Although Christianity is in decline throughout the West, and the youngest generation is the least religious since such figures have been counted, there does seem to be a budding, counterculture wave of young people today who are searching for more meaning and enchantment and divinity and numinosity in the universe than atheism has to offer. So the issue of God’s existence is still a vital one that commands and demands our full attention.

Evan Sayet agrees. Evan has had a wildly varied career as a stand-up comedian, a longtime writer for Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect, a speechwriter for then-President Trump, and the bestselling author of political commentaries such as The KinderGarden of Eden and The Woke Supremacy. His lecture to the Heritage Foundation on “How the Modern Liberal Thinks” remains, nearly 20 years later, the most-viewed lecture in Heritage Foundation history.

Evan’s brand new book, Magic Soup, Typing Monkeys and Horny Aliens from Outer Space: The Patently Absurd, Wholly Unsubstantiated and Extravagantly Failed Atheist Origin Myth, is a rebuttal to atheism, especially “New Atheist” icons such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I posed some questions to Evan about the work.

Mark Tapson: In your new book you set out to debunk atheism and the New Atheists. But let’s talk about how you arrived at your own faith, because up until fairly late in your life you considered yourself an atheist, right? What led you out of that mindset?

Evan Sayet: Well, my atheism was like my politics: mindless. Just as my being a Democrat wasn’t the product of reason but, instead, was what our friend Andrew Breitbart would call just the “default factory setting” for someone born into my demographics, my atheism wasn’t a thoughtful belief. I’d fit Yale University professor David Gelernter’s description of not even rising to the level of an atheist; I’d simply not given God’s existence any thought at all.

MT: What changed?

ES: I started giving it some thought. It turns out, just as I always say that “the first time you think is the last time you’re a Democrat,” I now say that “the first time you think is the last time you’re an atheist.”

MT: Atheists don’t think?

ES: Not about God they don’t. Atheists ridicule, but they don’t refute and they offer nothing in God’s stead. They simply disqualify God out-of-hand as “not scientific” and that’s the end of that.

Since God is “not scientific” – at least according to the very limited and false definition of science that the Atheists have imposed on society which is really just “materialism” – the vast majority of today’s non-believers simply dismiss the God hypothesis having never given it even a moment’s thought. What those with a vested political interest in promoting non-belief don’t tell their young victims, however, is that, if one limits the definition of “science” to only those materials, forces and laws of our universe in the four dimensions of height, width, depth and time in which we humans can perceive, then any and every alternative to the God hypothesis is equally “not scientific.”

Given the fact that we are here and the universe exists, there are only two possibilities: either the universe was always here – which would mean it is outside the dimension of time – or it wasn’t always here, which means that it was created by forces, materials and laws from outside of our universe. The same limited and false definition of “science” that the atheists have inflicted on society in order to disqualify an intelligent creator renders impossible any alternative. Once one recognizes that there are two and only two possibilities and they are both, let’s say “extra-scientific” but one of them has to be true is when one, then, begins to think.

MT: The book has a pretty eyebrow-raising title. At the risk of asking you to give away spoilers, can you explain what you mean by “magic soup, typing monkeys, and horny aliens from outer space”?

ES: Well, let me start with the subtitle first. I begin this book with a quotation from Richard Lewontin, the Harvard “evolutionary biologist” and one of the most fervent of the new Militant Atheists, in which he confesses to the fact that he and other atheistic “scientists” promote as fact constructs that they know to be “patently absurd,” sell stories that they know to be “wholly unsubstantiated,” and embrace theories that they know to be “extravagantly failed” in their every test. He says that the reason they do so is because they have a “prior commitment” to atheism that supersedes their commitment to the truth.

So, the title includes some of their patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated, and extravagantly failed theories such as that life arose from some sort of “Magic Soup” which they call the “primordial ooze” or that life began on earth when, billions of years ago, aliens built a spaceship and planted their seed in the earth. They call this theory “Directed Panspermia” and, given how absurd is their theory about Magic Soup, horny aliens from outer space having had sex with the earth is now the leading atheistic theory about how life might have started here. Of course, how it might have started there, the atheists don’t say.

MT: And the “typing monkeys?”

ES: Given that there are no known laws of any of the known sciences, or even a single observation, discovery or experiment – you know, what real scientists call “data” – going all the way back to the very first day of the world’s very first caveman that shows that even just one small part of even just one of their theories about origin and design is even possible, the Atheists simply attempt to make the case that their theories aren’t each and all and in every way impossible because, with “enough time,” anything’s possible.

This is known as the “Infinite Monkey” theorem, and chances are that you’ve heard it stated something like, “If you put enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters for enough time, eventually they’ll type the collective works of William Shakespeare.” There is not a single atheistic theory that has been shown to even be possible, much less that they did, in fact, happen. Every single atheistic theory about the Big Questions comes down to “with enough time, anything’s possible.”

MT: Is there one argument in your book that you feel is particularly damning of atheism, a sort of mic-drop argument that atheists can’t rebut?

ES: I am leery to point out any one, because so much of the power of this book comes from the cumulative effect; how on issue after issue – across every single part of every one of their theories about origin and design – the atheists have nothing at all about anything at all, anywhere at all, ever that supports their efforts.

Still, given how heavily the Atheists rely on Darwinism – how the professional Atheists portray it as the be-all and end-all of science and how, when the Atheists say “I believe in science” all they mean is that they believe in Darwinism – I was surprised and shocked not only by how small, local, vague and contradictory a theory that it is, but that it, too is patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated, extravagantly failed in its every test and nothing more than a more clever-sounding version of monkeys in rooms with typewriters.

MT: Atheists always condescend to believers by saying, “I believe in science.” But what do they really mean when they say that?

ES: All they mean is that they don’t believe in God and that they have blind faith that someday, after ten thousand years of trying and meeting with abject failure at every turn, the materialistic answers will finally all someday be found. There is no actual science that they believe in – no known laws of any of the known sciences or even a single observation, discovery or experiment (you know, what real scientists call “data”) going all the way back to the very first day of the world’s very first caveman – that they embrace. As I show in the book repeatedly, just to attempt to make their case, the atheists must not only reject all known science, but they must deny the very existence of science itself.

MT: Former congressman Thaddeus McCotter reviewed your book for Chronicles Magazine and said you understand something fundamental about the postmodern debate over God’s existence: that for the left, it is not a scientific inquiry; it is a political crusade. Is he right about that?

ES: Indeed. Atheism is not a scientific belief; it is a moral and political imperative. Here we need to be clear about the distinction between atheism – which is a personal belief – and the kind of Militant Atheism practiced by folks like Lewontin, Dawkins, Harris and the others.

Atheism, as a personal belief, has likely been around for as long as we humans have and, while it is sad for the individual who must believe that his life is meaningless, his death is imminent, his doom is eternal and that his every effort on this earth is futile, so long as God is infused throughout society, the cultural consequences are minimal.

Militant Atheism, on the other hand, which is the concerted and calculated effort to instill and enforce non-belief across the entirety of society as part of a political crusade, is a precursor and necessity for evil.

Militant Atheism is not an ideology in and of itself; it is a weapon wielded by would-be revolutionaries in order to clear the moral path to their rise to power and the ungodly way in which they then intend to rule. Just as the communists, for example, need to enforce non-belief in order to then govern as they do; the Woke need to enforce non-belief so that they can bring about the new world that they envision. This, in fact, is exactly what they mean when they talk about the “Great Reset.” Their plan is to revert humanity back to its very beginnings and then engineer a population that is created in their image. In order for them to take on the role of gods – whether it was the Leninists, the Stalinists, the Hitlerists, the Maoists or the fictional amalgamation of the four known as Big Brother – before those we call the “Woke” can take on the role of God, they must outlaw belief in the God that exists.

MT: What has the reaction to your book from atheists been so far?

ES: Just as one would expect. A lot of frothing at the mouth, a lot of name-calling. The way I tend to respond to them is to acknowledge that I am everything that they say I am. I’m a moron and I’ve been brainwashed and so and then I say, “but enough about me; tell me, what do you believe about the origin of the universe or the finetuning of the cosmos or how life might have come from the insentient” and, of course, they can’t. Not even Lewontin or Dawkins or Harris, et al, can offer even a theory that they don’t know to be anything other than patently absurd, wholly unsubstantiated and failed in its every test. As I’ve said, atheists can ridicule, but they cannot refute and they can offer nothing in God’s stead.

MT: Recently you discovered that positive reviews of your book are disappearing from Amazon.com. What do you think is happening there?

ES: No doubt the same folks who created logarithms to single out and censor posts and comments that go against the orthodoxies of the Left have done the same with those who attempt to shed light on the reality of God’s existence and the true purpose of the Militant Atheist movement. Non-belief in God is as essential to today’s Leftist revolution as it has been to all of the other militantly atheistic ideologies and censorship is essential to non-belief. Since the atheists cannot refute; they will not allow others to be heard. The other thing that all of these Militant Atheist movements have in common is people who call themselves “scientists” who have a “prior commitment” to their political cause.

MT:     Given that there are untold thousands of books available today on the subject of the existence of God, why did you think the world needed one more?

ES: Most of the other books – or at least the ones I know about – are extremely earnest in their approach. These books all tend to litigate God’s existence which, just by the effort alone, gives atheism more credence than it deserves. To me, attempting to litigate the fine points of atheism is like attempting to litigate the fact that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. By arguing over thread-counts and hemlines, you be giving credibility to the idea that the emperor might be wearing cloths. With atheism, there simply is no “there” there, and that fact needs to be not debated but exposed, ridiculed and laughed at.

MT: And with your background as a stand-up comedian and writer for Bill Maher as well as your more serious side, you were just the guy to do it.

ES: I think so. I also think that it’s necessary. By employing humor, snark and ridicule, I think my book is at once entertaining and enlightening. I realized that, if I was going to reach the audience I wrote this book for – today’s atheists who are deeply dissatisfied with life – it needed to be factual and convincing, of course, but it also had to be accessible, engaging and fun to read.

Follow Mark Tapson at Culture Warrior