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

I Dare You | Part One: Creation

/0 Comments/in /by

I) Intro

As a Youth Pastor, I was always challenging my students to be able to articulate what they believe and why. It’s important to be able to clearly state what it is that shapes your perspective and determines your values, especially for a Christian. Otherwise, much of what a relationship with Christ brings to the table is never accessed due to an overly casual approach characterized by Biblical illiteracy and a secular mindset.

For me, I’ve got a collection of facts and truths that, taken together, form the basis of what compels me to embrace the cross and the efficacy of Scripture. And the more I study and the more I learn, the more compelling the substance of those Truths become. Recently, it’s gotten to the point where some things that I’ve learned about creation inspired me to put some additional thoughts down on paper. The result was a “dare,” more or less, extended to those who either discount Christianity as an ornamental inconvenience or a system of myths that have somehow endured over the last 2,000 years.

It’s broken down into three sections: Creation, the Resurrection and Ambition. Each segment brings to the surface a body of empirical evidence that makes it very hard to maintain the posture of a cynic. In short, I dare you to not believe…

II) Creation

Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” While some want to view creation as a cosmic accident that just happened to land in a good place, science and mathematics testify to something very intentional. In his book, “The Case For Creation,” Lee Strobel interviews Dr. Robin Collins, who has degrees in both mathematics and physics from Washington State University as well as a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas in Austin. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University, he has spent the last decade doing research, writing, and teaching at Messiah College where he is currently serving as an associate professor of philosophy. At one point in the interview, he says:

Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.1

An aggressive invitation to consider the practical Truth of Scripture The bottom line is that while some will theorize how life was initiated apart from an Intelligent Designer, they do so in a way that requires a certain precision to be in place that cannot be explained. While there are several examples of the “precision” that needs to be in place in order for life to exist, the cosmological constant is especially compelling.    

A) Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is a mathematical value assigned to what astronomers call “dark energy.” When you look at the universe, you see things moving in a way that doesn’t make sense in that they’re things are being pushed and pulled around despite the fact that there is nothing around them. In other words, when you see a moon orbiting a planet, that makes sense because the planet has a gravitational pull that maintains that moon’s trajectory. But there are objects in space that are moving as though they’re being influenced by a gravitational force, yet there’s nothing visible to provide that force. Hence the term “dark energy” was coined to describe the obvious force being exerted upon these objects by seemingly invisible entities.

Fact is, this dark energy accounts for over 70% of our universe. And what makes that significant is that if this dark energy was characterized by a gravitational dynamic that was pulling everything in, then the universe would ultimately collapse on itself and life in general would cease to exist. If, on the other hand, this dark energy wielded a gravitational force that was too weak to temper the way in which our universe is expanding, then our solar system would unravel as would the entire cosmos.

This, then, is the cosmological constant: The value assigned to this force that continues to allow the universe to expand and therefore not collapse on itself, yet not spin out of control. Initially, astronomers believed that the cosmological constant was very large. After all, you’re going to need a big broom to move planets around.

But that is not the case.

The cosmological constant is actually very small.

How small?

One part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten followed by fifty three zeroes. Contemplate the precision of that number. And if you move the dial or change the settings in even the most incremental way, the end result is something that no longer sustains life because of the way the universe would either collapse or unravel.    

B) These Are Not Random Processes

I’ve read several arguments proposed by people who want to eliminate the need for a Designer. They’ll argue that there are natural processes in place that allow for evolution. The problem with their argument is that they don’t attempt to explain the origin of those processes. They simply point to the way in which things could conceivably flow, without explaining how that flow was initiated.

Dr. Ian Musgrave is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He has a website called talkorigins.org and his arguments are obviously very well thought out and substantially reinforced with his academic credentials. In his article “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations” he offers a very credible sounding rebuttal to the often quoted impossibility of an enzyme forming by chance. He proposes that the theory of life being able to start by itself should not be based on the formation of enzymes; rather it should be analyzed according to the construction of much simpler life forms. He suggests that the attention should be focused on the manufacturing of monomers or polymers – something that can be arrived at in a way that doesn’t involve the sort of mind numbing probability values associated with the fortuitous appearance of an enzyme.

At the beginning of his argument, he says, “Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.”

I would agree. These are not random processes. But the fact that it’s not random necessitates structure and order – dynamics that do not and cannot appear apart from being intentionally established by a Designer. It’s almost comical that he’s so dogmatic about how a simple life form can develop as a result of the chemical and biochemical laws that naturally exist, yet he doesn’t attempt to account for how those laws came about to begin with.

Stephen Hawking is a very well known physicist and mathematician who retired in 2009 from his position as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University after 30 years. The position was once held by Sir Isaac Newton. In his most recent book, “The Grand Design” he challenges Newton’s belief that creation necessitates the work of God by saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”2

While you can’t help but be impressed with Hawking’s credentials and accomplishment, his theory seems fundamentally flawed right from the beginning in that he’s presuming the existence of gravity and from there builds his platform. But if there is no gravity, than he has no platform.

It seems to me that there are a great number of lettered individuals on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to explaining the origin of life. But the thing that tips the scales in favor of those who champion the idea of a Creator is that the individuals who passionately search for a plausible sounding explanation apart from God inevitably base their assumptions on complex processes that need to be present in order for their theories to work. It would be like me standing in front of an ATM with a random debit card attempting to determine the correct PIN in order to access the accounts associated with that card. You could only speculate how long it would take me to figure out the correct sequence of digits, but let’s suppose I did. Could I walk away with whatever cash I was able to withdrawal and say that all that was required were the four numbers I happened upon?

No.

The numbers are secondary to the technology necessary to process those numbers. Yet, in many instances, this is what some of these brilliant individuals will do when it comes to postulating their theories pertaining to the origin of life. They’ll focus on the PIN and ignore the ATM. In other words, they’ll speculate as to how certain elements came into being, but will base their models on things that, while they are foundational to their theories, are either assumed without explanation or accounted for using a level of speculation that borders on something ridiculous.

My point is that if you start with nothing, you have no gravity, you have no chemical law, you have no physical property. Your starting point consists of absolutely nothing. Scientists who assert the possibility of any kind of life form appearing as a result of random processes require the presence of these processes which, according to Dr. Musgrave, are not random in and of themselves. Hence the need for an ordered structure even in the context of the mechanisms that produce theses lucky accidents of creation.    

C) Another Set of Rules

Another example of this would be Dr. Martin Rees who is an amazingly accredited astronomer that became professor of astronomy at Cambridge when he was in his thirties and has since accumulated several prestigious honors in the fields of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics. He wrote a book entitled “Just Six Numbers” that identify six mathematical values that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe. He describes these numbers as being intricately choreographed, to the point where if they were altered “even to the tiniest degree,” he said, “there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”3 One writer summarized what Rees was saying by explaining it this way:

For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise by comparatively stately manner – specifically, in a way that converts seven one thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly – from 0.007 percent to 0.006 percent, say – and not transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly – to 0.008 percent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.4

Dr. Rees is a spiritual skeptic, so rather than allow the facts to point to the most obvious conclusion as far as they’re having been put in place by a Designer, instead he asserts that our universe is but one of many universes that have been generated through the ages, ours just happens to be the one where the settings are calibrated correctly. But even if what Dr. Rees is suggesting is true, you still have to have a process that’s producing these universes. You cannot effectively refute the need for an Intelligent Designer to explain any aspect of creation by proposing theories that necessitate an impetus that is ordered in any way, shape or form. Dr. Robin Collins elaborated on that kind of practice in Strobel’s book when he said, “…the skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physical laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or have experienced.”5    

D) Mathematical Elegance

At the end of the day, when you make these kind of assertions that are inevitably contrary to everything we can observe in the physical universe, you no longer have science as much as you have metaphysics posing as a very weak brand of science. Yet it is not uncommon among those who would diminish those physical realities that showcase God’s handiwork. Consider the words of George Sim Johnson:

Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random science.6

The bottom line is that the universe is exquisitely and intricately engineered to the point where the mere notion of it all coming together by chance is utterly ridiculous. The beauty and mathematical elegance of creation is so compelling in terms of the way it points to God, that to dismiss Him with theories that require massive probability values in order for them to be plausible is simply not reasonable.