On March 24th, 2012, a large event will take place in Washington DC called the Reason Rally. The purpose of this event is to promote the naturalistic (atheistic) worldview as being not only compatible with but demanded by reason. Speakers at the rally will include Dr. Richard Dawkins and Dr. Lawrence Krauss. Both offer passionate arguments against religion and are sure to fire up the crowd.
As many Christians are aware, their worldview offers an understanding of the world that is not only reasoned through carefully but can explain much more of reality than can the naturalistic worldview. Christian apologist William Lane Craig offered a philosophical and scientific critique of Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" that can be found here. Craig also debated Krauss here.
There will be a Christian presence at the rally that will offer reasoned responses to the ideas and challenges that are proposed. They will be offering both positive arguments for the truth of Christianity and negative arguments against the truth of the naturalistic worldview (see my post on the importance of offering both positive and negative arguments here). I state this explicitly because the only arguments atheists (including Dawkins and Krauss) tend to offer are negative against religion (in general). They do not offer positive arguments for their atheism (atheism is assumed to be the default position if "religion" is argued to be inconsistent with reality or "evil"), nor do they address claims of specific religions. The web site for this coordinated Christian presence and response can be found at http://www.truereason.org/. The Christian Apologetics Alliance will also be publishing a book in response to the rally in early March.
Can Man Live Without God (Kindle Edition) is a treatment by Ravi Zacharias of the philosophical issue of meaning and the psychological issue of despair. The book is separated into three parts and spans 179 pages. This review is intended to give a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book, but the review only scratches the surface of Zacharias' intent of the book.
Part 1: Antitheism Is Alive And Deadly
Chapter 1: Anguish in Affluence
Zacharias begins the book by setting a foundation for the reason behind the book and his philosophical method. He shows how a person's view of God influences that person's entire life- from what they believe about everything else to how they act. If they get their understanding of God incorrect, then their beliefs and actions will be antithetical to reality. He also shows that he believes philosophy takes place on three levels: through logic- and reason- based arm-chair theory, through the emotional artistic productions, and through everyday, practical, "dinner table" application. He appeals to each by using the first for raw argumentation, the second for illustration and examples, and the third for relevance to our lives. His goal is to appeal to all three levels throughout the book, so that the reader may be able to understand his argument at all the levels and be able to communicate it likewise to others at all three levels.
The other day I heard a fellow Christian complain that atheists are constantly complaining that Christians try to "force their beliefs on people". The Christian complained that the atheist has no right to complain because he is doing the exact same thing. This caught my ear for a few reasons.
First, that critique cuts in all directions. Any person who believes that they teach the truth will automatically see a person who differs with them and teaches those differing views with just as much passion as a threat to their beliefs being accepted. People do tend to use propagandistic language when describing the teaching of beliefs that they do not agree with. Christians tend to think that public education is forcing atheist and relativist propaganda on our kids. Atheists and relativists believe that we are forcing our propaganda on their kids. Christians should not be complaining about others behaving in the same way that we do. I'm pretty sure that such hypocrisy turns people away from the Church- not because they think that Christianity is false, but because its adherents don't practice what it teaches.
In a recent debate with William Lane Craig, Stephen Law proposed an interesting argument in defense of atheism. He provided many examples of "good" in the world and from those concluded that an evil God does not exist. He then challenged Craig to show how one can believe that a good God can exist when one believes that an evil God does not exist. In a very simple form, the argument looks like this:
1. An evil God does not exist.
2. An evil God and a good God are the same
3. Therefore, a good God does not exist
4. Craig's God is a good God
5. Therefore, Craig's God does not exist
At this time, I'm not going to focus on the first premise (although it will play a part). I think that Craig handled it adequately in the debate (Randy Everest at Possible Worlds addresses the concerns with the premise and Craig's responses in his analysis of the argument). However, premise 2 is the one that did not receive much attention from Craig and where I think that he could have also shown the argument's weakness. I want to quickly go over a few observations about the second premise.
Introduction
Recently I saw the movie "Transformers: The Dark of the Moon". I almost made it through the whole thing without a single thought about worldviews, philosophy, or apologetics. But, alas, near the end, something happened that my mind couldn't ignore (I pulled out my phone and immediately started taking notes).
For those who are unfamiliar with the Transformers' basic premise: there exists three species in the universe that are essentially battling for survival and a "leg up" on the others: humans, Autobots, and Decepticons. Typically, the Decepticons are trying to achieve something that would have the implication of destroying the humans and/or Autobots. The Autobots are the more "noble" of the two robotic species that join forces with the humans against the Decepticons. This particular installment had two characters that I will be focusing on here: Optimus Prime and Sential Prime (Primes are the leaders of the Autobots; they tend to be the wiser and more powerful individuals). SPOILER ALERT: the rest of this post contains storyline details that take place in the last minutes of the movie, so if you haven't seen it and plan to (and don't want it ruined), stop reading now.
Today I want to talk a bit about atheistic evangelism. Specifically, the naturalistic atheism. With the presence of the "New Atheists" and many others who follow in their footsteps, it seems that there is a lot more proselytizing of atheism than in previous years. I am quite confused at this phenomenon for three reasons: according to naturalism, first, there is nothing after a person dies; second, everything that happens is determined; third, everything is meaningless and purposeless.
Tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America. This attack shook the world. It abruptly ended nearly 3000 valuable lives and destroyed countless others. It forced people to recognize evil, ask if justice could ever be served, and challenged our ability to move on.
As a Christian it pains me to see such evil in the world. It hurts worse to see atrocities committed in the name of a religion. Many atheists share my feelings and have even become militant against all forms of religion because of it. They claim that there is no way religion can possibly be true if it causes such needless pain and suffering in the world. I want to take a few moments to discuss evil, justice, and forgiveness in the context of the events from a decade ago within both the Christian and atheist worldviews.
The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel is a short book on the non-rational reasons that people may have for rejecting the existence of God. It was of interest to me because it doesn't address intellectual reasons, but emotional reasons. The book talks about the psychology of atheists. The book is divided into five chapters and is a mere 128 pages, so it makes for a quick read.
Chapter 1: Atheistic Arguments, Errors, and Insights
In the first chapter Spiegel defines what he means when he uses the word "atheist". That being pretty much anyone who does not affirm the existence of God (this would include agnostics). He then discusses some of the reasons that atheists give for refusing to believe that God exists. He explains the moral argument against God, the hypocritical behavior of people within the Church, and answers both. He addresses other issues in the Church, such as intellectual laziness (which has lead to the charge of "god of the gaps" reasoning) and disunity over side issues. He concludes that the Church, itself, gave the atheists the ammunition against God; they just point out the problems. The Church needs to recognize the truth of what has been revealed and do something about it instead of ignoring it.
Something that I was thinking about the other day: some people are familiar with Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. Basically it states that because people believe false things that help survivability (such as "god", from the naturalist's perspective), evolution does not favor minds that recognize truth, but minds that recognize how to survive- if a belief just happens to be true, it is pure coincidence.
However, I was contemplating the multiverse (or multiple worlds) hypothesis, and it seems that this only compounds the problem. For those uninitiated, multiverse theory states that our universe is not the only universe there is. There are many other universes that do exist; however, our instruments cannot detect them because they are outside our universe. This theory comes in several flavors, but the one I am talking about is the one that is capable of explaining the fine-tuning and design in the universe, along with being an alternative to God as the "banger" that the cosmological argument requires. In order to account for the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe, some naturalists posit that there are an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes, each possessing different constants of physics. Ours just happens to be the one that is amenable to advanced life, and that is why we exist to observe the "fine-tuning".
Most of the time, I'm not too fond of using the term "religion". I normally prefer to use "worldview" because it is more clear about what all a belief system entails. However, for this post, I will use the term common for the question posed in the title: Can religion be tested for truth?
Many years ago, I would not have even thought to ask if religion can be tested for truth. I never thought much about it, because the obvious answer to me seemed to be "Yes". Apparently, though, many people are questioning whether religion can be tested for truth today. Some even say that religion can't be tested, thus such a term as "true religion" is an oxymoron. A common slogan that I hear is, "You can't put God in a test tube". I thought that I might take a few minutes to break this down and form some kind of defense for the idea that religion can be tested.
Many skeptics of theism accuse theists of "god-of-the-gaps" argumentation when it comes to providing evidence for God's existence. Many theists claim that naturalists are guilty of using a "naturalism-of-the-gaps" argumentation to explain away evidence for God's existence. Others prefer to remain agnostic and simply, "I don't know, one way or the other." Yet, still others will say, "No one can know."
I've noticed a pattern here (I'm sure I'm not the first, though). We all know that we are not omniscient- none of us knows everything. Which means that everyone has gaps in their knowledge, and we fill those gaps with something (there are no exceptions, as I am about to show). As mentioned in my previous posts "What is Faith?" and "Do You Rely on Authorities?" we tend to look to past experiences to determine what to put our trust in to fill those gaps.
So many times I have heard people say that faith is believing something despite evidence against it. I have heard skeptics of Christianity deride faith based on this, and I have heard Christians claim a higher level of spirituality because they possess this kind of faith. But is this what faith really is? Let's look at it a little more closely.
It was probably a few months ago that I saw this video of Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church*. It caught my attention because of the distinction between potential and calling.
As I had mention in my previous post (Culture's Obsession with Self-Help), if man is the determiner of his own purpose, and man has a desire for purpose, then when a purpose is complete, he will find another, greater purpose. This will continue until the person dies. It is an endless pursuit with no real satisfaction.
Atheists claim that atheism is the default position that people take. Many atheists use this to bolster their philosophy of methodological naturalism in the sciences. But many Christians deny that atheism is the default position. I tend to agree with the atheist, but only to a point. All people are born with a sin nature that denies God, and specifically the Christian God. Technically, Christianity expects that the default worldview of any human being will be anti-Christian, and atheism falls into this category. So, atheism isone of the default positions of man when it comes to a worldview.
However, the atheist is claiming that naturalism is the true worldview. The default position in naturalism, though, is not atheism, as they believe. The default worldview of a person is relative to the culture in which the individual grows up. If the person grows up in an atheist home, and chooses anything other than atheism as their worldview, they have denied their default position in favor of another (be it Hindu, Islam, Christianity, or whatever). However, if a person grows up in a Christian home and remains a Christian, they have stuck with their default position.
Introduction
On a few occasions, I've heard people complain that the Christian worldview allows people to avoid the consequences of their actions. By accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, they are able to have all their sins forgiven and escape eternal punishment. This implies that someone may live a life of sin, then on their death bed repent and be able to escape eternal punishment.
The atheist, specifically, points out that all people face consequences of bad actions (whether the consequences are carried out naturally or by the state). They state that the Christian worldview not only does not offer any better "justice" than naturalism, but even offers people a way to escape consequences.
I understand this concern. However, I want to look at it a bit more closely, because I hear it from both unbelievers and believers.
Natural Consequences?
First, I want to point out that not all actions that we would consider "wrong" have a natural consequence. Some do have natural consequences, but a lot of times, those consequences are delayed and are not tied to the original action. And others (if perceived) may be interpreted differently by different individuals or cultures. Nature is not a good place to look for moral guidance.
Even if I were to grant that nature should be left to carry out consequences, what about the mass murderer who shoots himself before the authorities arrest him? That person will never suffer natural consequences of his "wrong" actions, not to mention any consequences from the state. Are we, then, to conclude that the murders were not morally wrong?
Revenge vs. Justice
Second, let's consider that this concern may originate from our desire for revenge, not justice. We have problems identifying what "justice" even is. I mean, a person can commit murder, yet only be locked away for life; while another murderer is killed for his action. Can you identify which consequence was "just"? If the former, then the second might be seen as overkill (no pun intended). If the latter, then justice was not served in the first situation. Each of us needs a different reaction from those dispensing "justice" to feel that the offender has been served appropriately. I think that this is better described by the word "revenge".
Let's continue with the idea that our desire for revenge is actually justice. A person commits a murder; every person who has been affected would need to carry out their individual "justice" on that murderer. The result would be that the murderer may end up dying 100 deaths (certainly more than the one he was responsible for), many of those deaths may be in the same manner that he killed his victim. But has "justice" been served since he suffered much more than he caused? Who is to say that it is or is not justice?
Nature and Government Are Simply Not Enough
Natural consequences exist to keep the level of evil the human heart is capable of in check, to a point. Those placed in authority should act according to the moral law given by the One who has placed them in power, to also mitigate the evil in man's heart. Of course, those in authority are men full of evil just as those they lead and judge; that is why a governmental system of checks and balances is so important but not perfect (but that is another story).
The Jealous Christian
When Christians express the concern that someone may be forgiven for a life of sin on their death bed, we are expressing a desire for revenge. We know that they will escape eternal punishment, and that doesn't seem "just" to us. I might even say that some Christians are jealous because they have the desire to do something that they think would be really pleasing, but is not moral. The person who repented on the death bed probably got to carry out that desire, yet is still forgiven. As Christians, we need to examine our own hearts if we ever express this concern.
Is Christianity Inconsistent?
When naturalists complain about this, it is normally because they are pointing out what they believe to be an inconsistency, contradiction, or injustice. We have to remember that sincerity and authentic desire to spend eternity with a just God for all of eternity is required (See my post about hell) to be saved. God knows the heart; He knows if the person is just saying certain things because they think that by doing so, they can avoid eternal punishment. Just saying words is not going to save someone. Just because someone says that they believe, does not mean that they actually do. They may just be speaking a few trite phrases when they're about to "kick the bucket" in an effort to avoid eternal punishment. God knows their heart and cannot be manipulated. If God could be manipulated in this way, I would agree that a great injustice is being committed, but then I would also have to examine if I agree with that because of my desire for revenge and not justice.
God's Justice?
We have a responsibility to God (read my post "Does Responsibility Exist?") to act morally. We act offended and desire revenge because we believe that we hold objective value and that offending something of good value is wrong. However, we derive our objective value from God (read my posts about Human Equality). We have not been offended by evil (even though we think that we are because of the value we place on ourselves). God is the one who is offended. God alone has the authority to carry out ultimate punishment. That means that God alone knows when and how to execute absolute justice. The fact that He is a just God, means that He will execute perfect justice...not revenge.
Justice and Mercy
The hardest idea for people who raise this criticism is that God is a merciful God. Perfect justice includes mercy. Since God is the one responsible for holding us responsible, He may choose to show mercy, but mercy is not the opposite of justice (revenge is), so they are not incompatible. Mercy does not undermine justice...it undermines revenge. Justice is not the concern of people raising this criticism, its revenge. That is why many people are repelled by the idea of mercy and the Christian faith.
Ultimate Justice Is Served
Funny thing is that if there is no afterlife for consequences to be served, someone can commit mass murder and only experience justice for a maximum of one of the people murdered. The murderer can even escape that punishment by committing suicide. On the naturalistic view, many consequences can be escaped and are escaped. But this shouldn't bug any naturalist, because morality is not objective; the offended have no intrinsic value, and there is no foundation for the responsibility to act "morally" or be "punished".
The Christian worldview, properly understood, does not allow anyone to escape consequences, while naturalism, properly understood, allows anyone and everyone to escape consequences whenever they desire to.
This is the latest single from the band Hawk Nelson. Pay close attention to the final verse...
"We know it sounds absurd; we don't get what we deserve,"...the reason it sounds absurd is because of our desire for revenge. The desire for revenge comes from our pride. We feel that we have been offended...and that deserves further punishment. Part of being a Christian involves letting go of our pride (See post "Pride vs. Confidence"- Is it really so dumb to give it all away?). If we can do this, we don't have to be concerned about if a sinner "escapes" eternal punishment. Instead, we can rejoice in the fact that there will be one more to join us in the eternal, loving fellowship with the Creator we betrayed but loved us enough to take on the punishment for our betrayal so that forgiveness may be offered to us. THIS is the power of God's crazy love for you and me. If we can put aside our pride and our desire for revenge, we can see clearly how mercy, justice, and love logically come together...and we can personally experience the joy that results from it.
I have spent this post telling everyone that they need to leave judgment to God. This is only part of the picture. If you're curious about when is appropriate for Christians to judge, see my series "Judgment Day".
Naturalism devalues humans to the point of being of equal value to dirt or having no value at all (neither does dirt, really; see short series "Human Equality and Naturalism"). This has created a psychological crisis of self-confidence. The culture has proposed what it thinks to be the answer...beauty, muscles, money, status, titles, power, education, "causes". People strive for these things constantly to the point of being obsessed, because they want to establish their value and be worthy of confidence (from themselves or other people).
This is self-defeating. If humanity has little or no value, why is confidence in humanity (thus, one's self) so important? In order to make life even seem like it is worth living (considering all the suffering involved), naturalism tells us that we have to place value on ourselves. Yet we know that that kind of value cannot simply be stated to be true- there must exist some foundation for the value, then it can be stated to be true. People will try to establish the foundation the way that naturalism offers (given above), but they do figure out that a foundation based on those things is only as strong as the value that culture places on them. Unfortunately, culture is fickle and changes what it believes to hold value constantly. When one person builds their value based on one thing, its value changes to being useless. All that time, effort, and resources were wasted, because their confidence is based on a value level, that is based on a foundation of relative value, that is based on a culture synonymous with A.D.D.
Responsibility assumes three things in order to have meaning:
Subject
Objects
Obliged Action
Person A has a responsibility to Person B to perform action X on Person C.
Subject (Person A) is the person who possess the responsibility (obliged to perform action).
Object (Person B and C) is the person who the subject is obliged to perform the action to and/or for.
Last week, I explained how the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm cannot explain the existence of equal human value. This week, I will build upon last week and show why it cannot explain intrinsic value either. If you have not read last week's post, you will probably be lost.
The fact that we do survive is a product of the Imago Dei. We possess a mind that is capable of simple and complex thought- both of which can be and are used for survival. Unfortunately, man is fallen. One of the results of this fallen nature is the fact that man is self-focused (prideful and narcissistic). This causes man to focus acutely on his survival (survival is not wrong in itself, but the desire for it causes many to make choices based on a certain level of paranoia). Man will use this mind to come up with "ways of survival" that violate the intrinsic, equal value of other human beings (typically the illogical conclusion is one that violates another human life. They "reason" that it is the only option when it really is not). Murder is an example. In Christianity, murder is a sin because it is a direct insult to God, Himself ("I think so little of God and so highly of myself, that I will destroy a reflection of His value and His nature to further my own existence.").
I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote human equality. Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.
I was thinking the other day about the burden of proof. It seems that no one wants to bare it. Many atheists claim that they don't shoulder the burden of proof because "you can't prove a negative". Some theists claim that they don't hold it because you can't prove something that is metaphysical (based on the assumption that only things that can be decisively measured can be "proven").
