WHY BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU CANNOT SEE?

Posted on by

“Science unequivocally requires that all things are composed of matter and energy. Therefore, immaterial substances—such as God or the human soul—cannot exist.”

However, science itself does not provide any substantiation for the premise. After all, if science can deal only with matter and energy, it can’t possibly show that other things can’t exist. Rather, this claimed requirement is a philosophical position called materialism, and there are substantial grounds for doubting it. ‘Materialism’ in philosophy doesn’t mean striving for material goods, but the belief that matter (or mass/energy) is all there is.

Immaterial Creator of the universe

Among the reasons for rejecting materialism are the compelling arguments that support the existence of an immaterial Creator of the universe. These include the design of living things, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the evidence that it has a finite age, among other arguments.

These features of reality are best explained by the biblical teaching that God is the Creator. If these arguments are successful, materialism fails.

Humans are more than mere machines

If materialism were true, humans would consist merely of organized matter, which we have reason to doubt. The renowned atheist Richard Dawkins eloquently articulates his perspective on human nature:

On one planet [Earth], and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing, and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter.

However, this materialistic perspective faces serious philosophical and scientific challenges. If humans are reduced to purely physical objects devoid of any immaterial aspect, it becomes exceedingly difficult to explain many basic truths about human beings.

Intrinsic value

The first of these is a person’s value. Physical objects have value only because we assign value to them. They are tools, not ends in themselves. Their value is extrinsic and dependent on changeable factors. Human beings, on the other hand, possess intrinsic value merely by virtue of being human, independent of external factors. We do not lose our value even if we lose significant capabilities—declining mentally or becoming comatose, to give a couple of examples.

Christians know that our intrinsic value comes from being made in God’s image We are not merely bodies but souls that can relate to God. Yet even non-Christians will often recognize the value of human beings, whether they recognize the source of that value or apply it consistently to all people.

Without intrinsic value, it would be hard to make sense of human rights, for example. We know it’s wrong to treat people as mere objects. But the evolutionary materialism of our age insists we have emerged unaided from animals, which originally arose randomly from simple chemicals. That means that people lack souls and do not bear the image of God. In other words, they can only be mere physical objects. In such a view, the intrinsic nature of our value cannot be accounted for.

First-person perspective

Second, physical objects lack a first-person perspective. They lack consciousness and self-awareness and are incapable of having a truly subjective point of view, using the self-reflexive pronoun ‘I’. Even complex computers and robots with artificial intelligence lack real awareness.

In contrast, human beings do possess a first-person perspective. We are conscious agents, capable of not only awareness but even self-awareness and the ability to articulate our point of view. It is difficult to explain this universal experience if humans are merely physical objects.

image of brain

“DAILY, WE ENCOUNTER MENTAL STATES THAT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY BRAIN MATTER ALONE.”

Intentional mental states

Third, humans possess intentional mental states. ‘Intentionality’ is a technical term in philosophy that refers to the power of the mind to represent or refer to other things. That is, some mental states can be ‘of’ or ‘about’ something else. Whenever people think, believe, desire, fear, or wonder, they direct their thoughts toward a specific subject or concept. They may think about breakfast, or experience a fear of spiders, for example. Physical events by themselves are not ‘of’ or ‘about’ other things in that same sense, so what happens in our minds is not physical. Daily, we encounter mental states that cannot be explained by brain matter alone.

Human emotion and other ‘felt’ experiences

Fourth, when a person feels joyful, upset, or anxious, the brain is part of the neural circuitry that plays a role in giving that person such experiences. The brain itself, though, is not joyful, upset, or anxious; the person is. The brain is only a complex organ—a physical object with physical properties, similar in that sense to a computer. A computer might be programmed to say, “I’m sad”, but the computer would not really feel sadness. Emotions like happiness, sadness, and fear are not material entities. They can only be experienced by conscious, sentient creatures who have a non-material aspect to their being, like humans and many animals. This is evidence that we are not merely brains in bodies.

Brain research subjects

Empirical studies show results consistent with the above philosophical arguments. For example, pioneering neuroscientist Wilder Penfield conducted over 1,100 brain surgeries in which he stimulated areas of the brain while patients were awake, and noted their responses. He was able to induce bodily movements, sensations, emotions, and memories. But the patients invariably testified that the response was like a reflex, not an action they chose to do. Penfield found he could not stimulate their will. Also, he could not cause them to draw conclusions, make decisions, or even think abstract thoughts (about, say, mathematics). Such experiments suggest that it is the immaterial self which is ultimately responsible for these activities, rather than the physical brain.

IMAGE BEARERS

God developed and populated the earth, which was initially empty (“without form and void”), as described in Genesis 1:2. He executed this task with exceptional precision and skill, thereby establishing a magnificent stage upon which to showcase His most significant creative accomplishment, humankind. Not only did God reserve the best for last, but He also created humans in a manner that distinguished them from animals. According to Genesis 1:26, humans were created to have a unique relationship to God. This was accomplished through the divine plan (“let us make man”), the divine pattern (“in our image”), and the divine purpose (“let them have dominion”). The attribute of being in the image of God (imago Dei) is not merely bestowed by God and retained by humans. It is what gives people special value (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9), and it is part of God’s design for human beings, who were specifically created to represent God on Earth and reflect many of His attributes.

OUR CURRENT CULTURE IS DEEPLY OPPOSED TO BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

Posted on by

Academia, Media, and governments are now deeply opposed to Biblical Christianity. They hold a materialistic worldview (the world is all there is) totally opposed to a Biblical worldview (the world is created by God). Moreover, they have no understanding of God despite God giving us both a conscience to know the difference between right and wrong and the intelligence to perceive the complex design evident in His creation. Moreover, the billions of dead things buried all over the world including fossil fuels are evidence of God’s previous judgement with the flood of Noah’s day. They deny the evidence and ignore God’s Word that reveals that God will pour out His wrath again on an unbelieving world.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20

COMING BOWL JUDGEMENTS (follow the TRUMPET JUDGEMENTS)

“So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and harmful and painful sores came upon the people who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea. The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!” Revelation 16:2-6

They also do not know that they are under the control of a spiritual entity, Satan and that the true battle being waged is a spiritual one. Paul tells us that our battle is a spiritual one and must be handled accordingly:

“For though we walk in the flesh [as mortal men], we are not carrying on our [spiritual] warfare according to the flesh and using the weapons of man. The weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood]. Our weapons are divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying sophisticated arguments and every exalted and proud thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought and purpose captive to the obedience of Christ…” 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.” Ephesians 6:13-18

GREAT OPERATIONAL SCIENCE VERSUS BAD HISTORICAL SCIENCE

Posted on by

The article, “A New Measurement Approaches Perfection” in Quantam Magazine, April 10th, 2023 by Z. Savitsky, demonstrates the electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles: If the electron’s charge wasn’t perfectly round, it could reveal the existence of hidden particles.

The experiment measured the roundness of the electron with exquisite sensitivity. For comparison, “if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.” The experiment showed “The electron is rounder than that.” But this result in real operational science has disappointed advocates of the historical scientific theory of the big bang. Why? The big bang is the leading naturalistic cosmogony (Greek: ‘birth of the universe’). It basically states that energy appeared from nothing and turned into matter, as per Einstein’s most famous formula, E = mc2. However, The Standard Model of particle physics, among the best-attested theories in all science, throws up severe problems. In particular, any conversion of energy into matter must produce an equal amount of antimatter. Antimatter comprises antiparticles of the same mass but opposite charge (if the particle is charged) and magnetic moment as the corresponding matter particle. When an antiparticle meets its corresponding particle, both are quickly annihilated with a huge release of energy, again as per E = mc2. That is antielectron (positron) with electron, antiproton with proton, antineutron with neutron, etc.

The problem with the big bang is that the universe comprises overwhelmingly matter, with hardly any antimatter except for fleeting moments. As the article says: For one thing, our mere existence is proof that the Standard Model is incomplete since, according to the theory, the Big Bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter that would have annihilated each other.

How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. But notice the logical fallacy known as begging the question (Latin: petition principii)! That is any argument where the conclusion to be proved is presupposed (‘begged’) in one of the premises. In particular, although real operational science overwhelmingly supports the Standard Model, there must be something wrong with it because it means that the Big Bang would not work. How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. This question-begging arises from the previous question-begging: that we arose by naturalistic means—no Creator necessary.

Leading evolutionary geneticist, Professor Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of [evolutionary] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Because of this question-begging a priori commitment to naturalism (only ‘nature’ exists), evolutionary cosmologists have been trying to find loopholes in the Standard Model. In particular, any asymmetry that could explain why much more matter than antimatter was produced in the big bang.

Even with the incredible sensitivity of the latest experiments, the “result is consistent with zero and improves on the previous best upper bound by a factor ∼2.4.”1 This is great support for the Standard Model but a serious problem for the big bang. As stated at the beginning of the article, the experiments have not found any deviation from a perfectly spherical electron, despite unparalleled experimental precision.

Also, trying to find tinier and tinier deviations from a sphere is equivalent to looking for particles at higher and higher energy scales. In turn, this is equivalent to looking for more and more massive particles beyond the Standard Model. This experiment is so sensitive that it’s equivalent to energies above 1013 eV (electron volts). This is over ten times the energy the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can currently generate.

There is no question that this is excellent science: both great ingenuity and careful checking and cross-checking of data. The results back up an extremely well-supported and useful theory of particle physics. However, those committed to the big bang, regardless of real particle physics, continue to be disappointed. The best solution is: to stick to real science and abandon the naturalistic faith that demands the big bang.

Article by Jonathan Sarfati Electron is perfectly spherical – Real particle physics refutes big bang dogma: www.creation.com

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION UNDERWAY

Posted on by
Miracle of the Cell
The Miracle of the Cell

“In this seminal new book, distinguished biochemist Michael Denton takes the fine-tuning argument to a whole new level. He shows that many of the chemical elements themselves and their properties are delicately fine-tuned for life, and the same holds for crucial compounds like water. Denton also makes a convincing case that all these instances of fine-tuning converge towards a ‘primal blueprint’ that existed prior to the arrival of the first living cell. Denton is at the forefront of assembling this evidence as a cumulative case for teleology (the study of the evidences of design or purpose) in nature. The Miracle of the Cell greatly advances the case in favour of intelligent causes in the natural sciences. The growing body of evidence from modern science more and more calls for a shift away from the ruling but obsolete paradigm of materialism, which allows only for the blind action of natural laws and mere matter in motion. Michael Denton’s work will prove to be a milestone in this ongoing scientific revolution.” GÜNTER BECHLY, Ph.D., PALEONTOLOGIST

WHAT IS TRUTH?

Posted on by

TRUTH IS PRECIOUS BEYOND ALL MEASURE – THAT WHICH AGREES WITH FINAL REALITY.

Ultimately, only our Creator can know the TRUTH of His creation, the WHY, HOW, WHEN and WHERE. Fortunately, our Creator has revealed the TRUTH to us in His Word, The Bible. The proof of its authenticity is PROPHECY. Much of the Bible is prophecy. It reveals future events, e.g. there were more than 300 prophecies of Jesus first coming, many 700 years before the events took place. Moreover, there are far more prophecies about Jesus second coming and many are unfolding in our time.

When Jesus was brought before the Roman Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, prior to His crucifixion, Pilate asked Jesus “What is truth?” This question was prompted by a previous question to Jesus: “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I am come into the world, that I should bear witness to the TRUTH. Everyone who is of the TRUTH hears My voice.“ John 18:37   

Jesus said to Thomas, I am the way, the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6

“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees or knows Him; but you know Him for He dwells with you and be in you..” John 14:16

Jesus prayed to our heavenly Father, “Sanctify them by your TRUTH. Your word is TRUTH.” John 17:17

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall set you FREE.” John 8:31-32

Sadly, Paul tells us what the world has done: “exchanged the TRUTH of God for the LIE, and served and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.” Romans 1:25

Originally, the purpose of education had the right foundation – main end of a person is to know God, so Theology was the basis for all other study. Biblical truth was the foundation on which all else: ideas , philosophy etc was built. True education was built on a Biblical foundation and Christian principles. Listen to this short video on Harvard, as to its origin and purpose.

That has all changed due to materialism/evolution, liberalism, secularism, humanism. Cultural elites have grown hostile to Biblical Christianity, accepting evolution as fact. One of Satan’s greatest lies is evolution, substituting it for creation, as the basis for the origin of God’s Cosmos. Check out http://www.creation.com for all you need to counter this lie.

Deception is far more common than truth today. This is why things reported in the media are now more likely to be false or at least distorted. You can also now count on the same from most of the pulpits in the American church. The message of the typical American church today would be unrecognisable to the apostles of the first century. The same is true in most of the western world.

The disconnect from truth has come the same way in the media that it has in the church. Of course, this is not true in every church or the entire media. It’s easy to see in the media how there is now a tendency to report what they want to be true rather than what is true. Is that not how we have changed the gospel, the church, and even our concept of God into what we want them to be rather than how they are?

As mentioned, there are many end times prophecies. Peter talks of the mockery in the Last Days.  “Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the “last days”, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming (Jesus Second Coming)?” For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they wilfully forget ; that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed  perished being flooded by water (Noah’s Flood). But the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:3-7

Note: they wilfully forget God judged the entire earth with Noah’s Flood just 4,000 years ago, only eight people survived. Otherwise, the prophesied coming judgement with fire may also be true.

AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH

Posted on by

Whether it is video gaming, television, Netflix, internet or sports—we  love mindless escape, as we hang out in various worlds of non-reality, as often as possible.

Ratings, views, tweets and sales are the barometer of success in our media crazed-culture. Advertising dollars and high-value sponsorship’s flow toward enterprises that attract the largest audience and demonstrate an upward trend in ratings. Sadly, these influences can also affect how we conduct “business” in the spiritual arena. I am certainly not against the appropriate use of high-tech tools to advance the work of the gospel and the church. God can use various means of delivery via television, radio and internet when these are properly managed and biblically motivated. But we also must be honest in admitting that in many ways the culture has influenced the message more than our message has changed the culture. Yet, the only life-changing and lasting good news in our world today is the true gospel of Jesus Christ. We must take care to broadcast the unchanging New Testament hope of the gospel and guard ourselves from communicating popular notions that feel good but ultimately fail to clarify the truth that sets us free.

The world needs to see the love of God without humanistic filters.

The real news that delivers us into true good news is that we are all under God’s divine judgement because of our sin, rebellion and depravity. God’s solution through the finished work of Jesus on our behalf is ultimate good news. Jesus stated, “I came into this world for judgement, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39). His bold and consistent message of repentance was rooted in the truth of man’s lost condition and condemnation of sin (Matt. 4:17, Luke 13:5, Luke 24:46-47). The message of the early church was repent and believe, an essential message for those under judgement of sin and in need of the mercy of a holy, loving and forgiving God (Mark 6:12, Act 2:38, 8:22, 20:21, 11:18, 17:30).

The truth of our sin and separation from a holy God is what makes the work of Christ essential, powerful and sufficient. That sinful man can be cleansed, forgiven and transformed is true, Christ-honouring and God-glorifying GOOD news. To declare that we are all “basically good” undermines the wonder of the true gospel.

So, in a world of confusing media and watered-down messaging, may the Holy Spirit give us discernment to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21) and cling to the sound doctrine of the gospel. In this, God is rightly glorified and we are truly edified. In knowing, believing, obeying and defending the gospel, we find true hope and lasting encouragement. Anything less will be superficial and short-lived. Surely, our broken world and our difficult lives require nothing less, nothing else and nothing more than the living and clear gospel of Jesus Christ

THINKING CORRECTLY ABOUT SCIENCE

Posted on by

Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-19770) made a major contribution towards Christian theory of reality (ontology). In his theory, Dooyeweerd proposes that we understand creation as having multiple aspects (law-spheres), where an ‘aspect’ is defined as “a basic kind of properties and laws”. Examples of such kinds are: physical, spatial, biotic, logical, sensory, linguistic, ethical, etc. He distinguishes fifteen such aspects of created reality. They are mutually irreducible both in the sense that none can be coherently eliminated in favour of another and also none can be coherently regarded as the cause of any other.

Dooyeweerd

The core idea is that all aspects are created, since there is nothing that God did not create. This includes matter and life, the laws of logic, and the laws governing all the other aspects. The theory goes on to argue that all things in creation have (active or passive) properties of every one of the aspects and so are subject to the laws of all the aspects. For example, a rock has a specific weight whether we know its weight or not. It is has this property independent of an observer. But its sensory colour is not independent. Rather it appears black in relation to a perceiver. Thus the rock’s colour is a passive property because it requires being acted upon by a perceiver to be actualised. The theory takes note of the observed fact that, as far as we know, only humans have active properties in all fifteen aspects. Second the first six (lower aspects) are governed by laws that cannot be broken such as the law of gravity. By contrast higher aspects such as “ethical” can be violated. Dooyeweerd argues that the aspects lower on the list are preconditions for aspects higher on the list, but that no aspect produces an other. For example, it is necessary for there to be things with active physical properties in order for there to be things with active biotic properties, which are in turn necessary for there to be things that have active sensory perception.

The distinctness of modal aspects is anchored in our experiences with all created things: from a molecule over algae and mammals to humans, each kingdom features new active properties that do not exist in the lower kingdoms, neither can they be imagined – as transitional- properties. A philosophy that presupposes a loving God who has given us the ability to observe, know and experience the world in a meaningful way necessarily leads us to trust our observations. The distinctness and irreducibility of modal aspects and laws tells us, then, that things could not have ’emerged’ or evolved form each other, having their origin in God and without the means of some evolutionary process that cannot account for the step changes in the properties we observe.

I would suggest that the only reason special creation is rejected as the best explanation for origins is a pre-existing bias towards materialistic evolutionary explanations.

Extract from article by Martin Tampier in Journal of  Creation Vol. 30 (2) 2016

Does John Lennon offer any answers in “IMAGINE”?

Posted on by

In the wake of the recent tragic terrorist attacks, a popular video on You Tube with nearly a million views shows an unnamed pianist before a crowd on the street in Paris playing a piano with a giant ‘peace sign’ painted on it. He’s playing John Lennon’s song, “Imagine”—a song with a strongly secular humanist, antireligious message. In the lyrics, Lennon writes:  Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people,  Paris-attack-John-LennonLiving for today …, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

Lennon was blind to the implications of this humanistic worldview he was promoting. If there is no heaven or hell, that means there is no ultimate reward or punishment for anything you do while living on this earth. This was what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote, “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:32)

What does a world look like with no moral constraints from God? Far from the peaceful paradise that Lennon ‘imagines’, the history of the 20th century bore out the results, as the Marxist, atheistic communist regimes took over and committed murder and genocide on a mass scale never before seen in history. The simple fact is, the true morality of the Bible looks absolutely nothing like the actions taken by militant Islamists.

When terrible things like this happen, people always are moved to ask why a good God would allow such evil things to take place; but what people sometimes fail to realize is the very idea of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that they are using to judge the situation comes only from God in the first place. Take this as an opportunity to share the Good News with those who are looking for answers!

Extracted from article by Paul Price http://www.creation.com

Answering an atheist on meaning and purpose of life

Posted on by

I hope this article “Answering a reasonable atheist on deep philosophical questions” from Creation Ministries International (CMI) 30th September, 2012 provides helpful answers for Christians and unbelievers as well.

To demonstrate that not all of CMI’s opponents are hostile and unreasonable, we publish feedback by Tim W. of the USA to our article – Answering the ‘new atheists’ (interview with Doug Wilson). In this, Tim W. sought to defend the proposition that atheism can provide meaning and purpose. Tim W.’s email is printed in its entirety  (red), and then followed by point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

This is an interesting article. I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States. Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree. Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies. Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms. The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.

I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case. In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology. There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness,’ than obedience to the demands of a deity.

Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God. Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life. I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning. Would you call her a liar?

Response

Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies: Thanks (on behalf of CMI and the article author).

TW: I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States.

JS: What is really striking is how many modern atheists have become such delicate little flowers. They are hurt and offended by plastic baby Jesuses at Nativity scenes and are in danger of having a stroke if they hear a student-led prayer at a football game. (But of course, anyone objecting to obscenity or porn should just look the other way or change channels.) Even leading atheist Richard Dawkins is not such a wimp; he joins in Christmas celebrations. What a contrast the modern activists are with the far more robust atheists of yesteryear who vigorously debated the formidable G.K. Chesterton, and remained good friends even after finishing second.

TW: Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree.

JS: It would concern me if we didn’t have that many. Once we dehumanize one class of humanity, there is no limit. See for example article – Unborn babies may “be planning their future”: What now for the abortion lobby?

TW: Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies.

JS: Well, there’s the problem: the unborn is not part of a woman’s body. A reductio   ad absurdum I’ve explained is: this would entail that a mother carrying a son must have a penis.

TW: Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms.

JS: Yes, that’s exactly the issue. Without the protection of life, no other right, real or assumed, has any meaning. ‘Rights’ to private property, housing, employment, medical care, or anything else, mean nothing if one is not alive to exercise them.

TW: The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.

JS: The problem arises when voices of atheism try to silence the voices of Christianity. This includes university ‘speech codes’, ‘hate speech’, the persecution of Christians in atheistic communist regimes, and the GayStapo attacks on the Church and family. See Gay marriage, politicians, and the rights of Christians.

TW: I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case.

JS: A key point.

TW: In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology.

JS: It certainly can’t come from the axiom ‘God does not exist.’

TW: There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness’, than obedience to the demands of a deity.

JS: But where does the notion of ‘fairness’ come from in an evolutionary world? Surely it’s just a delusion caused by certain neurochemical activity that happened to be useful for our ancestors to survive. Just like rape was useful to spread our genes, as two evolutionists seriously argued in a book (look how one squirmed to justify why rape should be considered ‘wrong’). Similarly, the article Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation documents how leading atheistic philosopher/logician Bertrand Russell could not explain why right vs. wrong was any different from choosing one’s favourite colours.

Think of consistent evolutionist and atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who justifies infanticide, euthanasia, and bestiality. It’s also notable that some critics of my article Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide claimed that Singer was an anomaly among atheists. Yet I showed that his pro-infanticide views were shared by the Journal of Medical Ethics and the vocal antitheist P.Z. Myers. See also Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal. He also wrote the major Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Ethics (1992), and earlier this year, the Australian Government gave him Australia’s highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.

TW: Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God.

JS: I would say they are, as natural selection explains only survival value, not truth and logic. In Canada, one atheistic philosophy professor argued that these things would have selective value. I responded that this is not necessarily so under his belief system. After all, he must regard theistic religion as one thing that evolved for survival value, yet he would regard this as false and illogical. Thus survival, under his perspective, can be enhanced by the false as well as the true.

TW: Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life.

JS: One of my colleagues wrote in Answering life’s big questions: Only the Bible provides the answers:

Today we are effectively told, in the evolutionary story, that life is a fluke, a cosmic accident. In this case our existence lacks any purpose, so life is a farce. And where are we going, in this view? Fertilizer! In short, life is: Fluke … farce … fertilizer.

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that we live in a universe that has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”. The evolutionists’ universe has no purpose because it is an accident; a cosmic accident. With evolution so widely taught in schools and universities, is it any wonder that so many lack any purpose or meaning to their lives?

As Susan Blackmore, psychologist and disciple of Richard Dawkins said, “If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all.”

TW: I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning.

JS: But hardly ultimate meaning, since both mother’s and daughter’s entire lives are just a blink of an eye in the uniformitarian cosmic scheme. Bertrand Russell said in his anti-Christian book Religion and Science:

Man, as a curious accident in a backwater, is intelligible: his mixture of virtues and vices is such as might be expected to result from fortuitous origin.

TW: Would you call her a liar?

JS: Not at all. A lie implies intentional deception, not just falsehood. As you could see from searching our site, we are very sparing with accusations of ‘lying’ (although some evolutionists justify deception and are just being consistent), as opposed to having a faulty interpretive framework. (However, we won’t deny that this prior adoption of this faulty framework is culpable according to Romans 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:3–7 and foolish (Psalm 14:1). But the point remains that a valid deduction from a faulty framework is not a lie.)

Darwin’s destructive influence on the world.

Posted on by

Apostate - The men

The fact that Christianity has lost an enormous amount of cultural influence in Europe, America and even Australia is without dispute. A recent book, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West documents how and why the decline and fall of Western Christian civilization occurred.

Charles Darwin is of course the dominant person on the list of men who destroyed the Christian west.

Darwinian Evolution theories now dominate at least 99% of higher education in America, only 1% of all public and private universities maintain a God centered epistemology and metaphysics in the matter of origins. In 1850 (before Darwin and the Theory of Evolution) virtually all leading scientists and philosophers were Christian men. The world they inhabited was created by God. He had created wise laws that brought about the adaption of all organisms to one another and to their environment. The basic principles proposed by Darwin stand in total conflict with this worldview.

Eliminating God from science enabled Godlessness to prevail everywhere, in classrooms, media, entertainment and politics. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic materialism has so changed the Western metaphysics that the average person hardly senses God’s providential interaction with the world, let alone His existence. The Southern Baptist denomination reports 88% of children raised in Christian families leave the church as soon as they leave home (p. 254)

Swanson concludes: “the impact that Charles Darwin has had on the lives of hundreds of millions of Christian families is overwhelming. It is an undeniable fact that the Christian faith was far stronger 150 years ago in Europe and America. Now their 21st century grandchildren are pagans, atheists, homosexuals, witches and atheist scientists. The sheer number that will be in hell because of Charles Darwin’s commitment to ‘murder God’ is too much – and too tortuous to fathom.” (p. 142).

The other men Swanson says played a role in the decline of Christianity, Hitler, Karl Marx, John Dewey, Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, , Friedrich Nietzsche were all powerfully influenced by Charles Darwin.

As stated in my last post, sadly leaders of the largest Church denominations have unwittingly accepted Evolution as fact and distorted Scripture to fit, with disastrous consequences. Fortunately, God has raised up organisations such as Creation Ministries to equip His Church with powerful resources such as the recent “Evolution’s Achilles’Heels” to counter this threat. Check out this valuable resource on http://www.creation.com.