Posts

Atheism

/0 Comments/in , , /by

atheistBeing an Atheist is often promoted by its adherents as an enlightened and liberating approach to life in that it’s unhindered by “ancient texts” and the restrictions that those religious paradigms attach to their followers. But strip away liturgy and dogma and religion is whatever a person uses to answer four basic questions:

• How did life begin? (Origin)
• How am I supposed to be behave (Morality)
• What’s the point of my existence? (Meaning)
• Is there life after death? (Destiny)

How you answer those questions is captured in your religious convictions. From that standpoint, the atheist is just as “religious” as they’re Christian counterpart, the only difference is that they choose to answer those questions according to a completely humanistic paradigm, which in some ways requires more faith than the faith deployed by a born again believer.

Here’s the thing: Hiding beneath the atheist’s indignant refusal to accept anything other than what can be proven or understood, is a desperate attempt to make a world based on mathematical absurdities, philosophical dead ends and indefinite moral boundaries sound fulfilling. When you dismiss God from the equation, all that you have left to explain and legitimize your existence is both temporary and relative. You are a lucky accident hoping that the next level of success and gratification translates to a lasting confidence that you matter and your life has meaning.

The problem is, regardless of how noble or stimulating your experiences may be, if everything is relative, than you yourself are relative and everything is inconclusive. In short, you don’t have a foundation, only an imaginary paradigm rooted in a self absorbed mindset that has no chance of being validated because of the way it attempts to make itself its own philosophical bottom line. And not only is it an epic fail from a logical standpoint, the end result of a resolve to establish one’s self as their own god is an empty and altogether pointless existence compared to the Compassion and Intentional Design represented by the Message of the Gospel and the Power of God.

Let’s take a look…

The Meaning of Life

As far as the “meaning of life” is concerned, according to the atheist, one’s purpose and significance is derived from the pleasant things in their life.

David Niose is an attorney who has served as president of two Washington-based humanist advocacy groups, the American Humanist Association and the Secular Coalition for America. He is author of Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans and Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason. In an article written for Psychology Today, he elaborates on how both the godly and the godless can find rich meaning in their lives. He says:

Having rejected myth and ancient texts as authorities for defining life’s purpose, nonbelievers get meaning and joy from family, friends, loved ones, nature, art and music, and their work.

But life isn’t always pleasant. Julian Baggini takes note of this in an article entitled, “Yes, Life Without God Can be Bleak. Atheism is About Facing up to That.” It’s part of a series of articles featured in The Guardian designed to, “…redraw the battle lines in the God wars and establish a new heathen manifesto.” He says:

Given how the atheist stereotype has been one of the dark, brooding existentialist gripped by the angst of a purposeless universe, this is understandable. But frankly, I think we’ve massively overcompensated, and in doing so we’ve blurred an important distinction. Atheists should point out that life without God can be meaningful, moral and happy. But that’s “can” not “is” or even “should usually be.”  And that means it can just as easily be meaningless, nihilistic and miserable.

So, whether it’s joy or despair, for the atheist, purpose and significance is derived from however you choose to respond to the circumstances you either manufacture or those that simply happen.

The problem, though, is that there is no point. Pleasure and joy in and of themselves are sensations and not destinations. First of all, deriving your sense of purpose from the amount of pleasure you experience in whatever areas you engage requires an ever increasing degree of stimulation to keep you convinced that you have value. Secondly, even if you want to say that you’re getting pleasure from being philanthropic and giving sacrificially, you can’t posit your definition of what constitutes a noble purpose as something that means anything because if there is no such thing as an Absolute, then there is no Standard by which you can measure your life to prove that you have any real merit. And however you want to insist that “society” or “civilized people” will appreciate your contribution, the fact is you have value only for as long as you’re surrounded by people who agree with your philosophical manifesto.

On the other hand…

You were created by a loving God with a Purpose that resonates as both meaningful and eternal. You don’t concern yourself with “positive thinking,” instead you engage in “profound thinking.” With that approach, you’re not simply being selective in what you want to think about, instead you focus on the One Who your circumstances answer to knowing that “all things work together for the good of those who love Him. (Rom 8:28)”

Morals

As a Christian, you base your morals on the Absolutes as they’re communicated in Scripture. An atheist, on the other hand, believes that ethics and morals flow from a natural desire to thrive both as individuals and in the context of community. In his essay, “Ethics Without God,” Frank Zindler, former President and current Board Member of American Atheists, explains the difference between “enlightened self-interest” and “un-enlightened self-interest.”

The principle of “enlightened self-interest” is an excellent first approximation to an ethical principle which is both consistent with what we know of human nature and is relevant to the problems of life in a complex society. Let us examine this principle. First we must distinguish between “enlightened” and “unenlightened” self-interest. Let’s take an extreme example for illustration. Suppose you lived a totally selfish life of immediate gratification of every desire. Suppose that whenever someone else had something you wanted, you took it for yourself. It wouldn’t be long at all before everyone would be up in arms against you, and you would have to spend all your waking hours fending off reprisals. Depending upon how outrageous your activity had been, you might very well lose your life in an orgy of neighborly revenge. The life of total but unenlightened self-interest might be exciting and pleasant as long as it lasts – but it is not likely to last long. The person who practices “enlightened” self-interest, by contrast, is the person whose behavioral strategy simultaneously maximizes both the intensity and duration of personal gratification. An enlightened strategy will be one which, when practiced over a long span of time, will generate ever greater amounts and varieties of pleasures and satisfactions.

He goes on to reinforce the idea that our personal approach to ethics will inevitably be driven by our natural regard for a healthy community:

Because we have the nervous systems of social animals, we are generally happier in the company of our fellow creatures than alone. Because we are emotionally suggestible, as we practice enlightened self-interest we usually will be wise to choose behaviors which will make others happy and willing to cooperate and accept us – for their happiness will reflect back upon us and intensify our own happiness. On the other hand, actions which harm others and make them unhappy – even if they do not trigger overt retaliation which decreases our happiness – will create an emotional milieu which, because of our suggestibility, will make us less happy.

In short, the person who does not believe in God sees morality as an enlightened application of those behaviors that are most beneficial to himself and his neighbors.

Creation

Typically, atheists tend to believe in Evolution as being the driving force behind the initiation of the universe and humanity.

In a speech entitled, “Evolution and Atheism: Best friends Forever,” given by Jerry Coyne at FFRF‘s 39th annual convention in Pittsburgh on October 8th, 2017, he said this:

Here’s my thesis for the evening: The fact of evolution is not only inherently atheistic, it is inherently anti-theistic. It goes against the notion that there is a god. Accepting evolution and science tends to promote the acceptance of atheism. Now, it doesn’t always, of course. There are many religious people who accept evolution. I would say they’re guilty of cognitive dissonance, or at least of some kind of watery deism. The path from going to an evolutionary biologist to an atheist is pretty straightforward. You write a book on evolution with the indubitable facts showing that it has to be true, as true as the existence of gravity or neutrons, and then you realize that half of America is not going to buy it no matter what you say. Their minds cannot be changed; their eyes are blinkered.

Mutations are random, and where there is order, it can be explained by an organism’s need to adapt to it’s environment. In other words, according to the atheist, God is completely unnecessary, as far as being able to explain the origin of the universe and the precise organization that characterizes both organisms and the inorganic material found in nature. While there are many brilliant minds, both throughout history and in today’s scientific community who disagree, according to some atheists, the science that backs up the claim that life is the result of evolution is conclusive and isn’t questioned by any rationale human being.

Life After Death

While most religions advocate the idea of life after death, the atheist does not. In their spiritual universe, once you take your last breath, you simply cease to exist. The well known physicist, Stephen Hawking, captures that notion in a 2011 interview he did with The Guardian.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” he told the Guardian. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
What’s So Great About Christianity?

John Polkinghorne was professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979. He is among those who looked at the same data as Jerry Coyne and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

In addition, here’s a partial list of leading scientists who were believers: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descrates, Bolye, Newton, Leibiz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Levin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Palnck, Mendel. A good number of these scientists were clergymen. Gassendi and Mersenne were priests. So was Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian astronomer who first proposed the “Big Bang” theory of the universe. Mendel, whose discovery of the principles of heredity would provide vital support for the theory of evolution, spent his entire life as a monk in an Augustinian monastery.

Where would science be without these men? Some were Protestant and some were Catholic, but all saw their scientific vocation in distinctively Christian terms.

1 John Polkinghorne himself resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, from 1988 until 1996.

You Have Nothing to Start With, So…

Part of what makes the mindset of the atheist so nonsensical is the way in which they assume the existence of the laws and materials necessary to create life. Unless you can explain the origin of the intangibles that govern the manner in which the physical world operates, you’re not explaining how all of these things came to be anymore than describing traffic patterns explains the origin of an automobile.

In Mathematics you have what is called the Null Set. It’s a symbol that represents a value that doesn’t exist. For example, Let A = {x : 9 < x < 10, x is a natural number}. There is no natural number that exists between 9 and 10. 

To satisfactorily explain the origin of the universe, your starting point must be the cosmological equivalent to the Null Set as far as having neither matter nor math. In other words, you have neither raw materials nor ordered systems within which these assumed materials can interact with one another. You have nothing to start with. So, you can’t have a “Big Bang,” because you have no Laws of Physics that would dictate an explosion nor do you have any materials that could combine in a way that could potentially combust. And however someone might want to steer clear of a Divine Personality (as opposed to a stoic machine) lurking behind the invention of all that’s necessary to “create,” this same “force” must also be capable of creating beauty, love, peace and joy – things that exist outside the realm of material things.

It’s here where the futility of an atheist’s viewpoint becomes obvious. When the material precision of the created order coupled with the intangible realities of the human experience are fully appreciated, the mathematical impossibilities are so extensive, what is thrust upon the public as enlightened sophistication is revealed as a self absorbed desperation on the part of the atheist to declare himself as his own absolute.

The fact is, you have any one of a number of brilliant and accomplished minds who believe that God, not Random Selection, is the impetus behind the universe and all of life as we know it (see sidebar). So, for Jerry Coyne and those who think like him to insist that Evolution is a foregone conclusion, they’re either oblivious or indifferent to any platform save their own.

You Are Your Own Bottom Line

While all religions agree that humanity is flawed, only Christianity posits the idea that man can’t make things right on his own. So, whether a person defines themselves as a Muslim or an atheist, both are subscribing to a “religion” that positions man as his own spiritual remedy and with that choice comes a morality that’s used to advance a person’s spiritual status in the eyes of their chosen deity.

With Islam, you’re abiding by the morals outline in the  Q’uaran to please Allah. As a Buddhist, your morals are aligned with whatever best achieves Nirvana. As an atheist, your morals are crafted in a manner that best satisfy whatever requirements you have prescribed for yourself.

Those religions that direct the attention of their followers to either a supernatural personality or a heightened sense of well being generally require some kind of discipline or self-denial in that you are answering to someone or something other than yourself. An atheist, on the other hand, answers only to himself. That doesn’t mean they are, by default, depraved. What it does mean is that theirs is the only signature required on the hypothetical document that outlines what is wrong versus what is right. And though they may insist that their morals are configured so as to benefit society, it is still their definition of what is beneficial that dictates their moral code. In other words, as an atheist you are your own bottom line. And however that perspective is cloaked in noble sounding verbiage, it is still a scenario where the Absolute of God is replaced with the absolute of one’s self.

What’s the Point?

From the perspective of an atheist, you live however you choose. There is no transcendent moral standard that everyone is obligated to conform to. Any “good” that one does is purely subjective and whatever “unenlightened self-interest” you may be guilty of, the repercussions, while they may be unfortunate, are not errors that you are to be held accountable for by some eternal scorekeeper. Thomas Jefferson held that the notion of an eternal source of accountability provided an effective motivation to do good and avoid evil.

A firm believer in man’s free will, he [Thomas Jefferson] thought that good works were the way to salvation and that rewards and punishments for actions on earth were “an important incentive” for people to act ethically.2

But then again, what is “good” if there is no Absolute basis for it? And for that matter, what is “evil?” If the only absolute the atheist is willing to acknowledge is the absolute of themselves, then everything about their existence is conditioned according to what they’re willing to observe, experience and accept. Not only are they their own moral bottom line, but they themselves become the standard by which the entire universe is measured. Moreover, if their argument is to have any validity, then every member of the human race needs to be able to discriminate however their perspective dictates as well. So, the end result is a never ending tension between the way in which one person defines something as morally substantive and another individual can look at the same thing and dismiss it as either inconsequential or even sinister.

In short, there is no “meaning,” only the extent to which one’s appetites can be momentarily gratified. And even then, if the only object is to punctuate the tedium of one’s existence with as many temporary stimulations as possible, at what juncture does it become unavoidable to ask, “What’s the point?”

Conclusion

There’s really no such thing as an atheist.  If “god” is whatever you use to answer the philosophical questions that require a response from every human being as far as one’s origin, life after death, right versus wrong and what’s the point of a person’s existence, then the atheist is simply declaring “god” to be the one that stares back at them in the mirror every morning.

Now…

• the individual can claim themselves to be a product of Natural Selection and therefore owes God no acknowledgement for their birth or existence
• the individual can define their own morality and completely ignore God’s commands
• the individual can view life as nothing more than a dash between two dates and deny there’s a Divine Purpose to be lived out and enjoyed
• the individual can deny any accountability to a Higher Power other than themselves and death is now nothing more than a last gasp with no reward or chastisement to consider afterwards

But it’s not a liberation, it’s an incarceration. The atheist has fastened a philosophical ball and chain to their ankle by insisting that anything which can’t be fit on the dinner plate of the human intellect simply doesn’t belong on the table. A person may think that they don’t need God, but in the absence of God all they have is themselves. Not only is that a poor substitute… …it’s a poison that restricts a man to fulfillments that can’t last, accomplishments that can be undone and a death that can only be mourned.

For further reading…

Christianity – It Cannot be Believed by a Thinking Person
G-R-A-V-I-T-Y

1. “What’s So Great About Christianity”, Dinesh D’Souza, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois, 2007, p99
2. “Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs”, monticello.org, https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs, accessed December 31, 2020

Christianity: It Cannot be Believed by a Thinking Person

/in , , /by
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15)

I) Intro

There are a number of very vocal and very articulate people out there who sneer at Christianity, as though it were a preposterous notion to subscribe to something so ridiculous. Christopher Hitchens is one of those people. In this installment of MC, we’re going to take a look at some of what he says and offer a rebuttal that reveals his platform as flawed, limited and nonsensical. Let’s take a look…

II) Christopher Hitchens

It Can’t Be Believed by a Thinking Person
(Christianity) can’t be believed by a thinking person. Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. (Christopher Hitchens)

Hitchens was born in 1939 and recently passed away in 2011. He was an English writer who spent a great deal of time in the US and eventually became a citizen. A gifted speaker, he was a forceful orator, especially when it came to the issue of religion. At one point, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct”, but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion”.1 Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and an avowed atheist, said of Hitchens, “I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants, including imaginary supernatural ones.”2 Today we’re looking at one example of Hitchens’ commentaries on Christianity which you can find on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw.

Here’s a brief summary of some of what he had to say:

III) Privacy

Privacy, in this instance, is an issue only if you’re interested in hiding something from God. And the only reason you would be interested in hiding something is if you had something you were hesitant to divulge before Him. In other words, you, like Cain, are trying to slip by unnoticed in order to preserve the illusion that you are blameless (Gen 4:9; Ps 51:5).

No one is.

But that is not an occasion to resent God’s Omniscience, rather it’s something to celebrate as far as being completely known and yet completely loved.

Moses makes mention of this very thing in Psalm 139. He observes how God is completely aware of every nuance of his heart and mind. He revels in the freedom he has before God to be utterly transparent and, at the same time supremely confident that he is accepted by a Holy God.

What’s the difference between Moses and Christopher?

The difference is that Christopher superimposes the flaws of humanity upon God’s holiness because the idea of Divine Perfection reside beyond the borders of his definition of what’s reasonable. Hence, God’s ability to know someone completely is processed as surveillance rather than omniscience. And in the same way, he processes omnipotence as arrogance.

IV) Indifferent and Distant

He goes on to say that for the better part of 98,000 years God did nothing as man struggled and suffered.

The Old Testament makes it obvious that God was very involved in the lives of His people, so to say that He was doing nothing is a gross understatement. Consider the Exodus, the enumerable military campaigns of the Israeli army, the time of the judges, as well as the way in which all of the Major and Minor Prophets describe God as being intimately aware of His people’s condition and completely committed to their welfare.

No doubt, Christopher questions God’s activity with the other people groups that aren’t mentioned in Scripture. What of those that didn’t have access to Christ? What of those who never heard of the Ten Commandments?

In Rev 5:9 that there will be people from every nation throughout history in Heaven. While the Bible doesn’t go into any kind of detail as to how that works, one can rest assured that the Message of God’s grace will have been communicated and his judgement will be fair (Acts 10:34-35; Rom 1:20; Jas 2:25). Click here for more reading on that subject.

V) In the Desert

Christopher’s also critical of God’s decision to announce His Solution to sin to a people “in the desert” who are not nearly as literate or as advanced as the Chinese.

At the time of Christ, the Roman Empire was under the authority of Caesar Augustus. Never before had so many human beings acknowledged the authority of a single leader. His subjects formed more than one third of the entire global population.3

When you couple that with Rome’s educational system, which was heavily influenced by the Greeks, along with Rome’s engineering and technology, Hitchens comment is revealed as being less than credible. Rome was very well positioned to serve as a starting point for the gospel message (see Acts 25:12; 28:30).

VI) Christianity is Immoral

Hitchens then goes on to say that he regards the Christian message to be immoral. His conclusion is derived from a limited perspective on the consequences of any kind of wrongdoing.

While it is both appropriate and biblical to take responsibility for the wrongful act that you’ve committed (Matt 5:23-26), the spiritual ramifications of sin are both eternal and lethal and cannot be offset by any kind of human effort (2 Sam 12:13 [see also http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-godcentered-understanding-of-sin.php]). In other words, being ethical may address the material debt incurred by your actions and it may even ease the tension felt as a result of your wrongdoing, but it accomplishes nothing as far as paying the debt that is owed to God.

That’s what makes grace so amazing.

It’s not a question of the lengths you go to in order to compensate for your actions – that’s an expected response from a moral perspective. But neither you nor I can atone for our sin on our own (Heb 10:4). It requires a Divine Solution. And when you consider the price that God was willing to pay for said solution, to regard it as immoral is nonsensical. Rather, it’s a kind of love that is nothing short of outrageous in that it is entirely undeserved, yet freely given (1 Jn 3:1).

VII) No Win Scenario

Finally, Hitchens concludes that God has created a no win scenario by imposing expectations that are impossible to live up to.

Coupled with the fact that He’s aware of, not only your outward behavior, but also the agendas within the hidden recesses of your mind, you are lost and condemned from the very start. Paul refers to the same “no win” scenario that Hitchens observes in Romans 7. This is a man that was blameless, as far as keeping the law (Phil 3:6). But however pristine he may have looked on the outside, he knew that before God, all his righteous acts were like filthy rags and he was a slave to sin (Is 64:6; Rom 7:14). And it’s not that God has orchestrated this situation, rather it goes back to the fact that man chose this dynamic back in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15-17; 3 :16-19).

But while man chose to live in the context of this sitting, God provided a Remedy that Paul builds up to in Romans 7:24-25 where he says, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

VIII) Conclusion

The fundamental flaw in Hitchens’ reasoning is that his philosophical starting point positions himself in the center of the universe as opposed to God. Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you make yourself the center of the universe, all your perspective is skewed. There is only one moral center of the universe, and that is God. If you get into right relation with Him, then you have your right perspective and your right relation and your right size.”4

Hitchens has determined that God cannot exist outside the parameters of his intellectual preferences. His limited knowledge of Scripture coupled with a resolve to process the whole of life and creation according to a personal paradigm that reduces the enormity of the cosmos and the intricacies of the human experience to something that fits within an academic shoebox, results in something that appears controlled and calculated, but is revealed as being pathetically inept when confronted with the world as it truly is.

But here’s the thing:

Hitchens isn’t going to be swayed by mere reason alone. For him, this kind of debate is more along the lines of chess where people position their arguments like they would move their bishops and pawns on a chessboard. That isn’t to say that you don’t engage people like Christopher. Paul never shied away from debating the logic of the gospel. You see that in Acts 17 when he was in Athens and engaged the philosophers and the great thinkers in that city.

But for people like Christopher, you want to challenge their logic with not only your rebuttal but with your life. It’s there where the Power of God is most compelling. Ideas are one thing, but the ideals that guide and empower the life that is worth imitating – that’s what makes the difference, that’s what silences the critics and that’s what points people to Christ.

1. “Christopher Hitchens”, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christopher_Hitchens, accessed June 19, 2015
2. Ibid
3. Bible Hub, “The Roman Empire at the Time of the Birth of Christ. Upwards of a Quarter of a Century Before the Birth of Christ”, William Dool Killen, http://biblehub.com/library/killen/the_ancient_church/chapter_i_the_roman_empire.htm, accessed June 19, 2015
4. “Wilson”, A. Scott Berg, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, N.Y., 2013, p37

Ten Questions for Atheists

/in , , , /by

Here’s my thought:

You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience. In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life.

Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…

1) Where did you get your gravity from?

The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.

2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?

If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.

3) Where is your fossil record?

When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1

He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record. “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation.

The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3

Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:

…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4

4) What’s the point of your existence?

That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.

You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective.

In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another. In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.

5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?

This is a little awkward:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5

Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.

6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?

While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound.

Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6

Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes?

Probably not.

But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?

In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.

7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?

Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7

8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?

You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”

In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions. Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one.

When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?

9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?

You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.

Why?

If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?

10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?

Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture?

If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions? Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8

Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16).

In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.

Conclusion

No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.

But…

The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity.

To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences. What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science? Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?

Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.

Here’s my thought: I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction. I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time. And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.

Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.

I’ve got no further questions…

1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015