"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'..." (Psalm 14:1, NIV). NB: he says this in his heart and is irrational.
Today's atheists(or anti-theists) are more strident than of yesteryear since they don't "live and let live" with Christians anymore but are bent on eradicating Christ from the public square and discourse--erasing any vestige of religion; not letting any Divine Foot in the door. Faith in God used to be the default position, but today's resurgent atheists are on the march! They are on the offensive like the redoubtable Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who succeeded in outlawing prayer in public schools and Bible reading as a mandatory curriculum or requisite. If these atheists are so sure there's no God, why spend so much energy fighting someone (why are they so angry?) and who doesn't exist, while denying all the causes championed by Christians?
One man in Russia concluded there must be a God since they keep telling him there isn't. The problem with Marxism, according to Dostoevsky, is atheism--a philosophy hard to buy into since they propagate that "God does not, cannot, and must not exist." Not everyone is so ready to be committed to this bleak outlook on life. They have a psychological need to be atheists; they may have had estranged relationships with authority figures, especially their fathers, and see the so-called Father Figure as an assault since they don't want any accountability to a Higher Power. They respect authority figures but deny the Ultimate Authority and Lawmaker. The atheist doesn't want a Judge to criticize his immorality or lack of ethics, he refuses any guidance for life from a Lord of lords, Guide, or Ruler, he refuses to submit to the authority of King of kings, he wants to deny the natural order of creation with its Creator.
Today's atheists(or anti-theists) are more strident than of yesteryear since they don't "live and let live" with Christians anymore but are bent on eradicating Christ from the public square and discourse--erasing any vestige of religion; not letting any Divine Foot in the door. Faith in God used to be the default position, but today's resurgent atheists are on the march! They are on the offensive like the redoubtable Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who succeeded in outlawing prayer in public schools and Bible reading as a mandatory curriculum or requisite. If these atheists are so sure there's no God, why spend so much energy fighting someone (why are they so angry?) and who doesn't exist, while denying all the causes championed by Christians?
One man in Russia concluded there must be a God since they keep telling him there isn't. The problem with Marxism, according to Dostoevsky, is atheism--a philosophy hard to buy into since they propagate that "God does not, cannot, and must not exist." Not everyone is so ready to be committed to this bleak outlook on life. They have a psychological need to be atheists; they may have had estranged relationships with authority figures, especially their fathers, and see the so-called Father Figure as an assault since they don't want any accountability to a Higher Power. They respect authority figures but deny the Ultimate Authority and Lawmaker. The atheist doesn't want a Judge to criticize his immorality or lack of ethics, he refuses any guidance for life from a Lord of lords, Guide, or Ruler, he refuses to submit to the authority of King of kings, he wants to deny the natural order of creation with its Creator.
In this way, he has no hell to shun, no judgment to fear, and no accountability to anyone but himself and he wants to live for the day, not in light of eternity, being a law unto himself and doing what is right in his eyes. They don't want to worship God (his due respect)--they won't worship nothing! Men will always find "something or someone to worship" (according to Dostoevsky) in the "vacuum" (Blaise Pascal's term) or void left in the soul that is only content in God.
But it is a contradiction in terms to believe in order without an "Orderer," to believe in purpose without teleological sources or a "Purposer" (which is purpose personified) or justice without the Standard of good and evil and a Final Judge. In fact, the word teleology or purpose is a dirty and repugnant word to atheists. He can look at beauty and deny an Artist! He looks at the design and insults his Designer! How can one believe in a "beginning" (i.e., the Big Bang as a scientific fact) and deny a Beginner? It's not a valid faith to deny God since He reveals Himself to all, but He also hides and will only be found by those searching for Him, not triflers.
But it is a contradiction in terms to believe in order without an "Orderer," to believe in purpose without teleological sources or a "Purposer" (which is purpose personified) or justice without the Standard of good and evil and a Final Judge. In fact, the word teleology or purpose is a dirty and repugnant word to atheists. He can look at beauty and deny an Artist! He looks at the design and insults his Designer! How can one believe in a "beginning" (i.e., the Big Bang as a scientific fact) and deny a Beginner? It's not a valid faith to deny God since He reveals Himself to all, but He also hides and will only be found by those searching for Him, not triflers.
The only way you can be an atheist is to be intellectually dishonest, for it's a bankrupt philosophy and one must commit intellectual suicide to be one, for the bulk of evidence is on God's side. Denying God is a fool's errand and one must muzzle all the inner voices of God bearing witness of Himself in creation. The cosmos didn't create itself (a logical absurdity); creation implies a Creator! It is intellectually dishonest to deny God since one must be omniscient and omnipresent--being everywhere at the same time and knowing everything; also it's philosophically and logically impossible to prove a universal negative! For instance, you'd have to be everywhere to prove there are no little green men too. They can't prove God doesn't exist! We don't know all the answers yet, but we know the Answerer.
These so-called militant atheists are bent on destroying religion in the name of no God, which seems ludicrous. They seek to eradicate any vestige or trace of God from the open marketplace of ideas, not even letting a Divine Foot in the door. In fact, they believe, as Freud postulated, that believing in God is a "neurosis" and Richard Dawkins believes is a "mind virus" one catches if naive enough to believe, according to The God Delusion. God is not a throwback to our need for a Father Figure, on the contrary, He is the fulfillment of who we are and we are made for Him, to bring Him glory, giving us pleasure and fulfillment. Freud and some psychologists believe we have a psychological need to believe; au contraire, they have a psychological need not to believe! We all have psychological needs, the point is which ones line up with the facts and evidence.
They say that we have faith, but they have facts! This is fallacious reasoning since all knowledge is contingent and starts with faith, accepting some presupposition you cannot prove! It's not a matter of faith versus reason, but which set of presuppositions you want to buy into and accept. The secular atheist usually bets the farm on the fact that science alone is the only reliable source of knowledge! They also put faith in the belief of materialism and naturalism: all that exists is matter and all things have a natural explanation and that means no supernatural. Christians are people of faith, as they call us, but they are people of faith too, faith in science! They know God exists; however, they suppress it feigning intellectual problems. Faith in God is not "pie in the sky," nor wishful thinking, nor the "opiate of the masses" as postulated by skeptics.....
It's the atheist who's irrational since he denies God in spite of the evidence, while Christians don't believe despite the evidence since there's ample reason to believe and God does show Himself to earnest seekers because He's no man's debtor. It is the atheist who has blind faith, since he bases it mainly only experience and feelings, not evidence, while Christianity is a fact and history-based faith. If Christians are obliged to show proof, so must atheists!
These so-called militant atheists are bent on destroying religion in the name of no God, which seems ludicrous. They seek to eradicate any vestige or trace of God from the open marketplace of ideas, not even letting a Divine Foot in the door. In fact, they believe, as Freud postulated, that believing in God is a "neurosis" and Richard Dawkins believes is a "mind virus" one catches if naive enough to believe, according to The God Delusion. God is not a throwback to our need for a Father Figure, on the contrary, He is the fulfillment of who we are and we are made for Him, to bring Him glory, giving us pleasure and fulfillment. Freud and some psychologists believe we have a psychological need to believe; au contraire, they have a psychological need not to believe! We all have psychological needs, the point is which ones line up with the facts and evidence.
They say that we have faith, but they have facts! This is fallacious reasoning since all knowledge is contingent and starts with faith, accepting some presupposition you cannot prove! It's not a matter of faith versus reason, but which set of presuppositions you want to buy into and accept. The secular atheist usually bets the farm on the fact that science alone is the only reliable source of knowledge! They also put faith in the belief of materialism and naturalism: all that exists is matter and all things have a natural explanation and that means no supernatural. Christians are people of faith, as they call us, but they are people of faith too, faith in science! They know God exists; however, they suppress it feigning intellectual problems. Faith in God is not "pie in the sky," nor wishful thinking, nor the "opiate of the masses" as postulated by skeptics.....
It's the atheist who's irrational since he denies God in spite of the evidence, while Christians don't believe despite the evidence since there's ample reason to believe and God does show Himself to earnest seekers because He's no man's debtor. It is the atheist who has blind faith, since he bases it mainly only experience and feelings, not evidence, while Christianity is a fact and history-based faith. If Christians are obliged to show proof, so must atheists!
In the final analysis, they are without excuse! As Paul says in Romans 1:20. No one can disbelieve due to lack of evidence; however, there's never enough for the skeptic. But there's no "smoking gun" evidence either way--both need faith! I will close with Norman Geisler: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!" In sum, it's not faith versus reason, but faith versus faith! Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment