Did Man Created God In His Image?
By L.R.R
A
ccording to the Scripture, God created man in His own image, “In the image of God created he him” (Gen. 1:27). But according to God-denier, man created God in his own image; in the image of man created he Him.
Of course this does not imply that since man created God, then God exist, but rather, God only exist in mans whimsical fantasy in his desperate mind.
“Man,” says the atheist, “imagines God as his comfort, helper, and savior in his dark hours.”
God becomes just a psychological comfort in this cruel world. As Vladimir Lenin once amused, “Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze.” Is this true that God is nothing but man’s whimsical fantasy, a psychological comfort, and a booze, an antidote against fears here in life?
Moreover, Isn’t God of Abraham, Jacob and Daniel just a pie in the sky, as God-denier implies? Let see if this assumptions are validly justified.
First of, God-denier has to presume that God does not exist in order for him to build his case against God for being a “pie in the sky.” But of course, this begs the question, and is based in circular reasoning. Consider this scenario:
Christian: I believe that God forgives sin and is our Redeemer.
Atheist: I don’t believe that God exist.
Christian: Oh, why?
Atheist: Because, God is nothing but an illusion, a fantasy at best.
Christian: Do you have data to back up your claim?
Atheist: Yes! God’s existence has been disproven a thousand times by the empirical observations of Darwinian evolution that God simply do not exist. So if God does not exist then He is nothing but a fantasy!
Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims to be proving. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that God does not exist, but should be made to provide support for that claim.
Besides atheists circular reasoning, it is simply false that Darwinian evolution has disproven the existence of God. On the contrary, true science has disproven the evolution of Darwin, and they has come into conclusion that the material universe and life could have not just “popped into existence”.
In addition, the existence of matter and the complexities of life demands God’s existence. So, a person must presume that there is no God, in order for him to arrive a conclusion that the Christian God is nothing but a vivid imagination. Again, this is a logical fallacy, as I stated earlier, of begging the question.
For the sake of the argument, let say that, “man created God in his own image,” this proposition however, still does not disprove the existence of God. It only shows that human in his mind are creative and imaginative if not intelligent.
This only adds the probability of the existence of an intelligent being such as God who “created man in His image!” Of course, there are highly unintelligent and even immoral fantasies and imaginations out there that goes against God’s own principles.
Also, it is true that, just because a person thinks or even dream about paradise, or certain places or a person etc, does not entail that it is true. One can imagine a perfect place where there is no tears, pain and evil but this does not make it true.
Turning Its Head
However, I doubt that the same principles employs to the Christian God. Because it will take a lot of guts to create an imagination for just the purpose of comfort in his psychological state. This is not so with the Judeo-Christian God. Let me give you a couple of examples why the Judeo-Christian God cannot be the candidate for mans imagination: it is simply because God is:
Holy: and demands His creature to be holy (Lev. 11:44) |
Not anybody’s god who does not live a pure and holy life. |
Justice: (Rom. 6:23; Deu. 7:10; Psa. 58:11 and Rom. 12:19) |
Not a god for those who consciously mistreat others unfairly, and will eventually be punished for their sins |
Righteous: (Gen. 18:25; Jer. 9:24) |
Not a god for those who cannot measure up to the standard of His law. |
All-Knowing:(1 John 3:20; Job 32:16) |
Not a god for those who want to hide their inner most agendas and immoral thoughts. |
God of Wrath: (Is.10:6; 60:10; Jer. 10:10; Eze. 7:14; Rev. 6:16) |
Certainly not anyone’s god to fantasize. Not only that God is holy, just, righteous, all-knowing, and is also wrath. And punishes man into eternal hell fire (Matt. 5:22; 5:29; 10:28; 18:9) |
Indeed the writer of Hebrews warns us that it “is fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” (Heb. 10:31) Again, this kind of God is hardly the right choice for our psychological comfort!
Theologian R. C. Sproul is on point when he wrote,
…for the God of the Bible is far too demanding. No one would wish for the existence of a being who requires the submission and obedience demanded by the Christian God. The gods of other religions are attractive candidates for projection, but the Holy God of the Scriptures is the type of being from whom men run. No one would invent Him through wishful thinking [1]
Precisely, because the God of the Bible is exactly the very opposite of what we should not be inventing as a sinner, condemned, and fallen creatures as we all are. A fantasy holy God is the last thing we should be wishing in our imaginations.
Lets face it, the statement “Man created God in his image,” is a desparate and foolish attempt to descredit God’s existence. As a matter of fact, it is precisely the atheists or God-deniers who creates their own god in thier own image. They don’t want to be responsible for their actions therefore they suppress God’s truth and His existence.
Paul the apostle wrote,
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things…Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen (Rom. 1:21-23,25).
Furthermore, as Christian philosopher, J. P. Moreland says that,
For one thing, it can be turned on its head and used against atheist. Psychologist Paul Vitz has argued that atheism is a result of a desire to kill the father figure (in Freudian language) because one wishes to be autonomous. Thus atheism is itself a form of project denial. If one is going to give an account of religious belief or antibelief in terms of some theory projection, then it would seem that atheism is more likely candidate for projection than theism. In the history of mankind, theists have overwhelmingly out numbered atheists. [2]
In Closing
Now, Let us return to our our question, “Did man created God in his image?” I do not think so. I also think that we have a will constructed reply to this question. How? I have shown that the question itself must first pressume God’s none existence which is really a form of circular reasoning and thus begs the question.
Second, I have also reasoned that the power of imagination and fantasy if consistent, only proves that humans are intelligent, and proves that there must be an intelligent being and is superior than us.
Third, the Judeo-Christian God is hardly the right candidate for psychological comfort, since this God is demanding, holy, just, all-knowing, wrath, and punishes people in hell eternal.
Last but not least, it is actually the atheist who is giulty of projection of his own god, since the God of the Bible does not fit his standard and way of living.
Notes and Resources____________
[1] R. C. Sproul, If there is a God, Why Are there Atheists? Tyndale House Publisher, p.49
[2] J. P. Moreland, Scaling The Secular City, Baker Books, p. 229
Atheism And The Meaning of Life
By L. R. R.
The question of “What is the meaning of life,” is perhaps ofted repeated cliché when one is discussing about religion, politics, and philosophy, with our collegues, friends, and family.
But what we have often overlooked when it comes to the very core of this question is that we really haven’t much thought about it in depth.
For most of us the question, whether life has meaning or not, is just a question. Of course we have asked this question, but have we come up with an adequate solution in corresponding with the very nature of this query? Perhaps most of us has indeed found an answer. But I doubt that each everyone of us has come into satisfying conclusion or answer to this question.
Each and everyone of us has a worldview[1] by which we live up and adopt. Either you are a Christian, skeptic, nihilist, atheist, Moslem, punk rocker, evolutionist, anarchist and so fort, we cannot help but live with our worldview. We deeply and sencerly believe that our worldview corresponds to the way we live.
Satanism for me back then wasn’t just a mere lifestyle, but life itself. I lived and breathed this sinister way of life. For more on this read author’s testimony. There are lots of weltanschauung (worldview for German) out there this we can at least agree. We also agree that these various weltanschauung differs from each corresponding views.
For instance, an anarchist will not consistently agree with the local authority, or a communist socialist hardly will agree with a capitalist worldview. So logically, since these differing views contradict each other they cannot be all true. Probably all are mistaken but all cannot be simultaneously true at the same breath.
One of these worldviews is simply wrong-headed. However our current discussion here is not whether a person can or not adopt certain lifestyle or way of life but rather whether his or her current view of life has meaning.
For now, let us argue one particular weltanschauung and the meaning of life namely, atheism. Most atheists believe that their particular view of life is more logical, and undoubtly meaning full.
They maintain that Christianity is illogical and absurd. Is this true? Is it true that atheism as a worldview is more logical and can adequately answer the question of “what’s the meaning of life” in a non-God, meaningless, unpurposeful, and mindless universe?
The Absurdity And Immorality of Life Without God
Sir Bertrand Russell, philosopher and atheist wrote,
Mankind is like a group of shipwrecked sailors on a raft in a vast sea at night. There is darkness all around. One by one they fall off the raft into waters and disappear. When the last man has fallen off, the sea will roll on and the holes made in the water by their bodies will be covered over. Nature cares not for man.
Militant, nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche also reasoned about mans importance in this universe,
that since God was dead, then truth, morality and meaning of life were mere illusions. We will argue that without God there is no way to make sense of our moral or rational experiences, and that, if God does not exist, human existence is absurd.
What Russell and Nietzsche is trying to tell us is that the material universe does not care or even thinks about man. It is cruel and unfair. We come to lie and likewise perish to oblivion. Living and searching for the meaning of life where god is dead (i.e. non existent) is mere illussion and absurd.
Notice what Nietzsche said the above qoute that, “Our moral and rational experiences, if God does not exist, human experience is absurd!” If the Judeo-Christian God don’t exist then we live and cease to live just like that. Nothing will make any sense as to why we even should pursue living a moral, righteous life such as being honest, loving, and caring, because these according to the survival of the fittest motto, implies “weakness.”
If the whole cosmos just popped into existence without any goal or purpose just for the sake of coming out from nowhere without meaning then, how can we possibly think that we can have any sense of having any moral values or meaning of life at all in a mindless vast universe?
Again let us qoute more of Russell’s;
That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves, and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocation of atoms… [2]
He goes on to point that, “all labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system” Wow! Is this the kind of hope that we are to have as atheism proposed and suggested?
If Russell is right then humans including the animals existence is damned to a life of meaningless. We are here with no purpose whatsoever. We are just here “without rhyme or reason.” Christian philosopher, Bill Craig explains concerning the absurdity and the consequence of life without God,
If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immorality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose. [3]
Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus were nihilists (Lat. nihil, nothing). According to nihilist philosophy, life is absurd. “There is no purpose toward which the cosmos is moving, and human history has no goal or end.
Nihilism is a pessimistic worldview it says that human existence is totally meaningless and life itself is not valuable. So if life itself is not worthy according to some atheists, then we all likewise live the way we see fit. No moral norms to follow. There is no good and evil. In an atheistic universe morality between right and wrong does not exist nor it should be applied in every individual.
You would be foolish trying to live your life with mores and values, after “life has no meaning.” Atheist philosopher, Kai Nielsen maintains the viability of ethics without God, in the end concluded,
We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality. [4]
If the nihilists is right about the meaningless of life, how much more meaning of morality by discerning good and evil? In a world of purposeless there are no such thing as immoral or moral. In fact, it is just as pointless as the meaning of lie!
Indeed, being morally consistent in a universe without God who is absolute, is absurd and even stupid. Of course not all atheists are nihilists, some are more optimistic about life and humans existence.
Optimistic humanism disagrees with nihilist, view of life. Theists who are optimistic says that “life can have its meaning, because we create our own values and give life whatever meaning we choose to give it”
The Self-Delusion of Let-Just-Pretend Philosophy of Life
In my view nihilists are more consistent with their atheism, at least when in comes to the meaning of life:
A. The universe is meaningless
B. Life within the mindless universe has no purpose
C. Therefore, the universe and life is purposeless
But of course, there are those who does not share with the nihilists conclusion C and these are atheist humanists. Secular humanism agrees with premises A, and B, but not necessarily C.
Leading Philosopher and Humanist Paul Kurtz argues that,
The humanist maintains as his first principle that life is worth living, at leats that it can be found to have worth…The universe is neutral, indifferent to man’s existential yearnings. But we instinctively discover life, experince its throb, its excitement, its attraction. Life is here to be lived, enjoyed, suffered and endured.[5]
The absurdity and the meaning of life in atheism without God has just become more absurd. Kurtz’ “first principle of life” as he said “is worth living,” of course life is worth living but if and only if God exists! But the atheistic principle of non-life to life cannot find any reason for the worth of pursuing happiness much less the meaning of life.
Can any one find any meaning of life in a meaningless cosmos? Of course they can but they have to pretend that there is meaning to life, and that is absurd! Its like telling somebody to pretend that there is such a thing as potion life-immortal elixir out there therefore we should go and find it. Knowing fully well that such nonsense does not exists. This my friend is not logical.
Atheist, A. J. Ayer also explains why God-deniers can find meaning of life regardless,
But without the help of such a myth can life be seen as having any meaning? The simple answer is that it can have just as much meaning as one is able to put into it. [6]
Knowing fully well that the universe and life are meaningless such as nihilists suggested, “we as humans,” says Kurtz and Ayer, “should discover our purpose in this universe. Let us pretend and think (amidst its purposeless) that life has a goal.”
The above qoute is utterly inconsistent. Why? Because to say that life has no meaning yet continue to live as though life has meaning. The point is this: If God of Issac, Abraham, Jacob, and Daniel does not exist or never existed, then life and everything is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy man pretends life has meaning.
Bill Craig Succinctly explains that,
The only way most people who deny purpose in life live happily is either by making up some purpose, which amounts to self-delusion…[7]
Those who persists believing that life has a meaning in a meaningless universe, orthose who want to pretend hard to live a life with purpose though, purposeless are admirable since this include courage.
But courage and sincerety in a world of hopelessness is pointless, yes even absurd. I am apt to say that, optimistic humanism, is not more rational or logical than nihilism over the meaning of life and values. Humanism is just as absurd as the nihilist view of life. Optimistic humanism has nothing to offer such as hope, and meaning. J. P. Moreland Christian and philosopher pointed that,
When optimistic humanists say that life has meaning they do not mean that objective values or an objective point to life exists. Rather, they mean that life can be subjectively satisfying if we create values and live life for them. [8]
According to a humanists then, in order for us to live a life with meaning and hope is to create values, and somehow be justified and satisfied with it. Secular humanism if it is true, then, all our hopes, dreams, courage, sacrifice, respect, love, and even charity are nothing but a mere man-made or invented moral values, then if this is so, who are we to say that Hitler was evil? Who are we to say that other values are better than any one else?
Besides, optimistic humanism meaning of life-view is likened to living a lie. Living and imaginative hope is no difference from living a life of delusion! It is safe to conclude that atheism at large has nothing to offer in life nad its meaning. What they can offer, however is make-believe, self-induced delusion at best.
Pretending that life is meaningful in an atheistic, naturalistic universe is like living a big lie. Again, atheism as a worldview is illogical and inconsistent with reality. The reality that an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscience God exists. God brings hope and purpose in life. And this purpose is to glorify God. If God exist as Christians believe then there is no doubt that there is life after death, and that we are going to stand before Him in the day of judgment.
Notes and References___________
[1] A world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung meaning a “look onto the world.”
[2] B. Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian
[3] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway Books, pp. 58-59
[4] Kai Nielsen, “Why Should I Be Moral?”
[5] Paul Kurtz, In Defense of Secular Humanism, Prometheus.
[6] A. J. Ayer, The Central Question of Philosophy, p.235.
[7] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway Books, p.68
[8] J. P. Moreland, Scaling The Secular City, Baker Book, p.121
David A Noebel, Understanding Times, Harvest House
S. E. Frost, JR. Basic Teaching of The Great Philosopher, Anchor Books
Norman Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker
Atheism And Morality
By L. R. R.
For those who doesn’t know what “ethics” means; It means the study of what constitutes certain actions or behavior good, and what contitutes immoral actions. Or simply, what makes a person’s conduct good or bad.
These questions simply belongs to the discipline of ethics. Better yet, philosophy of ethics.
Our main objective here is not to know whether some specific behavior e.g. abortion is murder or not. What we want to know and study if atheism can be morally justified in their ethics notwithstanding with their rejection of God who is loving, and morally perfect as the Judeo-Christians believe.
Christianity and Its Moral
Let us begin by examining briefly Christian morality and why it is more justified, and more coherent for a moment, then we’ll examine atheistic Humanist laws of conduct.
Christians affirms that Christian ethics is conjoined with theology this is precisely because Christian ethics is grounded in the character of God. Justice, holiness, love, faith, hope, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, and truth are all characteristics of the moral order because all are characteristics of the nature of God. [1]
Christians believes that God exist (this is the only rational option), and that He created the universe including you and me within six consecutive days.
Not only that God created everything (that has a beginning), He is also both transcendent and immanent. This is to mean that God is apart from and is superior to His creation (opposed to pantheism), and that God is presence (opposed to deism) and is at work.
Judeo-Christianity believes that God easily recognized as the moral-law giver (for instance, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon On the Mount), and is perfectly good and just. God just don’t merely commands His people to love their neighbors, but also requires that we as His followers live a righteous and holy life because He is holy (Lev. 11:44).
Thus, if God exist (which I’m sure he does), and He created the world we live in, and commanded to live a righteous, and holy life to His people in all places then morality of what is good and evil is not relative nor it is arbitrary. Francis A. Schaeffer wrote,
“If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions.” [2]
Christians also believe that God the Redeemer of mankind never changes and immutable in His attributes (read Ps.102:25-27; Malachi 3:6). This means that God is absolute in all his ways. What the absoluteness of God tells us is that what is good and righteous are absolute and changeless.
If God, Jehovah says, in the time of Moses, “thou shalt not murder,”, it is still pretty much valid for us today. And so is the command of prohibition of stealing and adultery. In short, God is the very standard of morality in Christian ethics.
The Standard of Atheist Moralism
Again, Christians believes that God is absolute and is morally good and hates evil, and morality, is not subjective nor relative. Regardless what Christians believe in the code of conduct, atheists believes in the contrary.
As opposed to absolute moralism (see moral justification), atheists on the other hand confirms that morality between right and wrong is subjective and relative. “Good and evil is in the eye of the beholder” so to speak. “No God is needed man alone can decide the moral code.”
”Morality” says the atheist, “is purely individualistic or even culturally determined.” For those who does not believe in a moral God, morality is nothing but a matter taste. ”What tastes good for me, does not have to taste good for you.” “If Christians think that adultery tastes bitter for them, then bad luck for them, I happen to like adultery and it does taste good!”
The subjectivism and relativism of atheists moral conduct is of course to be expected. After all, if God who is all-benevolent does not exist, and that the universe (including you and me), just happened by chance (as if the universe were tossed like a dice), and that our brains “evolved” through millions of years then obviously morality is none absolute. Atheist and humanist Paul Kurtz added,
“If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself and to discover new areas of significance and achievement.” [3]
So, if the cosmos is totally materialistic (which it is not) then man decides what is good and what is evil. As Protagoras once said, “Man is the measure of all things.” Which means that man alone is the measuring rod of what is right and wrong. Each person, regardless, has the sole right to determine for himself what is permissible and not.
Other antiquated Greek philosophers thought that morality was mere convention and habit. In a non-God universe, no moral absolute exists, no all-inclusive principle of right and wrong. Philosopher S. E. Frost, J.R. said, “The result of this position was moral anarchy, pure individualism, and the ultimate in selfishness.” This is sadly true.
As a result of moral subjectivism then each thinking individuals must have his or her own code of conduct of good and evil. The popularity of moral relativism in Europe in general and Sweden in particular can hardly be ignored. More rampage on rape and violence among younger kids are rampant.
Again these unjustifiable behavior we hear almost everyday in our radio- and television broadcasts are to be expected in a moral relativistic society as Sweden. Sweden as a country has long been known as irreligious and immoral nation. Yet I love Sweden! Can you believe that!
Aside from this, what do you think teachers teach about morality in our own public school today at this very instance? Do you we dare to think that our kids are being taught that morality is absolute and not culturally determined? Of course not!
Secular humanism emphasizes its moral standard upon the power of human mind. Human alone knows what is evil and what is good. Instead of an all-knowing God who should make the rules, “it is the man,” according to atheists, “that makes the rule. No divine moral agent is needed.” Frederick Edwords an atheist explains that,
“So we can see that without living beings with needs there can be no good or evil. And without the presence of more than one such living being, there can be no rules of conduct. Morality, then, emerges from humanity precisely because it exists to serve humanity.” [4]
There is no doubt that God-deniers stresses the non-divine laws of conduct by which humans are to pursue in their everyday life. What is evil today can in turn be good tomorrow. The Humanist Manifesto II states,
“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.” [5]
One humanist even goes as far to say that since humans have no true guiding path to what is right and wrong, we should follow the intelligent people to be the moral guides for the rest of the society. As Christian philosopher David A. Noebel says in response to this,
“Isn’t this giving the power to a select few to create dogma that others must follow? And isn’t this precisely what Humanists have been trying to avoid all along by ignoring religious codes of ethics?” [6]
Whose Morality?
Of course atheist Humanists can be moral! As a matter of fact, most of my friends are atheists, and they are often times kind, honest, generous, and loving. There is no benefit of a doubt here that God-deniers can actually live a moral life.
But our main purpose is not whether atheists can be moral apart from God but rather whose standard of moral code of conducts are we to follow?
Whose rules are we to accept? Which Humanist are we to seek or pursue in order for us to live a righteous and good life (that is if we really want to live moral life).
Whose intelligent mind are we to follow? Peter Singer’s (who thought recently that bestiality should be reinforced by law and should be accepted)?
Should we trust in Humanity? Interestingly enough, I saw the Schlager Song Contest 2007 in which a Humanist and Swedish celebrity Tommy Nelson, sung a song entitled, Jag Tror På Människan (“I believe in humanity”), but the same humanity he believed in did not vote for his performance and his achievement and eventually lost in the process! Isn’t this ironic?
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not making fun of Tommy Nelson, this guy has talents and no doubt a skilled song writer too. However, instead of trusting humanity that will sooner or later, eventually make him disappointed he should start trusting in God who is good and reliable.
Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a Christian once wrote that “If there is no God then everything is permitted.” Everything is relative and subjective in the sphere of morality between good and evil. More and more people are in agreement that pedophilia is not wrong and should be legal. So if there is no moral standard such as God of the Judeo-Christian, then what makes pedophilia wrong?
I doubt that most atheists are in agreement with there fellow atheist humanists in legalizing pedophilia.
So, if we cannot apply others morality (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, ritual rape, cannibalism etc,) because we cannot live by it then whose rule are we to follow? Whose moral standards are we to listen and adopt? Intellectuals? Celebrities? Politicians? Religionists?
If atheism is true then there are no moral standards by which we have to follow, and this in turn will cause anarchy and chaos. We are in a shaky situation here folks. Humanist ethics as such, cannot save mankind nor will it produce peace and charity.
The same Humanist materialistic ethics (namely, the no absolute moral God exist) were applied in Nazi Germany, Communist China, Russia, Cambodia, etc., caused genocide and murder of millions of innocent people!
Moreover, Christians predicts that in a non-God universe gross immorality would be inevitable and unstoppable phenomenon. Why? Neo-atheist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard Dawkins explains why,
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor ant justice. [7]
Yet, the same person who wrote the book “The God Delusion” criticizing theists in general and Christianity in particular, and arguing against the supposed injustices and murder in the Old Testament! Aside from Dawkins’ practice-not-what-you-preach attitude; humanity is not really special, and there really ain’t no such thing as right and wrong.
According to atheism, “the universe was not created by an intellegent being for some grandiose purpose. It follows then, that we, too, are cosmic accidents who happened to evolved from the slime in a remote corner of the universe.” J. L. Mackie a prominent atheist philosopher wrote,
Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that are most likely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful God to create them. [8]
Given this picture (as Dawkins, Mackie, and other humanists proposed) of the world, what basis is there for affirming the existence of objective moral values? The answer would be none. Can atheists be morally good? Again my answer is yes!
Can atheists have a standard, and warrant in their theory of ethics knowing right and wrong specially in a naturalistic universe? My answer is of course a resounding no!
The law of conduct or the moral theory of what constitutes good and bad behavior does not make any sense in a only-matter-exist universe since it doesn’t have beneficial traits and advantage of the so-called Survival of the Fittest.
Christian ethics, however, does make sense of the objective moral values. For if an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent God exists then it means life has purpose. He created us for a good purpose and has endowed us with intrinsic values as creatures made in His own image.
And unlike atheism who are unashamed to claim that life, and morality are nothing but a byproduct of random chances, theists on the other hand claims that God exist, and life has a meaning. And that humans are special creatures and should be respected, loved, cared for, nurtured, tutored, assisted, etc, etc.
In short, morality of code of conduct make more sense if not logical is a theistic universe (a universe where God exist). Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland expresses this truth precisely,
Morality is more at home and less ad hoc in a theistic universe than in an atheistic universe. This is because God is postulated entity who is himself good. He has the property of goodness. [9]
Scientism and Morality
It really amazes me that neo-darwinism and its theory of evolution reduces the standard of between good and evil to a mere scientifical physicalist phenomena. Scientism firmly advocates that only the material exists. What we cannot see, hear, smell, taste, and touch cannot possibly exist.
As for the morality, evolutionists argues that our morality merely the result of our physical wiring over which we have no control. Robert Wright, an evolutionist wrote,
“conscience, the seat of our moral sense, evolved as a survival mechanism. When…we feel guilt because we have harmed a sibling, it is because we have thereby imperiled the proliferation of our genes. When we feel guilt because we have harmed someone outside the family circle, it is because we have potentially damaged our own (survival enhancing) status.” [10]
But as you can see there are problems with this claim namely, if morality is just a result of our physical wiring in our brains, and since my brain is not of Wrights’ brain then I have reason to reject his physicalist moral explaination, after all, this is what my physical wiring tells me in which I have no control.
Further more, what if the ‘survival mechanism’ of others disagrees with Wrights’ morality? Would he be blamed if, let say a man beated Wrights beyond recognition in which this man have no control?
Conclusion
Christians believe that God created the universe and the world we live in six consecutive days, and that the same God who created us is holy, just, and morally good. God commanded His people to live a righteous and holy life because He is holy. Christian ethics is inseparable from theology.
Moral law of conduct according to Christianity is unchanging, and absolute because the very morality of goodness belongs to God who is changeless and absolute. However, Atheism or Secular Humanism on the other hand, have their own moral theory namely that man can be moral (in which I agree) and that morality does not need a divine law giver.
Morality according to atheists is not absolute nor prescriptive. Morality of good and evil is subjective and relative. Man should be able to decide for themselves between good and evil.
But as I have argued, if atheism is true (which it is not) then ethics in an atheistic cosmos is arbitrary and odd since we do not have a “measuring rod” for what is right and wrong or standard of goodness, good or evil is in the eye of the beholder. “Everything counts as valid just as long we do not hurt somebody.”
Notes and References____________________________
[1] Understanding the Times, Harvest House, p. 243.
[2] Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 145.
[3] The Humanist Alternative, p. 179.
[4] Frederick Edwords, The Human Basis of Laws and Ethics, The Humanist, May/June 1985 p.13
[5] The Humanist Manifesto, p. 17.
[6] David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, Harvest House p. 209.
[7] Richard Dawkins, God’s Utility Function, Scientific American, 273 (1995, p.85.
[8] J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, p.115.
[9] J. P. Moreland and K. Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Great Debate, p.119.
[10] Robert Wright, The Moral Animal–Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, published by Pantheon Press.
Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air, Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Baker Books
Understanding Times, David A. Noebel, Harvest House.
The Big Argument: Does God Exist? John Ashton and Michael Westacott, Master Books.
Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Baker Books
What Is Secular Humanism?
Written By L.R.R.
The Methodology of Secular Humanism
Introduction
What is a Secular Humanist? When a person identifies himself as a “Secular Humanist” is to tell you that in his presupposition and worldview rejects any form of dogmatism and that only nature exists. For a Humanist, God, heaven, angels, and demons are nothing but superstitions and fantasy. Humanism is really a subtle way to say that he or she is an atheist. Roy Wood Sellar a Humanist says,
“Humanism is naturalistic and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic ruler.”
I have to emphasize that modern or present day Humanism is not identifiable to the Renaissance Humanism. Renaissance humanism (often designated simply as humanism) was a European intellectual movement beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century.
Its focus was on human dignity and potential and the place of mankind in nature; it valued the witnesses of reason and the evidence of the senses in reaching the truth over the Christian values of humility.
But this cannot hardly be applied for todays Humanists (secular) . Since, according to a humanist, matter is the ultimate reality science not faith is the only sure method of arriving at knowledge.
Humanist reasons that, “If something cannot be observed, tested and put in a lab, it cannot possibly exist.” In other words, since God cannot be tested and observed inside the laboratory the supernatural does not exist. A prominent Humanist once said,
“It rejects all forms of supernaturalism, pantheism, and metaphysical idealism, and considers man’s supreme aim as working for the welfare and progress of all humanity in this one and only life, according to the methods of reason, science and democracy.” (Corliss Lamont, The Best of Humanism) This sounds noble and impressive.
The bottom line is that God and Jesus’ atonement for mankind is nothing but a pigment of imagination, and matter is all that exists for the Humanists.
Secular Humanism Denies Religion
Secular Humanists abhorrs and deny any form of religions. Since according to them, religion hurts, and is unscientific, and supertitious. Among their mantras is “There is no deity will save us, we must save ourselves.” There notions is that to believe in God, angels, life after death, and Satan is to deny one’s rationality which is really abominable and outmoded. Why believe and trust in something which does not exist? Lamont says,
“There is no place in the Humanist worldview for either immortalilty or God in the valid meanings of those terms.
Himanism contends that instead of gods creating cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.” (Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism)
Secular Humanism and Moral Theory
As I wrote above, the Humanist rejects the existence of God of the Bible. Thus, taken the atheistic Humanist conclusion of God’s non-existence then it follows that absolute morality of good and bad or right and wrong does not exist, since no moral law-giver such as the Christian God exist. As William Provine as published in The Scientist puts it,
“No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.”
Paul Kurtz, author of Humanist Manifesto II states,
“If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself and to discover new areas of significance and achievement.”
What Kurtz trying to tell us is “only human beings (not God) can create their own moral standards of behavior. Every man for himself. Man should decide and device their own manuals of what is right and wrong. This looks like an extreme moral relativism.
This is because if God who is just, holy and an absolute standard of right and wrong does not exist, morality, if the Humanist are consistent (which they are not), is relative. The absolute standard of morality of right and wrong for Humanism are not binding or normative.
They have to practice ethical non-absolute moralism. For instance, committing adultery is not an option for a Christian, the Humanist on the other hand might say, “Practice marriage with freedom.”
An Evaluation of Secular Humanism
The presupposition of a Humanist starts with himself. Man decides what’s good and evil. “Human rationality and science is the only sure method of arriving at genuine knowledge.” This is pure rationalism and materialism. Humanistic philosophy is grounded firmly in modern science methodology (or scientism) and enlightened human experience.
Now, one might be inclined to believe that Humanism as a worldview is far more superior than its opposing view Christianity, but this is just a smoke-screen. In reality it is nothing but pure philosophical speculations at best. I’ll show you why this is so in a moment.
The Secular Humanist charge against Christian in general and Christian philosophy in particular is that it is unscientific, and irrational to hold on to. Really?
In actuality, philosophical Christian is not nonsensical and unscientific. On the contrary, the Scripture does not require a Christian to abandon reason in accepting its truth, as prophet Isaiah said,
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isa. 1:18) We also read the apostle Peter’s encouragement to Christians to be able to argue logical, compelling reasons for their hope in Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:15).
Contrary to what the Humanists postulates, the Christian worldview as diametrically opposed to Humanistic approach is indeed defensible. In fact, many well-recognized philosophers since the very beginning of man believed and defended their faith in Christ. Not only did they believe that Christianity is defensible they also affirmed that it is rational.
These philosophers who affirmed that Christianity are both rational and defensible, just to name a few are: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, John Scotus, Rene Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Kierkegaard, C.E.M Joad, Alvin Plantinga, C. S Lewis, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig and so on. Unlike Humanism, the Christian philosophy and faith is rich and satisfying.
A Brief Critique of Secular Humanist Worldview
Before we try to attempt to scrutinize Humanistic worldview we must remember that, contrary to what God-critics says about Christian, Christian theism in particular is not against reason or rationality (Isa. 1:18; 1 Peter 3:15) but with, as author and theologian R.C. Sproul contends,
“…the problem with rationalism is not reason or rationality. The problem is found in its siffix, the ism…it is one thing to be human, quite another to embrace humanism…”
Christians should not get intimidated by the Humanist charge against Christianity. In my opinion it is Humanism, not Christianity, who is indefensible and unfalsifiable system of thought. As I wrote earlier It only stresses the ability of science and human reason to know truth. Besides these methods we cannot know anything says the Humanist.
And that ethics of what’s vice or virtue is relative since there is no absolute God or gods outside the universe. “Matter is all there is.” Lets see about this. To believe that matter is the ultimate reality is self-refuting and dogmatic.
Secular Humanist Rationalism:
We all know that Materialism as a philosophy has existed since Ancient Greece and is based on the idea that matter is all that exists. According to materialist philosophy, “matter has always existed and will continue to do so for all time. Nothing exists apart from matter.” But this rationalisation is inconvincible.
The statement, “I only believe in materialistic science” is not scientific, since the statement itself cannot be observed, and tested inside science laboratory! This is simply a belief and a dogma.
Moreover, Humanist rationalist (or sometimes refer to as physicalist) cannot prove that “rationalism” is true. This is so because rationalism as a test of truth is not physical (material). It cannot be falsified nor observed, and so does logic and mathematical truths.
Norman Geisler a Christian and a philosopher tells us that, “Rationalism is insufficient,” and that, “rationalism in the strong form of logically inescapable arguments proves nothing, since there is no way to logically prove the very laws of thought which are used to prove things,” So much for the only-nature-exist philosophy!
Christians affirms that logic as a system of thought is not physical or material entity, so it becomes problematic for the Humanist (who pride themselves to be more rational) materialist who denies the immaterial realm.
This is not so with Christian worldview. Since we are created in the image of a rational and logical God, we would expect to have logical faculties. Thus we can safely conclude that in a Christian biblical worldview, the discipline of mathematics, and logic exists and so does truth, and are immaterial by the way.
Secular Humanism as A Religion:
Even if Humanism denies affiliation with the religious they themselves cannot escape the fact that Humanism as a worldview have religious properties. In Humanism, faith is also inescapable because they don’t have empirical evidence for their belief such as shown below. However, I would not push this argument against a Humanist.
-
God and Creator – Chance, time, and matter.
-
Savior – mankinds ability to save himself.
-
Faith and Dogmatism – Only matter or material exists.
-
Deification – Man is his own god who decides his own destiny and his own judge between right and wrong.
-
Worship - Man’s ability of reasoning.
-
Life After Death – Death is finallity.
-
Theology - Dogmatism and authoritarianism (Only material).
Humanist insistence denial of a personal God is similar to Buddhism. That man is the total of his own destiny equates with Hinduism, though they would deny the consequence e.g. the hindu doctrine of Nirvana.
The Illogical Moral Theory of Secular Humanism
The Humanist Manifesto II explains, “Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny distorts the whole basis for life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our future…” It is quite interesting to note the above quotation because by that statement alone shows the Humanist are moral relativist.
If “ethics stems from human” then he or she should decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
This is pure relativism and hypocritical. This Humanist moral theory is hypocritical because for “man to decide and create his own future” Humanists must accept the Nazi Regime, the Idi Amin community, and mass murderer.
Why criticize and bully mediums, charlatans who obviously are fraud and cheats (people from their money) for there living? Aren’t they, as the Humanist says, “trying to create and develop their future?”
In a chance, molecule-to-man universe (as they assumed) are we to think that the atheists Humanists at large are better than the average?
Secular Humanist Relativism:
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don not say that all Humanists agrees and approves the behavior of a pedophile (adult having sex with kids), homosexual, rapist, child molester, cheating, cannibalism, necrophilia and so on. What I’m telling you is atheists Humanists at large are being or are inconsistent and foolish.
After all, if an absolute moral God doesn’t exist, and that the material universe came by chance, and that our morality between good and evil are just electrical circuits in our brains, then standard of what is virtue and vise cannot logically exist.
If the norm or what is good and evil (such as God) are non-existence simply because morality itself is immaterial, then whose moral standard are we to follow? Gudrun Schyman’s, Lars Ohly’s, or Mikael Persbrandt’s? Yours or mine?
In a moral relativistic Humanist worldview there must be a non-judgmental spirit since after all isn’t “ethics stems from human needs and that we create and developer our own future?” Nay, Humanists are just as quick as the Christians moral absolutists to judge others. They get upset if injustice and unfairness has been committed towards them.
The most extremists leftists (anti-Americanism; which is another form of racism) in Sweden are quick to point their finger of blame against the now present U. S. government for their war against terrorism.
Self-proclaimed Humanists no doubt, quickly condemns others who cheats their income-taxes. Yea, they are zealous for the equality, fairness and truth. They are so zealous that they have ignored and forgotten the fact that moral absolutism are mainly embraced by Theists (who believes that a moral God exists)!
Are you telling me that a Humanist cannot distinguish between cut-throat (bad) and altruism (good)? Of course he can! But to do this he must first borrow from biblical Christianity’s morality in pitting bad against good.
Within the Secular Humanist worldview who obviously hold to Evolution theory have no consistent basis upon which to declare one action good and another bad. One action isn’t better than the other; it all boils down to survival and reproduction.
If the Humanistic are to be consistent in their moral theory, which is relativistic, they have to embrace non-judgmental position.
After all who are Humanists to judge of what is good and evil? For those who are not aware of what moral relativism is – It simply means, “what is evil to you is good to any one else.”
There is no such thing as absolute morality. If abortion is an act of infant murder for a Christian for a Humanist, abortion is simply a relief both are consistent according to a moral relativists.
Note, moral relativism as a theory has been refuted both by atheists and theists alike. We have examined the illogical, hypocritical and non-rational elements of Humanistic moral theory. Since, Humanism exclude an absolute moral God who created the universe, then it is only logical for them to embrace and practice moral relativism.
But this is not so with Christians. Christian ethics is based on ethical laws that reflect the very nature of God. Christian philosopher D. Elton Trueblood says,
“every person who engages in moral judgment implies by his judgment the existence of an object moral order. This is because the relationship called judging involves at least three terms: the person who judges, the action that is judge, and the standard of judgment by which the judge action is measured. This last, if moral experience is to make sense at all, must be something independent of both of the other terms.”
The foundation of Christian ethics lies in the nature of God who is moral and true. The Humanist ethics on the other hand base their morality from fallible humans. The Christians believes that the nature of virtue is immaterial yet exists.
Truth, love, goodness, compassion and rationality belongs only to Christians not to Humanists, since these are immaterial entity- in which they deny.
Closing Remarks
As we have studied the secular Humanism methodology, I find it incoherent and implausible. To propagate Humanism as champions of reason is one thing but proving “reason” it self is quite another. In fact this is a logical fallacy namely, rationalism is petitio principii (circular reasoning). The statement “Only physical exists because it can be tested and observed, God, angels cannot” is self-refuting, because the statement itself fails in its own criterion.
If Humanist are honest enough to acknowledge the existence of laws of logic, mathematical truths, virtue of goodness, as immaterial entities, they should abandon their materialism even Humanism!
We have also examined Secular Humanist theory of ethics. Atheist Humanist exclaims that there are no such thing as an absolute moral God by which we are accountable. Every man should be able to decide what’s morally right for them and their community says the Humanist.
This is total relativism. Yet the Humanists staff of RIX-FM are bias, prejudiced, Christian bashing radio station here in Stockholm. They despise Christians as bigots, and homophobic! Which is really a non sequitor.
Again, if morality is nothing but electrical-circuits in our brains, why judge Christians who values traditional marriage, opposing homosexual lifestyle, bestiality, pornography, etc, is abhorrent and inhumane? Why be aggressive against injustices if every man should be able to decide what’s virtue and vice?
Christianity is opposed to materialism or naturalism philosophy as the sole means for arriving true knowledge. The Christian worldview embraces the meaningful, purposeful life, a life in which each of us shapes his beliefs according to a justifiable, reasonable, truthful worldview
References and Resources———————
The New Answers Book, Editor Ken Ham; Master Books
Introduction to Philosophy, Norman Geisler; Baker Books
Understanding The Times, David A. Noebel; Harvest House
What Is Atheism?
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ …” (Psalm 14:1)
By L. R. R.
Atheism as an ideology has been around for millennia though the meaning of atheism itself has certainly shifted. For example, being an atheist in presocratic time did not mean denial of the existence of God or other gods. Philosopher Socrates was accused for atheism because he only acknowledge one god but not gods. Christians of the late second century were also accused for being atheists because they only worshipped one God but denied the existence of pagan gods. In other word, being an atheist in presocratic time means denying multiple gods but acknowledging one God but this understanding has change remarkably. The term atheism doesn’t no longer have the same connotations today as it where. Atheism today means denial of any kind of god or gods.
Atheism (Gk. a theos, a = no theos=god) claims that there is no god or gods in the world and beyond the world. There is no god of any kind, anywhere, contends the atheists. Most atheists does not prefer to be call antitheists or anti-Christian (though some are hostile, militant towards theism in particular and anti-Christianity in general such as the new atheists evangelists such as Christopher Hitchen, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet etc.,) but simply nontheists.
Atheists offers a worldview and belief of their own which they may call humanism, materialism, naturalism. Atheism as a belief is widespread from educational system, to psychological departments. And from a scientist to a philosopher, and to a politician. The key tenets of atheism is its denial of the supernatural being such as God. By “supernatural” philosophers mean things that are immaterial, such as the soul or God.
Two Different Types of Terms
There are two types of atheism: “strong” atheism and “weak” atheism. The strong atheist flatly denies that god or any gods exists. While the weak atheist on the other hand denies and disbelieve the existence of god or gods.
Weak atheism often confuse with agnosticism: the doctrine that the existence of God is not cognitive or obtainable. While on the other hand, strong atheism not only objects that god or gods are obtainable they also asserts that god or gods do not exists. Before we continue let me first tell you my main concern here.
My main objective here on this article is to expose atheism as philosophy, and then rebut atheism philosophically. I’m not going to attempt to object evolution here, though, it will be written else where on this web site.
There are lots of reason why atheists disclose the possibility of a God, I only chose to give examples of their arguments as to why they rather choose atheism. I’ll try in return to give a positive position for theism on a different link on this page.
A Short Historical Survey
Jean-Paul Sartre believes that there never was, is or will be a God. In his book Gay Science Nietzsche wrote that the God-myth was once alive but this myth died and is no longer applicable. Some of you might think that atheism is a new movement, it is not. Else where he wrote:
| ”As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.” |
In fact atheism and materialism can be trace way back to a man named Thales a Greek philosopher. He lived at Miletus about 600 B.C. He tried to explain through his own perception around him in fairly natural terms. He though, that everything came from water.
Another Greek thinker of the 5th century B.C, Protagoras believed that ‘Man is the measure of all things.’ What he meant of course is that man in his ability to reason is the ultimate judge. Any given propositions, whether you are a Jewish or Buddhist, your faith and ideas must be subjected to human reason. Democritus (460-360 B.C.) a materialist philosopher stated that, “Everything that is, is made of atoms.”
Arguments For Atheism
In conjunction to our discussion of atheism we will now examine and expose atheistic disproof of God’s existence. These arguments for atheism that I have gathered is not complete yet these objections against theism are widely used and being pushed by the adherent of atheism.
From Cosmological Objections
Carl Sagan once stated, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Cosmology is the branch of the philosophical study of the universe, especially its origin. Atheists however (at least in the academics circle), argues that the Principle of Causality leads to Infinite Regress. They contends that the universe did not have an origin or if it did have a beginning it certainly wasn’t caused.
No one caused the universe to exist. However, if the universe nee cause, says the atheist, then so does the one (i.e God) who caused it. “If God had a cause then, he would not be God, and if God does not need a cause then neither does the cosmos.” Nontheists also says since there really no superhuman being such as God, then the world has no cause.
To assume that everything need a cause, is to assume that there really ain’t no beginning. Who begin the beginning and so on ad infinitum.
Another argument that disqualifies God’s being is that, the Principle of Causality leads to an Impossible Self-Caused being. “If God did not need a cause either in or outside itself, then He’s cause must have the cause for being”.
But a self-caused being is impossible because, objects the atheists, “oneself must exist first in order to cause oneself to exist. And this is pure imagination. One cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect.”
From Moral Objections
Thinkers who adhere to atheism uses morality and the argument from Innocent Suffering to disproof God’s existence (Albert Camus, Pierre Bayle, and Bertrand Russell for instance).
The objections from evil, pain, suffering are perhaps one of most attempted way to debunk to the being and existence of the Judeo-Christian God. “If God is is so powerful and good then whence is evil”? Theists and nontheists alike experiences the horrible of war, pain and suffering this is an indisputable fact to all.
Furthermore, “If there were an all-powerful being such as God, he could destroy evil, and if there were an all-good God he surely would destroy all kinds of evil. But, evil, pain, and suffering continues. It is not destroyed.” “Therefore an all-good, and all powerful God does not exist, because an all-good, and an all-powerful God is incompatible with the existence of evil.
Objections of the Attributes of God and Creation
The idea of God’s omnipotent (all-powerful) is an contradiction in terms objects the atheists. If God is all-powerful then he could of course undoubtedly do anything, including making an square circle or creating a stone so big that he cannot lift it.
But if God make something that he could not control or lift (a big stone for example), then he would not be all-powerful, since there would be something that he could not overpower. Therefore the notion of an Omnipotent God does not exist. Christians traditionally claims that God have in his attributes an absolutely perfections.
According to my nontheists friends, this perfections are mutually exclusive. “How can a God, for instance, be love and in the same sense have wrath? Isn’t wrath incompatible with love? Well, at least in a all-loving God.” Atheists are right in postulating these questions.
As I have wrote earlier, these arguments for atheism are not exhaustive yet these are the objections they usually use in objecting the the being and the existence of Christian God.
Comments and Response
One must first acknowledge that atheism as an belief system are equally valid to Christianity. In fact all belief systems are valid. However, validity does not tell us whether this or that belief system are validly true.
Atheists says that the existence of God is impossible while on the other, theists contends that God, not only that he exists, he can also be known through his creation (Psalm 19:1) and his revelation. Let us know give a comment and counter arguments to atheists.
Cosmological Defined
The notion that Causality Lead to Infinite Regress is a gross misconception. Theists argues that only finite, changing, dependent beings need a cause. Norm Geisler a philosopher and theologian explains, “This does not lead to a contradictory self-caused Being but to a noncontradictory un-caused Being. For if only finite beings need a cause then when one arrives at a nonfinite (i.e., infinite) being it does not need a cause.”
Atheists wants us to believe that something can come out from nothing. But this is absurd and a violation of the Law of Cause and Effect.
We all know that events have a definite beginning and end, and do not happen without something causing them. In contrast, since only finite, changing, dependent beings need a cause, God does not need a cause, since he is neither an event nor a contingent being.
God is a necessary Being and such a being does not need a cause–uncaused Being. According to Aquinas, the principle of causality the series would legitimately stop at a first, Uncaused Cause of all finite beings.
What about the objection on the Impossible Self-Caused Being? Again, since finite and changing things need a cause God does not.God is a necessary Being and uncaused. The principle of causality if understood correctly, leads to an un-caused Being.
Atheistic Moral Objections Are Invalid
Whence is evil (see. The Problem of Evil)? ask nontheists. But According to Christians, evil has already been dealt with on Calvary. However, atheists does not take this for an answer. Yet at the same since nontheists offers no legitimate proof for the implied statement that if an all-loving and all-powerful God has not defeated evil and suffering by now God never will defeat it.
My response to this is that when Christ returns God will destroy evil. Since evil is yet defeated does not follow that He would not defeat evil.
This is an assurance that one day God will indeed destroy all kind of evil. Atheism as a worldview does not offer an explanation as to what is evil. Nor can they explain nor give us hope that someday evil would be dealt with vanish.
Only the Christian worldview that gives us a promising hope that one day an all-loving and all-powerful God will eventually eradicate evil. In addition, not all suffering or pain are necessarily evil.
Inability of God’s Omnipotence Countered
Atheists claims that the idea of an omnipotence being are impossible and even contradictory. this is because they have failed to study theology. God’s love and wrath are his attributes. Besides, God’s perfections are not component parts of his attributes.
If Christian says that “God is love” it must also follow that “God is just.” His love and justice is not part of his nature, rather God in his total being is love and just. So perfections such as love and justice are not incompatible in God. God’s being all-powerful does not mean that he can do all things that are contradictory.
First of all, God cannot contradict himself. He cannot do evil because this is contrary to his holiness. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense.
God cannot create a stone so heavy than he can handle that is impossible. If he create a stone then of course he can handle it. In all his power, he alone holds it in existence and snuff it out of existence, if he wanted to.
How About The Theory of Evolution?
Of course, there are also arguments that try to disqualify God’s presence in an ‘scientifically’ way such as the theory of evolution. Evolution teaches us that the universe, life, and morality came by a random chance. Life, as it is taught, came from nonlife.
Evolutionists believes that life started from a single cell that evolved in a primordial soap. In this evolutionary hypotheses tells us that this very cell is the beginning of all life here on earth. It gradually evolved (given billions of years) through different stages–from cell to a fish, and from a fish to a philosopher.
Conclusion
Evolutionists and Atheists thinkers alike does not need God as a sufficient cause to the universe and life itself. God is not or must not be involved in the biogenesis. All, says the evolutionists came by chance, the notion of a supreme, morally just, and loving God is nothing but a fantasy.
This ends our discussion on atheism and their objections. We have commented and responded atheism. Atheism can be discussed in various ways and can be responded in a different ways.
Though, this article did not cover everything on atheism, this, however is not my final written article on atheism. More on atheism and objections to it soon to come on TTQ web site.
Sources and Resources
-
Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler, Baker Books
-
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler, Baker Books
-
Scaling The Secular City, J. P. Moreland, Baker Books
