How Atheists are Deceived

The Bible refers to God as an invisible, transcendent, omnipresent and omnipotent Person who has infinite knowledge,[1] the one “in whom we live and move.”[2]. What a difference a description makes! I can’t speak for them but my hunch is that atheists think that Bible-believers envision God as being somewhere “out there,” a God who started everything going and then sat back to watch the fun – intervening from time to time as needed. If that were even close to the truth I, too, would not believe in God. To the measure atheists think of God in this way and think believers do too, one cannot blame them for thinking we are ignorant and just need a crutch. However, to be fair, before calling us foolish or naïve, they should inquire as to how a believer actually does define God. Otherwise their hostile posturing reveals both ignorance and bias. With no clue as to how a Christian defines God, they arrogantly assume they are the ones with the truth.

When atheists claim there is no need for a Creator and rationalize their inability to explain how consciousness arises from matter as something science will eventually understand, are they not the one’s who are naïve? They fail, among other things, to take into account the fact that matter itself is but an image in their minds or that an image might in fact be the very interface between order and disorder. Atheists pridefully argue that they “follow the evidence wherever it leads” and yet are closed-minded to any evidence pointing to the existence of God. Ironically, they often contrast their open-mindedness with the arrogance of fundamentalist Christians – failing to see that Christian absolutism has humility at its core as an expression of faith and trust in God and his Word. While criticizing believers for their arrogance, they replace a biblical God with their “god” of science all the while striving to be high priests in its hallowed halls. Indeed, once the deeper meaning of an image is grasped, the available evidence overwhelmingly favors a biblically-defined God.

There is more to qualia than meets the eye. The pathways they travel deep into the brain reveal a fundamental cortico-limbic design incomprehensible apart from the very nature of God having been encoded within neural design — for this alone allows us to grasp how a tendency toward nonexistence, in the momentary absence of a finite image, regressively releases and channels into creating an expected state, the image.

It is of note that human vision requires not only the inner light of self but the light by which the world around, as a succession of images, is perceived. Even people who are totally blind “see” an image – which, as with any image, depends upon the successful narrowing of an expectancy gap and the way this narrowing sustains the body mass. Indeed, research shows that totally blind people can see the world around them if visual stimuli are transduced into tactile impulses on their backs, but only if the blind subject is the one who is expectantly manipulating the camera – this being the only way that an expectancy gap, to which infinity is implicit, can be effectively optimized. All proving that consciousness as a state of expectation, is fundamentally a probabilistic contrast with infinity — against which the self sees itself as finite or “conscious.”

Are atheists deceived?  The answer is yes. For if matter is truly objective and fundamental, and consciousness cannot logically arise from it, it follows – to be consistent – that they must confess their existence is delusional! Consciousness must, if the brain is to make sense, be the very presence of God — in whom, according to the Bible, “we live and move and have our being.”

All of these ideas are explained in depth in my more recent book, Consciousness Finally Explained: A Perfect Synthesis of God and Brain. Available through Amazon and other outlets.


1.  Psalm 147:5.

2.  Acts 7:28.

About Glenn Dudley

GLENN DUDLEY became interested in the mind-body problem as a Pre-Med student at the University of Colorado where he emphasized studies in physics, philosophy, and Judeo-Christian theology. He received his M.D. degree from the University of Colorado in 1969. After a mixed Psychiatry/Medicine internship, he worked for two years at MIT's Neurosciences Research Program -- a think tank whose objective was that of understanding how the hard-wiring of the nervous system mediates thought and emotion. Then, he spent a year in the Department of Psychiatry at Tufts Medical School in Boston reviewing the world's literature on psychological and emotional predispositions to cancer. From 1975 to his retirement in 1998 he practiced primary care medicine.
Comments are closed.