this world are a testament to the fact that God has left knowledge about himself in the natural world. More evidence, however, is needed. Christians would point to the additional evidence in the prophetic scriptures which center around God's Son who became one of us poor nomads and then resurrected from the dead.

Second: The unicorn hypothesis was not refuted by saying that there was a lack of evidence but by new evidence that the horn was a tusk that belonged to a narwhal. Atheists have yet to find their narwhal!

When an atheists refutes a theistic position they will often claim that they are doing so due to a lack of evidence. They will go so far as to say that there is no evidence at all and that faith in God is blind and tantamount to believing in an invisible pink unicorn. The problem for the atheist is that while they claim that God is not the explanation to the universe they are unable replace God with a substitute explanation.

Bo Jinn adds to the nomad scenario by proposing the arrival of another nomad who tells the others that they are all wrong. This nomad claims that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the horn came from an animal. Naturally, the other nomads press him for an alternative explanation of the horn. The dissenting nomad offers one of two explanations: 1. "The horn popped out of nothing." 2. "The horn has always been there." Obviously, this nomad would not be taken seriously by the others. What he's advocating is unreasonable and more incredible than a miracle.

Atheists have a similar problem. Their explanation for the universe is that it has either always been there or it popped out of nothing. For this reason, out of all the belief systems in the world atheism is the most illogical. Atheism is also the most exclusive of all faiths in that it shares nothing in common with other views. The nomads could all agree that that the horn came from an animal. Most religions agree that there is at least one higher power.

If God is not the proper explanation to the universe then what is? The atheist should not ridicule the notion of God and offer nothing to replace it. The atheist ought to admit that they simply don't want there to be a god. As Thomas Nagel put it, "I don't want the universe to be like that." At the heart of atheism is not evidence or the lack thereof but a stubborn and rebellious heart.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." - Psalm 14:1