What happens if we don’t live in a closed universe? What happens if we can’t prove everything through the observable scientific method? What happens if reason and logic and philosophy (that is philosophical questioning) are actually valid forms for determining the validity of truth and whether something is real, or whether it is reasonable for something to exist? Whoever told Richard Dawkins et. al. that we live in a closed universe? Whoever told Dawkins that it is only the scientific method (and the observable one to boot) is the only method for determining truth or matters of this universe? Dawkins in his The God Delusion makes a remarkable faith commitment to his assumptions about time and space and science and the universe. Dawkins makes a supra-historical, ultimate, non-scientific assumption: “Everything that exists or has existed can be proven and verified by the scientific method.” Now, who told him that? How did he come to that conclusion? Did he use the scientific method to prove the scientific method (sounds circular to me)? What happens if we live in a world that is not closed and is not subject only to the discoveries made though the scientific method? What happens if we live in an open universe that exposes the limits of the scientific method? Even if Dawkins and his kind of atheistic worldview want to say, “You can’t prove an open universe?” I’d respond at two levels: First, why are we limited to the observable scientific method? (Who made that rule?) And second, that’s fine, but your assumption that its the scientific method or nothing else is an a priori assumption that is just as much a faith statement as my belief that Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” is a true statement. (In fact, logic and science seem to grant us that the Genesis 1:1 statement is a reasonable one even if one discounts the need for revelation.) Dawkins must start with a faith statement about the universe. Just saying the universe is closed and what exists only exist if it can be verified it through science doesn’t make it a true. It just makes it a worldview statement that is a matter of faith. Dawkins and his atheistic community still must deal with first causes and the matter of matter. And I love it when they say there was no first cause, we just exist, eternally. And for that matter, we do have unchanging, eternal laws in the universe that can’t be tested through science—say, the laws of logic. Ah, Dawkins, for all his verbose in The God Delusion still has a problem with his own first assumptions—they are, shall I be polite—out of this world.
Reading through The God Delusion I hear arguments retold I have heard many times over the 30 years of my Christian life. In fact I heard some of them before my conversion to Christ in 1978. They were the ones I used to argue for my own form of atheism. But, as C S Lewis once stated in his The Pilgrim’s Regress, an allegory of his own conversion to Christ, “Reason came riding on a horse and rescued me.” Now I can fully admit, not everything was simple reason or logic. But that opened the door for faith to find a place to land in my heart. Dawkins is attempting to kick the rider off the horse and shake up the land so my footing becomes shaky. He calls me “imbecilic,” “stupid,” “foolish,” “a believer in fairytales.” Yet, as I read Dawkin’s book, although I could tell it would be attractive to skeptics and utilized by American atheists, and by many more as an excuse for continued disbelief, he relies on calling names and belittling believers, and he shows his arrogance by crafting out a God (really a straw-god) that few people actually believe in to make his point. So the book, in the end, is not to convince believers to abandon their faith, but to sell his brand of atheism to a market of starving atheists who need a foundation (albeit from Dawkin still a shaky one) to sustain their disbelief in God, especially a disbelief in the God of the Bible.
I have been paying attention to atheist blogs and sites for some time now, and after reading (even some of) Dawkin’s book, I realized where they are getting their talking points from. As a reasonable person, I do read with interest. I am still quiet amazed at Dawkin’s lack of knowledge of Christian sources, texts, and arguments, though. His own bibliography in the book shows his lack of interacting with Christian scholarship, even at the popular level. His references are either of skeptics who state the same thing he wants to say, or straw-men (quotes with no reference cited so we can check it out.) I am so overwhelmed by his hatred for Christianity and his belittlement of Christians that I can’t even appreciate the good and reasonable questions Dawkins raises. I continue, page after page, to be left with these thoughts:
What is a scientific defined basis for morality?
What is a scientific definition of ‘good’?
How does science produce a foundation for a moral, good, and righteous society?
What kind of objective guide or standard does science give us to be good or moral?
In fact, these terms (good, moral, righteous) lose their definition and meaning as I realize, through Dawkins, there is no objective standard to give meaning or weight to these ideas and words. Good has to mean, by Dawkins’ own advocacy of evolution (including his selfish-gene theory) whatever passes on the most genes wins—how do these genes know what is good anyway? On the one hand Dawkins tells us we are the product of long term evolutionary progress and our gene pool has determined—conditioned—our responses to life; meanwhile he tells us we are to be good for just being good. But our genes take over and tell us what has to survive to pass on. He expects caring and selflessness even though are genes as selfish. As Dawkins is amazed that seeming intelligent people buy into religious thinking, I am amazed, dumbfounded that decent, thinking people find his own arguments sound. On ever page, I recall the Psalmist who said, “A fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no god.’”
I was letting my daughter and stepson get some books at Borders one afternoon—my mom gave me a gift card to use, some of which was to be spent on my kids (of course). I started browsing Richard Hawkins’ new book, The God Delusions. Even after the first page, I wanted to start replying to his straw-men, false assertions about Christianity and the Bible, as well as his horrible use of logic. I bought the book—at least it was 30% off! So I respond to the one area I find most vulnerable to Western Atheists: the question of a basis for morals, moral assertions, and doing good. Richard Dawkins entitles one of his chapters, “If there is no God, why be good?” This actually seems like a good question. And, he rightly sets up the debate, really the potential answers to this question: If you are being good to gain God’s approval or reward or to avoid his disapproval and punishment, that’s not morality, that’s just “sucking up.” Silly argument, really. I taught logic and debate and critical thinking at the college level and one of the most important things one needs to do is define terms, and those definitions need to be agreed upon by all sides, and the definitions must, obviously, work in reality. Dawkins makes an interesting proposition, albeit not so original: We do not need God to be good. But there are so many problems, at so many levels, with this premise. Nonetheless, despite its weaknesses, this premise is re-worded to be a question, and then used to smash Christians and their beliefs. The question, at first glance, even seems reasonable. So, if God doesn’t exist, would we be and do good? Here are some random thoughts to highlight the weakness and logical fallacies in what this question assumes and seeks to imply:
The question itself is used to set up the believer with a catch 22 dilemma: Be good to please God and that’s sucking up; say no ‘I can be good without God’ and the Christian then defeats his or her own argument. But the questioner must be questioned before an answer is given. The question is wrong from the start. It is not that we need God to be good or do good. Atheists can and do good, as I imagine that criminals, the insane, and even cannibals do good at times as well. This is one significant place—really only one of many places in his arguments—Dawkin gets it wrong: We do not need God or even a belief in a god to do good. (That’s a no brainer.) But we do need God to define what good is. (I’d even say for argument sake, we need some objective, ultimate Being—but that’s further down the road for this argument.) This the atheist’s problem.
The question is better put, “If there is no God, is there ‘good’? And, to push it a little further, more personal, more practical, “whose ‘good’ is Dawkins talking about—his own, Hitler’s, Gandhi’s, Mother Theresa’s, my teenager’s? Whose? We need God, not just to have a reason to be good, but to know what good to be or do. Richard Dawkins is clever enough not to develop his moral basis and foundation for defining good because in doing so he must borrow from his rejected Christian worldview. Additionally, I’d even say, what’s wrong with being good or doing good for someone else? My daughter does things to receive my affirmation or approval or even sometimes for reward, as I do for my wife, and for my own mother (sometimes). Such action does not always imply a negative. I love my daughter no matter what she does. But what’s wrong with her loving me and wanting to do things for reward or affirmation? Dawkins will have to give us some reasons why that’s so wrong anyway—he does not offer one reason on that assertion of his. And maybe I want God’s approval. If Dawkins is advocating a truly altruistic human existence, he is delusional himself.
Every time I ask an atheist, whether personally or through a blog, group board, or website, where did the known, physical universe come from—how did it begin? I usually receive no answer, or the comment, “We’ve been through this before.” But when I say, “Can you explain it again,” no answer is given. There is no doubt that there is an element of “faith” for the atheist regarding the origin (or dare say, non-origin) of the universe, and additionally, there is the lack of scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. I repeat, who has determined that we live in a closed universe where the only way to “prove” things such as the existence of God, origins of the universe, angels, heaven, and hell must be scientific and not logical? What’s wrong with reason as a method for determining the soundness of one’s conclusion concerning the original of creation?
The very “logic” used by atheists isn’t scientific (ironically), and seems to betray their insistence that there are no eternal, immaterial, non-changing things in this universe. (Really how do they know that?) For the laws of logic are indeed immaterial, eternal, and non-changing. Furthermore, what was before time began? What was there before there was space? It is hard for atheist to imagine what it was like before time and before space, for such imagining is indeed an almost impossible (and I might add, implausible) scientific pursuit that actually is a faith statement about one’s worldview—not a scientific answer.
If the atheist stipulates, that explaining what was before time and space cannot be imagined, “chance” then becomes, as Steve Turner once penned, “the Father of all flesh.” Chance brought this meaningless existence, rhymeless physical universe into being. Steve Turner writes, so playfully, but poignantly, in his poem called “Chance”:
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.
The difficultly in imagining the creation of our physical and known universe where there is no material becoming material, along with no time and no space at one point becoming time and space leads to an even more devastating imagination of a universe without an eternal, all-powerful, holy, immutable Being. Steve Turner reminds us what is left to imagine within an atheistic worldview and the plague of living with an atheistic faith in no-thing, just chance.
© Chip M. Anderson (October 2008)
Words’nTone, Habits of the Mind,
We have come to a pretty pass when atheism is allowed to invade public life. Of course I am punning on the older, with a slightly altered spin on Lord Melbourne’s famous comment toward Christianity just to make a somewhat sarcastic point. The older words I refer to are Lord Melbourne’s terse cut leveled at the horrible likes of William Wilberforce’s audacity to allow his private faith in Jesus Christ to influence his political views and invade English cultural debate. The original Melbourne sneer at Wilberforce’s advocacy to end the slave trade read are on record: “Things are coming to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.”
We hear this in modern times as well, in many forms. One particular inference comes from atheists who, in America, insist that religion should play no role, have no influence, nor have any bearing on matters public, especially if tax dollars or public property is concerned. Anything that is forced on the public should not have a religious basis whatsoever. There is a strong underlying secondary principle that, at least among atheists, that only what finds its basis scientifically should be forced upon the public and invade the arena of debate. Those holding an atheistic worldview cannot mean that forced beliefs, rules, actions, etc. should find their basis in consensus (for a consensus still exits to allow, at least in a restricted measure, religious thoughts and ideas into public debate), or as a basis in democratic vote (i.e., a majority, since a vast majority of Americans hold to some form of religious faith).
My ponder here is not to say that in America an atheistic worldview, or a scientific basis cannot be allowed in the public debate (thus my opening is jest). Of course they can. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for all voices to be heard. My only limit to such “freedom” is that any view—including a religious one—that denies the right of another’s voice to be heard equally no matter their basis is unconstitutional. But I digress a little—my ponder:
Are we then to have a purely secular influence and shall absolutely no private belief system be allowed to have a say, a voice, an opinion, or a vote in the public sphere? But, someone’s personal belief system will be allowed; for the public sphere shall not be voiceless (I am sure). Why is it then that only religious-based beliefs are rejected and off-limits? Isn’t an atheistic belief system a personal belief—for certainly it is a matter of faith that underlies the assumption that only science is a valid basis for debate and public opinion? (For such a belief is most certainly built on an a priori assumption, which is a matter of faith, or at least a non-scientifically verifiable assumption about the universe.)
If we live in a democracy, then all voices have a right to be there—not just secular voices. Of course, in America those of non-faith (e.g., agnostics and atheists) have a right to be heard and their views a part of the political debate. I just don’t like it when I hear my view is being imposed upon American-atheists as if it simply should not even be a part of the public discussion. “Your opinion is religiously based and motivated, so it is invalid and should not be imposed upon others.” It is still, things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life to some.
I am afraid, despite the desires of my non-believing, God-denying fellow Americans, that religion in the public sphere was part of the original intent of the founders and it is even, for crying out loud, in the founding documents. Argue if you will that the First Amendment clauses keep religion out of public life via some supposed high “Wall of Separation,” but that wall was built to keep the State from mandating which religion you must adhere to—not the public to be void of hearing from those who have religions convictions. It has always amazed me that the Lord Melbournes of today forget and ignore this historic context and the literary context of the Bill of Rights. The placement and literary context gives first place of importance to how the public interacts with its government, and the founders agreed that religion does play a role. The freedom of speech, the right of assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances are directly, contextually juxtaposed to the State not interfering with religion and that those having a religious basis for life to be free to do so (i.e., redress the government). The First Amendment implies a religious voice in public affairs. Until we live in a country which foundations are atheistic in worldview (like the former communist countries and various dictatorships—all which have not faired so well, have they), the role of religion in public life is a right by design, not default.
Finally, it amazes me that, although American-atheists desire to rid the public sphere of religious speech, they borrow religious terms and concepts such as love and honesty and other moral concepts. This is odd, since in a purely atheistic world (universe), there is no basis for morality and such emotions and ideals are willy nilly up to the person. Value statements are all personal. And conveniently, atheists tend to forget (or deny) that there are still many underlying non-scientific and supra-historical assumptions that exist to form an atheistic worldview. It has come to a pretty pass when religion and/or religiously based beliefs are left out of or even forced out of public debate.
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I am always amazed at the charge against Christians—against serious-minded Christians—of being exclusive. I am puzzled over what seems on the surface to be a legitimate objection, but actually is quite unreasonable, silly, and really ultimately only an excuse to continue in one’s disbelief and/or refusal to reasonably discuss, examine the evidence, and to be generally open-minded. (Don’t you love it, open-minded is often used as a self-designation of atheists, but really they are the ones most closed-minded.) For some, it is simply an excuse to continue to be disobedient to the truth, a pretext to be mad at God, to show displeasure over something that one blames God for, or simply mad at Christians. Nonetheless, I am amazed when I hear the complaint that Christianity and the Bible are exclusive. Of course the Christian faith is exclusive. But really, the accusation and label of being exclusive is often a hollow negative charge—that Christianity and Christians, especially evangelicals, exclude others, whether it be in fellowship, in acceptance, and especially the exclusion from a heavenly afterlife, or so-called exclusion from participating in society. Amazing. The accusation of exclusivity, nevertheless, is a faulty excuse for disbelief.
Shocking, there is truth to the statement. As Ravi Zacharias has so well pointed out, “Christianity seems to be the only world religion accused of being exclusive.” You see, that’s the point. Such accusation of exclusivity is a faulty excuse to exclude Christianity, and worse, for an argument for disbelief because every religion has a line of exclusivity, as well as does atheism. In fact, I’d say every person has some measure of exclusivity within his or her own personal worldview, lifestyle, and belief system (or disbelief system). There is always the line drawn that divides what is believed and disbelieved (about almost everything). This is exclusivity.
There are two points relevant to those who accuse Christians of being exclusive as a reason for disbelief or rejection (besides that such a position is itself exclusivist). First, since every religion and belief system is exclusive in nature (and everyone has some form of exclusivity within their own personnel belief system), one should consider that it is a matter of whether the exclusivity is true or false; that is, does it have a foundation that is reasonable, fits reality, and is based on truth?
Second, one might consider a more poignant view on the matter of exclusivity and religion, namely how do those who do the excluding treat those who are excluded. Christians are to treat all with love and respect, even going the extra mile to provide help, assistance, love, the meeting of needs, even putting one’s well-being above those that are excluded (i.e., outsiders). Now this is tricky, for the true Christian doesn’t actually judge whether another is ultimately excluded or not—the Christian leaves that to the final judgment of God. Meanwhile, although believing many will be finally excluded from heaven and sentenced to hell, separated by God on the final day, no one on this side of that judgment is excluded from Christian charity, respect, and love. In fact, the exclusive believing Christian is to die for those who will ultimately be excluded. No other religion has this built into its belief system. Many religions practice excluding now, and it shows in how they treat outsiders. Perhaps this is one reason some actually accuse Christians of being exclusivists, because some Christians, who misunderstand how they are biblically to treat , judge now and are not loving and respectful of outsiders. Let’s not give that possibility for an excuse. Nonetheless, it is still a faulty to accuse Christians of being exclusivists simply as an reason for disbelief.
“I occasionally wondered if the gospel was myth, but I came to see the gospel as myth fulfilled in reality—in a real time, place and Person. Science and art reveal the reality of the biblical story. Astrophysics reveals a beginning and the necessity of an immaterial first cause. Biochemistry and DNA reveal a ‘language’ of encoded instruction, a logos becoming flesh and blood. Archaeology and history reveal the Bible as accurate eyewitness accounts of real events, people and places. What—rather, Who—I experience behind all the beauty seems too good to be false. Sometimes it’s a haunting. Sometimes a glory. The story has what C. S. Lewis called ‘the ring of truth’” [Kelly Monroe Kullberg, Finding God Beyond Harvard: The Quest for Veritas
, p. 21].
Kullberg, as someone who went through the battle of keeping her faith at Harvard and fought in the trenches as one who sought veritas, truth, reveals both the positive of debate for the Christian faith and is cryptic in her exposure of atheistic scientism’s weakness. I found what Kullberg said in her introduction here a great way of expressing that Christianity is open to debate, examination, and tests for validity, empirical consistency and experiential relevance. Albeit, ultimately the Bible’s message is a matter of faith, but it is not absent reason, nor reasonable proofs.
My new puter is all hooked up. (Still waiting for the insurance monies, however.) And I return with an unusual Margin thought on politics—and religious faith, non-faith, and logic (or the illogic of those who still think an atheistic worldview has a foundation for morality). I am not necessarily endorsing a presidential candidate here, but I felt the need to comment on some comments made by Jon Meacham of Newsweek from an article about Mitt Romney’s recent “Faith speech” in Texas. Meacham is usually a good “religious” commentator, but he tries too hard to smooth the Christian faith out so as to make it palatable to as many as possible and waters it down to a “Christianity that is really just a religion about God and love.” In an article called “A New American Holy War” (Dec 17, 2007), Meacham seems disappointed that Mitt Romney left out the right of atheists to disbelieve and that the presidential candidate suggested “secular” countries can’t succeed. Here are some of the comments by Meacham, with of course, my own comments:
“Fights about faith and politics have been with us always. In 1800, there were advertisements saying voters could have ‘Adams and God, or Jefferson and no God.’ Andrew Jackson resisted the formation of a ‘Christian Party in Politics.’ Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed constitutional amendment designed to declare the nation’s dependence on, and allegiance to, Jesus. A century ago, in the 1908 campaign, William Howard Taft, a Unitarian, was attacked as an apostate by supporters of William Jennings Bryan, an evangelical Christian. ‘Think of the United States with a President who does not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but looks upon our immaculate Savior as a … low, cunning imposter!’.”
Always seems a little too strong for me, but true if framed a little differently: Fights about ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ have been with us always in American politics. Romney only highlighted America’s historic foundation of faith in the Judeo-Christian God and worldview (albeit, in many quarters an enlightenment version of religious faith from the intellectuals of the day). But it was a fight and debate between faith and reason, not faith and non-faith (i.e., atheism), nor was it between religious (or religious affections) and secularism. Meacham would have one to believe that our founders made room for a secular state, irrespective of or discounting of its original religious roots. One can say they don’t like the American religious foundation in its history, or even argue we need to move away from it, but one cannot place the grid of our secular vs. religious tension over the minds and actions and politics of our founders nor of the general population of first Americans. Mitt Romney was expressing a historic truth about the American way of life—and he wanted people to know he still believes in it. Romney’s speech wasn’t about non-religious freedom or the potential of a secular state.
“In College Station, Romney avoided explaining the particulars of the Mormon Church, focusing instead on the broader history of faith and politics in America. ‘Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me,’ he said. ‘And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion—rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.’ In articulating the Gospel According to Mitt, though, he never explicitly endorsed a critical element of the American tradition: the right of any person not to believe.”
I keep hearing this? Where is this right to not believe? Reading our constitution and other founding documents, one would be hard pressed (Mr. Meacham) to find this right. We can say, based on personal belief and based on how we want America to function now, that a person has a right not to believe (i.e., not to believe in God, religion, spirituality, a God-created world, etc.) and still have a say and a vote and a place here in America. But there is no constitutional right—in fact we affirm that it is a God-given right to have our form of life, not a non-god (or no-god) right to pursue the American way of life. American tradition? This is a more recent development, not a founding one.
“Romney also conflated religion and morality, quoting John Adams, who said, ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’ True—but note that Adams spoke of morality and religion as separate things. Acts of charity and grace need not be religiously inspired; many are and many are not. Religious people can be intolerant, cruel and exclusionary; they can also be broad-minded, kind and welcoming. The same can be said of people who adhere to no religious faith.”
Here again, Meacham makes a leap, and does not allow Adams to say what he said. We have plenty of primary sources (e.g., Alexis de Tocqueville for example) who saw clearly that the American experiment had deeply religious roots and that as a democracy it would fail without its religious foundation. Mr. Meacham, please show us where Adams would have meant that morality and religion were separate, unrelated, ideas? They have to be separate for you to make your argument; but saying so does not make them for you, nor did it for Adams or his contemporaries, two non-dependent, distinguishable concepts. The historical account of our history seems to disagree with this argument. Romney was only agreeing with the sentiments of one of our most important founders—that our moral character must have some religious foundation in order to succeed.
“After citing Adams, Romney said: ‘Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.’ The second part is an ancient theological tradition: without free will faith is not faith but coercion. The first point, however, is arguable, for societies can be secular, free and successful. I asked Romney to explain his thinking. In sum, he believes a republic is dependent on the virtue of the people, the virtue of the people is dependent on morality, and that morality is dependent on religion. To support his case he (wisely) alluded to Washington’s Farewell Address, which says, ‘of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports … let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.’ But Washington was simply raising a ‘caution,’ and it is a mistake to think that one need be religious to be moral.”
Here is what bothered me most about Meacham’s article: he tries to suggest that non-religious societies can have a basis for morality. Well on the one hand, they can—whoever has the power, the military might, the will--they can force a morality of their choosing. But, this is not what is implied by the idea that a moral society cannot sustain itself without religious affections that imply a set of moral standards and a power to live beyond oneself. And what a silly thought that societies can be secular, free and successful. Show me one. Just one. Saying they can be doesn’t make it so. As far as I know, we haven’t had a purely secular society, and especially one that is free and free of religious affections. Nor, have we one to point to that is even remotely successful.
Meacham argues for a civil religion that can be tolerated within a secular society. That’s what he wants. That is where his comfort levels wants it to be. But he needs both a civil religion and a secular society with Christian values in order to be free and successful. He, like so many others, wants his secaulr cake and to eat it too (i.e., have the Judeo-Christian values of love, compassion, kindness, etc. It seems that most contemporary journalists don’t like the “faith” commitments of republicans/conservative and is less critical of the “faith” commitments of democrats/liberals (because their commitments are flexible, shallow, weak, open-ended). At least Romney did not accommodate his faith or personal religious commitments to reflect the whims of the electorate. In the end, all these commentaries on Romney’s speech written by the mainstream media journalists are a reflection on their own (shallow and accomodating Christian) faith and/or non-faith, rather than commentary on Mitt Romney.
An aside: It amazes me that, although American-atheists desire to rid the public sphere of religious speech, they borrow religious terms and concepts such as love and honesty and other moral concepts. This is odd, since in a purely atheistic world (universe), there is no basis for morality. Value statements are all personal. And conveniently, atheists tend to forget (or deny) that there are still many underlying non-scientific and supra-historical assumptions that exist to form an atheistic worldview.
Even statements of disbelief and doubt should have follow-up questions ask of them. When skeptics, antagonists, agonistics, and atheists question the reliability and inspired nature of our Bible, their doubt and assumptions are rarely met with reasonable follow-up questions:
Okay. Since you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, whose word will you have then?
Or, what does it mean to live in a world where God, if there is one, has not spoken?
Our doubtful and skeptical friends, as well as, disbelieving atheists should not be fooled: If the Bible isn’t God’s word, whose word will they have then? History has shown over and over, someone will speak with authority; someone’s word will prevail. Don’t let unbelief in God or dismissing the Bible as God’s word lull us into thinking morals, values, and behaviors then are neutral. It doesn’t take a genius to agree with the Psalmist who sung, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’.” Doubters and atheists have the luxury of living in an American or European Christianized experience. (I call this the Cheshire-cat smile on western atheism.) Our time and culture, as post-modern and distant it is from a Biblical worldview, is still cast in the shadow of Christian values where it is easy to express disbelief, yet live free and in peace, and for the most part get along with one’s neighbor. Strange that disbelief would work so well in a culture where the benefits of Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview have long been its foundation and is still felt. This, I am afraid, will change over time. No wonder belief and Christianity increase under suffering and persecution. Ah—there is that 1 Peter context.
I haven’t read Christopher Hitchen’s new book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (I will soon, I am sure), but I have read Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and most recently, Anthony Gottlieb’s fine article in The New Yorker, Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him? I have found that there is a difference between a real atheist and simply anti-religious, religious people haters. Self-proclaimed atheists are like fishermen who use nets with 4 inch holes, and after catching a load of fish announce, There are no such thing as fish smaller than 4 inches. They use meta-physical, non-scientific, philosophical, and universal claims to posit their anti-religious, god-denying conclusions. So ironic. E.g., Only facts that can be proved scientifically can be used to prove a god’s existence. This is a universal, non-scientific, universal, philosophical, meta-physical statement. Atheists make universal statements thinking they will destroy every consideration that there is a God, only to discover that the poison kills their arguments too. What atheists refuse to admit, just like many people who believe in God’s existence, they, too, have emotional, psychological, life-experience reasons to want to deny God’s existence. Given world history, both religious and anti-religious (including atheists) have poisoned those around them at times. The bottom-line still seems to be what is true, and is there a serum for the poison?