Worldview of Jesus

Category: Atheism/Agnosticism

  • The World of Atheistic Implications

    The World of Atheistic Implications

    Putting ourselves in the mind of an atheist is hard for most of us. Honestly, have many of us really tried to think how reality might be perceived from the opposite side of the theological spectrum? For me, I began thinking about what life would look like through the paradigm of a non-believer. My mind immediately gravitated towards the notion that the universe would be void of cosmic justice. The idea of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Lenin, and innumerable other evil dictators being morally blameless for their crimes gave me a sense of discomfort. Many atheists make the objection that the Christian God is evil because He called for the extermination of the Canaanites but dismiss the idea of cosmic justice to rectify mass evil when it comes to the evils perpetrated by the wicked dictators over the last century. Obviously, the ponderings about the existence of cosmic justice doesn’t provide us with a conclusion of whether a God truly exists or not. However, this dismissive attitude towards truly evil wrongdoers while being supercritical over their misperceived evil conducted by the Old Testament God is worth noting.

    So, if you’re an atheist, you must find a way to reconcile the notion of ‘evil’ in order to live consistently with an atheist worldview. If you truly reject the existence of God, you would have to reject the existence of an objective moral standard that would serve to measure the morality of our actions. For instance, Hitler and Mother Teresa would be morally indifferent because there is no objective standard to measure their actions. If the atheist would develop a standard of morality, it would be a subjective standard that would not be authoritative among humanity. An atheist could judge the moral actions of someone else however they could not judge them on any moral foundation other than the one they’ve personally constructed for themselves. If I was an atheist that would really take the wind out of my sails. Maybe that is why you see a lot of atheists supporting pro-choice and same-sex marriage laws. In a world with no objective moral standard, why would these two behaviors (or any behavior for that matter) be considered immoral?

    Humanity is purposeless. You have no value. You’re a meaningless product of a random evolutionary process that initially developed from the spawn of a single-celled organism. The relationships you derive are also meaningless. Everything that you do in this life has no objective value. You’re living day-to-day only to accomplish the goal of mere survival. The simple fact that you’re a human provides you with the advantage of being cognitively advanced, however that provides you with no additional worth than that of bacteria. Humanity and bacteria are equally worthless in the grand scheme of things in this universe. We live on a speck of cosmic dust among hundreds of billions of other galaxies.

    Curiously enough, atheists don’t seem to live like they’re meaningless. When they speak, they perpetrate a sense of ‘equality’ when it comes to same-sex marriage and women’s ‘rights’ when it comes to pro-choice matters. The reality is that neither equality nor rights would exist under an atheist worldview. There is no transcendent Being to grant the existence of rights or equality, as these are qualities that are God-given. The illusion of rights and equality would have to be a product of humanity. In this case, since humanity creatively produced them out of nothing, we can logically assume that humanity could take them away just as fast as they brought them into existence. If equality and rights do not have a foundation in anything transcendent, then they are merely subjective.

    Atheists would be miserable folks if they lived according to the logical and inescapable conclusions of their atheism. As Christians, we see that meaning, purpose, objective morality, equality, and rights are all products of Christian theism. Without theism, these are convenient delusions that help us live life with the illusion of meaning and purpose and all that goes along with it. In our current culture, it almost seems like being an atheist is cool or that you’re a ‘free-thinker’ if you subscribe to this ideology. Is that a good enough reason to disregard these atheistic implications? Or are atheists merely borrowing from God in order to live a pleasant life while simultaneously denying the existence of Him?

    Obviously, these atheistic implications are not arguments for theism. It is merely playing out the logical conclusions of the atheistic worldview. For me, I believe in Christianity because of the cumulative case that can be made for it along with having a personal relationship with Christ that is completely outside of what any argument can provide. If you’re an atheist, the unintuitive nature of atheism should be the first sign on your path towards the inquisitive doubting of your worldview.

  • Being Ignorant about Nothing?

    Being Ignorant about Nothing?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA]

    I’ve seen this video (above) circling the Facebook Christian apologetic community so I thought I’d make a quick comment on it. One of the particular motivations for commenting on it is because it is absolutely ridiculous, especially because the absurdity is derived from the “top world thinker”, as bestowed upon him by Prospect Magazine in 2013 .

    While it isn’t surprising that Dawkins would take such a position, regardless, it is intellectually incomprehensible that a prominent scholar would completely overlook the fallacious definition of “nothing” that he currently subscribes to in order to maintain his atheistic worldview. As it is clear, his inconsistent approach to defining “nothing” as “something” is clearly a trick of semantics that Dr. Lawrence Krauss has convinced him of. Otherwise, Dawkins would have the potential to see what the rest of us are already seeing. Which is “nothing” means “no thing”. William Lane Craig summarizes this absurdity beautifully when he humorously says, “I ate nothing for breakfast this morning and it tasted great!!!”

    While it may sound humorous to those who are tutored in the field of philosophy, but what about those who are convinced of it? Is it funny to them, or us, when they genuinely believe that nothing caused the universe? Honestly, I feel that it is immensely dangerous, especially to the church, when someone like Krauss and/or Dawkins continue to propagate such a dangerous view of the beginning of the universe. Why is it dangerous? The danger comes from the contradiction of truth, which facilitates a decline in the Christian faith. These are dangerous ideas because they are false and are being popularized by highly credentialed scholars that have the power of persuasion over the ignorant.

    I’m phrasing my article rather candidly. Not every article is going to be slathered in rainbows and pixy dust. Even atheists are becoming disenthralled with the initial love affair they had with Richard Dawkins, as well as the other New Atheists. Below is a video of an interview with prominent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse where he explains his dissatisfaction with Richard Dawkins.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaQgWl-HtYA]

    However, there is no surprise that serious scholars would react in disgust to the shoddy academic material produced by Dawkins. Personally, when I read “The God Delusion” written by Dawkins, I was disgusted that a publishing company would actually publish a book with such ludicrous material contained within it. With that aside, his inability to get his story straight between “nothing” and “something” (mysterious mind you) is absolutely mind boggling to those on the side of theism (and maybe even atheism) when it comes to having a serious dialogue on this topic. The world’s leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig has extended multiple offers for debate on this matter and has been rejected because Dawkins “doesn’t have time to debate creationists” (video below).

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A]

    In closing, I’d like to clarify one thing. “Nothing” means “no thing”. Nothing doesn’t have the power to create something because nothing doesn’t have properties that would enable it to create something. Maybe it takes a non-academic to see through the absurdity because they have not yet been indoctrinated by such counterintuitive and fallacious ideas. Last thing, keep Dawkins in prayer. While he may not accept any arguments from any theist because he has ideologically closed himself off, but God may work on his heart behind the scenes.

  • Lesson on Atheism from the Amazing Atheist

    Lesson on Atheism from the Amazing Atheist

    Today’s article is briefly going over this individual on YouTube who has deemed himself, “The Amazing Atheist”. After seeing him on CNN discussing the topic of atheism in America, along with Christian prominent apologist William Lane Craig, I was curious to see what his YouTube channel contained. After all, I’m not closed off from hearing what new up-and-coming atheists are contributing to their respective causes. Come to find out, his self-proclaimed title of “amazing” was either gratuitously self-indulgent or immensely sarcastic. I was coming from the viewpoint that if a major news network was going to hire an atheist to authoritatively counter Dr. William Lane Craig, they would hire a professional. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much dialogue between Craig and the Amazing Atheist, but as you can see in the video below, Mr. Amazing Atheist wouldn’t have been a comparable voice for the atheists as Craig was for the Christians.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6gXR09K9EA]

    On my search to see what his definition for atheism was, I found a video that provided me with exactly what I wanted. Next is a one minute video of his definition of atheism…

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_SFlwjlkiE]

    I’ve included a transcript below of this video because he is speaking rather quickly and I find that reading his words help absorb what he is trying to communicate…

    “Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods. We’ll focus on monotheism here because it is more prevalent. We do not claim to know whether God does not exist but are simply unconvinced that he does. We view God as an un-falsifiable hypothesis much like elves or goblins. Since God is not immediately apparent to any of our senses, evidence is needed if we are going to give the idea of his existence any credence at all. The primary assertion of atheism is not necessarily that there is no God, but rather, there is no good evidence for God and until evidence for God is presented we will be atheists. The beauty of nature is not evidence for God unless the ugly aspects of nature such as disease, famine, rape, and death are evidence against God. Atheists view nature as lacking conscious planning and thus see both its beauty and ugliness as incidental. The Bible, the Koran, someone’s personal sense of God, these things are not evidence but articles of faith. Faith is the opposite of evidence. In fact, the definition of faith is belief without evidence, which is what many atheists are really against but many of these non-evidence based beliefs wouldn’t be a problem if they didn’t influence societal opinions and attitudes and negatively influence public policy in our political discourse. With that said, not all atheists have qualms with other people’s religiosity but many people do take issue with it for the very reasons I detailed just moments ago”

    Now that we’ve had an opportunity to view his own words, it’s important that we look at what he is saying. We must keep in mind; this is his foundation for his amazing atheism. Contrary to what he indicates, atheism is described as the belief that there is no God . Atheism is not simply the “lack of belief” in God but it is also the belief that God does not exist. As the Amazing Atheist indicated, “we do not claim to know for certain that God does not exist but we are unconvinced that he does”. From Amazing Atheist’s own words, he concedes that he cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. The concept of “certainty” will directly adhere with the degree of faith in a particular concept. The Amazing Atheists’ understanding of the scientific, philosophical, theological, and historical evidence led him to believe with a high degree of certainty that there is no God. However, since he admitted that he cannot know whether God exists absolutely, he filled the small remaining amount of uncertainty in the existence of a God by placing his faith in atheism. Whether or not the Amazing Atheist wants to admit it or not, he is placing faith in the worldview of atheism.

    The primary goal of this article was to make my readers aware that people like the Amazing Atheist are becoming increasingly popular. The church needs to become more proactive in intellectually stimulating our youth with solid academic Christian scholarship so they don’t turn to people like this guy for answers to the hard questions. Christians, let’s take up our cross and pursue the task of educating our youth so they may respond with confidence to the non-sense excreting from secular media outlets, the Amazing Atheist, and academic atheists that will surely come.

  • “The Unbelievers” Documentary

    “The Unbelievers” Documentary

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxDLkoK8vQQ&w=560&h=315]
    Biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss are the stars of the new documentary “The Unbelievers”. Given that these two prominent atheists are the main features of the upcoming documentary, it is likely that it will stir up the atheistic scene as Bill Maher’s “Religulous” did but on a much grander scale. The reason why I believe this movie will have more of an influence is because Dawkins and Krauss disguise their philosophies with the notion that “science rids the possibility of God” while Maher did not really make a substantive point at all. Maher simply tries to make religion looks ridiculous, hence the name of his documentary.

    Before discussing the documentary, I wanted to provide a couple of videos of debates that Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss have been involved in. Below is a debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig…

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eNjmN9Xtmg&w=560&h=315]

    Below is a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox…

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2OcIIkpPo&w=420&h=315]

    While these videos are quite long, if you are interested in knowing more about the scientific/philosophic/theological stances of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, these videos would provide you with insights concerning their perspective.

    Concerning the documentary, Richard Dawkins states towards the beginning of the trailer, “Science is wonderful. Science is beautiful. Religion is not wonderful. Religion is not beautiful. It gets in the way.” The main presupposition of this documentary is that science and religion are incompatible. In these debates that I have linked above, this presupposition is highly criticized along with many of their philosophical approaches to interpreting science.

    For example, Lawrence Krauss believes the world could have begun at the cause of nothing. I have written on this topic specifically in an earlier article, http://worldviewofjesus.com/2012/06/14/the-redefinition-of-nothing / Krauss outlines his theory in his book titled, “A Universe from Nothing”. As I have lain out in my article, Krauss redefines “nothing” to mean “something” in his book. When he says nothing, he refers to what is called the quantum vacuum where virtual particles seemingly come into existence out of nothing. To the untutored mind, this might sound like an excellent solution to why the universe is in existence. However, what about those that question how the quantum vacuum came to exist in the first place? The quantum vacuum could not produce a universe if the universe had not begun to produce the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is contingent upon the existence of the universe, not vice versa. Labeling “nothing” as the quantum vacuum in order to mislead people into believing that the universe can come into being from the traditional definition of nothing (meaning: “no thing”) is dishonest scholarship.

    On the other hand, Dawkins is a poor philosopher. He worships science and advocates for scientism. In his mind, any and all answers can derive from science. In his book, “The God Delusion”, his primary argument against theism is that there could not be a God because we do not know who created God. I have written on this topic in an earlier article, http://worldviewofjesus.com/2013/02/02/the-designers-designer-objection/ Outside of his fallacious reasoning against the possibility of theism, he is a militant atheist. In fact, he feels that sharing your spiritual beliefs with your children is a form of child abuse.

    While much can be said and has been said about the militant atheistic underpinnings that prohibit their worldview from accepting any form of the supernatural, my fear is that this militant atheism will be fueled by this documentary. I see that they have invited celebrities into their documentary to apparently add credibility or influence to their documentary. These stars include Ricky Gervais, Ian McEwan, Adam Savage, Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman, Eddie Izzard, and Penn Jillette. It still confuses me why any serious filmmaker who is trying to conduct a documentary about the significant topic of religion and science would interview individuals who are clearly ignorant in these fields.

    Lastly, one of the last statements in this trailer says, “That’s what I get from these guys. A permission to question everything” I have a feeling that is not the goal of this documentary. If you have read their works or listened to them speak, you would likely realize that they are not achieving open-mindedness. They are restricted by their own worldview. The comparison can be made that they are comparable to a fundamentalist theist in the realm of atheism. They tout their intellect and scoff at the idea of a creator because they feel science and religion are incompatible because science trumps the concept of God. This is patently false. Over the last century of scientific findings, the concept of God has only been strengthened. These individuals choose to be atheists by choice due to an ideological compulsion, not an evidential one.

    As Christians, we should acknowledge that this documentary will influence people towards atheism. Not on the basis of empirical evidence but on the basis of ideological influence. People will hear these two very smart guys saying things that are anti-religion while saying things that are pro-science. Personally, I am pro-science. I love science however I do not subscribe to scientism and take the position that it can answer all of life’s fundamental questions. If the documentary mirrors the past work of Dawkins and Krauss, it will likely turn out to be dishonest and misleading.

  • Atheist Consolation

    Atheist Consolation

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F4SJ3Mhhsg]

    When a horrible tragedy strikes, Christians are occasionally told of how they trivialize death and suffering by encouraging people who are going through these horrible experiences to place their faith in Christ. It confuses me when I hear that atheists are somehow morally offended at the thought that we can offer the hope of Christ in the lowest of times in someone’s life.

    For example, imagine a close friend or relative is rapidly approaching death due to an aggressive cancer. As a committed atheist, what could you say to this person that would be consolatory while simultaneously being consistent with an atheistic worldview? Nothing, consolation and atheism are incompatible. In this example, the notion of consoling this individual infers value and meaning. If life was meaningless and purposeless, what is there to be consoled about? Life is associated with meaning because each person values his or her own life along with the numerous others that value their life, not to mention God. The atheist would have no recourse because the atheistic worldview holds to the idea that life is purposeless and meaningless. Everything in this universe is nothing more than a cosmic accident. Our galaxy is nothing more than a speck of dust located within our incomprehensibly enormous universe. In the grand scheme of things, in a world with no God, death is just as meaningless as birth.

    Christianity approaches the situation very differently. Christians understand that every human life is valuable and created in the image of God. Comforting our dying friend with the message of Jesus Christ and letting them know that as long as Jesus is their Lord and Savior that there is a Heavenly Father waiting for them when their soul passes this world and into the next. I’d say that the Christian form of consolation is much more comforting than hearing about how purposeless and meaningless their life was.

    This isn’t an argument for the existence of God but it is a defense of the claim that Christians are somehow insensitive when consoling the ill. The reality of the matter is that atheism isn’t consolation at all. In fact, it’s hugely depressing. That’s why you don’t see atheists who are fully committed to their worldview because otherwise they’d be very cynical individuals. The reason you observe atheists who are morally upright is because God has written his morality on their hearts regardless of whether it is acknowledged by them.

    I have many atheist friends and there isn’t a single one of them that wouldn’t console this dying individual with love and emotional support. However, it is abundantly clear that these morally virtuous qualities are not inherent to the worldview of atheism. While I adore my atheist friends, I am disappointed in the disingenuous trivializing of the Christian faith that goes on within many atheist groups. Once morality becomes involved, atheists somehow turn a blind eye to the concept of objective universal morality.

    As it turns out, an atheist who consoles a dying loved one is really borrowing the moral virtues of Christianity without the prayer and hope. Consolation of a loved one who is struggling is hard regardless of your theological beliefs. Nevertheless, consolation is impossible without treating the individual with value and meaning. This is something that atheism cannot do on its own.

  • The ‘No God’ Zone

    The ‘No God’ Zone

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY]
    I have heard and read about the omniscient grip that science has been tightening around the neck of theology, strangling it till it can no longer grasp for air, causing it to slowly suffocate. Generally, this is how atheists have come to view theology. In their eyes, theism has slowly lost its credibility as science has advanced and made discoveries in the natural world. I’ll submit that this is one of the greatest mistakes that have been made over the last two centuries in the Western world.

    The ungrounded assumption that God has been eliminated has fervently evolved into the dogmatic notion that God should no longer serve as a possible explanation for anything in this universe. As a result of this anti-theistic evolution in the scientific community, the God hypothesis is often laughed at and the subscribers to the God hypothesis are mocked as being no better than those who still believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. In their own minds, they have become so intellectually superior that they fail to tolerate such nonsense due to having outgrown such superstitious fables of a man in the sky who tells people what to do.

    Despite their atheistic approach on science and their outlook on the incompatibility of science and faith, it is important to acknowledge the biggest flaw in their thinking as well as the biggest hypocrisy. The quote below from Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin accurately describes the scientific community’s ideological commitment to materialism,

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment – a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    This is an excellent summation of how many scientists conduct their studies today. God is not considered as a possibility because the materialists are ideologically committed to coming up with materialistic conclusions despite what hypothesis the evidence may prefer. Really, it isn’t a shocker that they feel that way. They have convinced themselves that God is false so they do not consider God as a viable explanation for anything. Anti-theistic quotes such as the one above really depict how ideologically driven the scientific community has become, which now finds it scientifically acceptable to predetermine what types of conclusions are acceptable despite of the evidence. This scientific narrow-mindedness permeates with hypocrisy because it is contradictory to the very principles that science was founded upon.

    To me, this sounds like a problem. Scientists who commit themselves to an atheistic ideology and only welcome conclusions that support that ideology are without integrity. Essentially, much of the scientific community has become a “No God Zone”. The secular worldview has continued to dilute the theological influence in the scientific sphere because theology is considered to be incompatible with science despite the fact that scientific evidence largely supports the Biblical account of creation. I’d encourage all scientists to have enough integrity to defy the status quo of the scientific community and perform science with an open mind and consider all hypotheses, not simply materialistic ones. This “commitment to materialism” as stated by biologist Richard Lewontin is the cause for the widened ideological gap between the scientists and the theologians. The evidence is essentially meaningless if the person examining the evidence isn’t truly committed to follow the evidence where it leads. Embrace God and the evidence shall give you greater insights into reality.

  • Celebrity Atheists and their Worldview

    Celebrity Atheists and their Worldview

    The goal of this article is to discuss the idea of celebrities being interviewed on religion in a highly public setting when they do not have scholarly credentials to authoritatively speak on matters of theology, philosophy, or science. People like Bill Maher, Penn Jillette, Seth MacFarlane, George Carlin, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, Lance Armstrong, James Cameron, Ricky Gervais, Howard Stern, and many more, have commented on matters of religion in public. Likely, you have heard of all of these celebrities over the years. Would you agree that these individuals, regardless of whether or not they are qualified to speak authoritatively on matters of theology or not, are capable of influencing others to their viewpoint if they simply vocalize their support of atheism? The answer is that many people, particularly young adults, are influenced by popular atheist figures. The two leading figures of this movement are Bill Maher and Penn Jillette.

    I’ve included short video clips of outspoken celebrity atheists Bill Maher and Penn Jillette. As some of you may already know, Bill Maher made a documentary called “Religulous” and Penn Jillette has written “God, No!” and “Everyday is an Atheist Holiday!” After being exposed to their underpinnings, I was blown away by how popular these guys have become at the expense of theism. They have been on several talk shows on primetime television promoting their works. While there are many more than two celebrity atheists, I selected these two celebrities because they are often the most visible in the Hollywood scene on this topic. I spent a good amount of time listening to videos of celebrity atheists to see if I could find a celebrity who could present an articulate case for their atheistic worldview. After spending hours on YouTube, I was unable to find any celebrity who could present a case that was completely consistent with their stated atheistic worldview. It can be concluded that these celebrities do not understand the implications of atheism.

    Bill Maher and Penn Jillette generally mirror the atheists in Hollywood. It is a stance of pure emotion and a pungent distaste for what they think God stands for with their primary complaint being the existence of evil. They self-proclaim themselves as being fueled by the power of pure reason, logic, and science. Essentially, they differentiate their position from theism by stating they’re more in tune with reality than theists because of their acceptance of naturalism/materialism. While this summary is dramatically generalizing their position, mercifully in my opinion, I feel that this is the primary message being communicated in the public arena of mainstream media.

    Below, I have provided a video for the trailer of “Religulous” and a brief interview with Penn Jillette on the topic of atheism.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XePHrS1U9A]
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9mx6odQR4]

    Any Christian with an ounce of understanding of Christian theology or philosophy would be able to identify that the arguments being presented by these individuals are not credible arguments. They are misunderstanding what is claimed by theism while simultaneously being ignorant of the implications of atheism. On one hand you have Penn Jillette who makes his signature, “I don’t know” argument and happily stands by it. To me, I do not perceive him as a malicious guy. In fact, I’d like to sit down and have a discussion with him because he genuinely seems like an interesting person who appears to enjoy life. On the other hand, you have Bill Maher who is often combative, insulting, and bigoted towards those who believe in a God. If you have ever seen “Religulous”, you understand what I mean. For Maher to primarily interview people who have no expertise in theology and attempt to overpower them with his rhetorical skills, it appears as though he wasn’t out on a search for truth when he made his documentary. Rather, he was out on a mission to make religion look bad.

    Both of these celebrity atheists have their own approach. Both of which has the influence to sway the ignorant reader/viewer to consider atheism as a credible worldview. People, particularly the younger generation (like myself), fall victim to their influence regardless of how ignorant these celebrities are. The reality is, these celebrities, and those like them, are entertainers. They are certainly not theologians, philosophers, or scientists. For these guys to write a book/make a documentary that attempts to critique religion on the basis of these three factors is intellectually embarrassing. What is worse is that the people being influenced by this material are not even looking into the credibility of the claims being made by these guys. The atheistic flame is being fueled by the gas of fallacious entertainment.

    They both touch on the idea of morality and how they believe that the theists are morally good only because they are afraid of burning in hell. View the short video below for an example of this.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfGNk8azX1A]

    What they fail to understand is that without a God, the concept of objective morality is incoherent. Without God, there is no standard to measure good and evil. As an atheist, any idea that we may have concerning “good and evil” would be the result of social conditioning over the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. With that in mind, there would not be an objective moral difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa under an atheistic worldview. School shootings, terrorist attacks, murders, rapes, etc… could not be labeled as good or evil in an atheistic worldview because atheism fails to have a standard to measure objective good/evil. For theists, like myself, I am able to objectively acknowledge that morality is universal and grounded in God. I know that the Holocaust was objectively evil. I know that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were objectively evil. In a world with no God, how can an atheist say that anything is objectively evil under a universal standard?

    While I admire Maher and Jillette for acknowledging the existence of objective morality, they are completely lost on how to ground objective morality in a world with no God. I become lost when I hear them complain about the morals of Christians. How, under atheism, can anyone objectively identify right from wrong? Leading atheist/biologist Richard Dawkins, a man who they both value with very high esteem, says the following about objective morality under an atheist worldview, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference…we are machines for propagating DNA…it is every living object’s sole reason for being” .

    I highlighted on morality because that is what appears to be the biggest inconsistency with most atheists. They love the idea of there not being a God but still like to borrow from the moral concepts of theism. You cannot have it both ways. Atheists have to either consider theism because of the existence of objective morality or embrace the idea that morality is relative and the appearance of morality is nothing more than a biological adaptation.

    In the end, this was an article based upon my frustration of hearing these two celebrities, and their proselytizing about how their outlook on life is superior while being completely ignorant of the problems that face it. Printing books and producing movies in the name of atheism while failing to make a concerted effort to appear as though they are seeking truth rather than just religion-bashing has been largely ignored. While much more can be said on this matter, it is my sincere hope that people awaken to the true nature of the atheist propaganda of Hollywood. I encourage everyone to read books by scholars and ask the hard questions. But whatever you do, do not allow yourself to become easily influenced by these guys and people like them. You owe it to yourself to search out the truth, and the truth will set you free. I’ll conclude this article with insightful thoughts from C.S. Lewis on the issue of morality, thoughts of which have given me a greater perspective on the topic of morality,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

    Sources
    Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden; A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1996), p. 133 and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden” Lecture 4 of 7, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1993)
    C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Fount, 1997)

  • Accusations of Intolerance

    Accusations of Intolerance

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMcheh4KI4]
    Many Christians have had the discomforting experience of having been called “intolerant” in our discussions with skeptics. In these types of encounters, it feels that our skeptical friend has discredited anything we would have said before we even said it. Some of us, rightly so, become frustrated by this accusation and want to respond to it but aren’t quite sure how to do so.

    Christians put in this predicament try to think of a response that does not sound “intolerant” in order to avoid adding any credence to the skeptics’ claim. After all, the last thing we want to do is reinforce it by behaving in an intolerant manner, right? As Christians, we must realize that regardless of how we have been plagued with this stereotype of intolerance, the question that we must reflect on is whether or not this is a valid accusation. Does it truly make sense when we sit down and talk about it with our skeptical friend?

    I have attached a video of one of my favorite Christian apologists Greg Koukl, who wrote a book called “Tactics”, which thoroughly discusses how to respond to people in these types of apologetic encounters. He is a respected source for these types of matters in the Christian community as well as a prominent authority on logical communication. Koukl sets the stage for these types of dialogues beautifully on his radio show and debates. He does not resort to defensive comebacks, witty quips, or impressive monologues, but rather asks the simple question, “What do you mean by that?”

    What does this question force the skeptic to do? It requires him to define what he meant by intolerant. This can be quite the task if the skeptic wasn’t prepared to thoroughly justify his claim that Christians are intolerant. This definition the skeptic provides will be applicable to both of you and oftentimes the definition is nothing more than saying, “you Christians think you’re right!” Christians would concede that they believe they’re right, but our skeptical friend would have to admit that he believes he is right as well, or else he wouldn’t be challenging our beliefs. Under the skeptics’ logic, you are intolerant if you think you are right, which would make the skeptic intolerant by his own definition because he believes he is right. Why doesn’t the skeptic consider himself intolerant? Am I missing something?

    The attached video along with the article should lay out reasons why these accusations of intolerance are nothing more than insults attempting to be disguised as intellectual insights. Rather than accusing one of being intolerant, the conversation would be better served if we viewed the argumentation each person presented and objectively discussed the merits of each argument after each person had an opportunity to speak.

    Keep in mind that nobody is going to listen to us if we appear intolerant. Let us love everyone in every discussion in order to build relationships with our skeptical friends. After all, nobody ever came to Christ after being made to feel bad about their beliefs. Let the Holy Spirit work!

  • Is Agnosticism Tenable?

    Is Agnosticism Tenable?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpEXKoLm0Qc&feature=player_embedded]

    Over the years, I’ve encountered a few friends that have subscribed to agnosticism because they concluded that there is no way to possibly know whether or not there is a God. According to Oxford Dictionaries, agnostic is defined as, “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”.[1]I’ve heard prominent atheist Michael Shermer express his admiration during a debate for the bumper sticker that states, “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either”. Since many non-believers have chosen to take this stance, I thought it would be a good idea to further examine the tenability of such a position as it is comfortably placed between theism and atheism.

    As proclaimed by Christopher Hitchens during his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola University, he feels “agnosticism is evasive”.[2]Does this claim against agnosticism by the late Christopher Hitchens, one of the four housemen of the New Athiesm, hold any credibility? I would venture to say that it does. I’ve included a video of William Lane Craig discussing agnosticism and how it is “practically untenable”. The reasoning for why agnosticism is “practically untenable” is because a true agnostic would have to have the evidence for atheism and theism be perfectly balanced on both sides in order to genuinely hold it for an entire lifetime if one chooses to be a long-term agnostic. While this possibility may be “theoretically possible” it is “impossible practically”.

    Later in the video, Craig asked an analogous question of a chicken laying an egg on the peak of a barn roof, “which side would the egg fall?” One side of the roof would represent “theism” and the other side would represent “atheism”. The agnostic would have to perfectly balance their “philosophical egg” on the peak of the roof without having it fall to one side or the other. This analogy effectively represents how untenable agnosticism truly is when looking at the evidence in its entirety for both positions. Keep in mind; you don’t have to have 100% empirical proof for one position or the other in order to hold to that particular position. You can believe in something without knowing it absolutely. I’ve heard many theologians use the analogy of a marriage. You have no way of absolutely knowing whether your marriage will endure prior to marrying your spouse-to-be. That is a reality for everyone. You have to take all the information you have about your spouse and make the best decision. If that information leads you to the conclusion that this person is worth the risk, it may be best to make the decision to marry him/her which will hopefully result in much happiness. If you remain an agnostic about this spouse-to-be, you could potentially pass up what could have been an excellent opportunity for happiness and companionship. You’ll never get married because you are unable to commit due to your hyper-skepticism which has led to the inability to make decision. The point is that despite whether you know with 100% certainty that your marriage will be successful shouldn’t prevent you from making a decision. The same can be said about atheism and theism. There is enough information out there to make a decision if one is truly searching for answers. As Hitchens rightly said, “agnosticism is evasive”.

    For agnostics, it is appropriate to ask whether they have been skeptical of their skepticism. Have they looked at the evidence enough to make an informed opinion on the matter? Don’t get me wrong, skepticism can be a very healthy thing when investigating a matter that that you are unfamiliar with. It assists in the avoidance of accepting information as truth too hastily. It allows us to check out all perspectives before making a determination on how you feel on the matter. However, becoming skeptical to the point of intellectually refusing to make a decision because you’ve submitted to be a “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either” only evades the question at hand.
    In the video below, prominent Christian apologist Greg Koukl highlights the problematic nature of some forms of agnosticism. When speaking with an agnostic, he suggests evaluating the reasons for their skepticism and see if there are any underlying presuppositions that are leading them to this skepticism. The very reason for their skepticism could be that they’re not being critical enough of their own skepticism to have a genuine understanding of why they are skeptical in the first place.
    [1] Oxford Dictionaries. Definition of “agnostic”, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic
    [2] Debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University in 2009, “Does God Exist?”
  • Is Atheism a Faith?

    Is Atheism a Faith?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Fir3Hte8A&feature=player_embedded]

    I’ve had dialogue with many atheists over the years and most of them label their disbelief in God as a stance rather than a belief.  Surprisingly, this same stance is taken by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Michael Shermer, and Christopher Hitchens. They claim that their atheistic stance carries no faith along with it.  I’ve even been told that atheism isn’t a worldview.  Many atheists simply chalk up their non-belief in God as a certainty not up for debate.  This certainty is because they believe that all the scientific evidence is in their favor while also believing that theists have nothing but blind faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.  However, are they justified in thinking that atheism isn’t a belief system? 

    Below, I’ve listed three different definitions from respected sources:

    Oxford Dictionary:
    Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods1

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
    Atheism: The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God2

    Encyclopedia Britannica:
    Atheism: The critique and denial of metaphysicalbeliefsin God or spiritual beings3

     Given the three definitions I’ve listed, it is accurate to say that an atheist denies the existence of God.  However, to deny God’s existence would logically follow that an atheist believesthere is no God.    In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens discuss the topic of atheism vs. agnosticism vs. verificationism.  Hitchens makes the statement, “there is no claim that I know how to make that says, “atheism is true” because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn’t true” but then Hitchens states a couple seconds later that atheism “is not in itself a belief or a system”.  The late Hitchens, one of the four horsemen of the new atheism movement, states that atheism isn’t a belief system however he cannot provide substantive evidence to support his atheistic claim during his exchange with Dr. Craig.

     Atheism is a belief system despite what the atheists might believe.  Hitchens makes an extremely valid and revealing point, if he cannot justify the claim that “atheism is true”, wouldn’t that infer that there must be faith involved in being an atheist?  Maybe this confidence in the claim that there is no God is being propagated by the atheistic worldview.  That’s to say, interpreting all knowledge and data that is personally gathered through an atheist filter so that all considerations that include God sound completely absurd.  The atheist finds the universe to be a closed system that is void of a transcendent Creator while the theist values the Genesis 1:1 account and appreciates the universe through the paradigm of God while observing Him in His creation4.  Both worldviews generally result in an interpretation of science that reflects their worldview, however both cannot be true. 

     In conclusion, we find that the facts more plausibly reinforce the theists’ worldview.  We find atheistic scientists jumping through hoops in an attempt to justify how our universe came into being ex nihiloby saying that the universe came from nothing, the universe created itself, the multiverse theory, and many others.  In addition, people have gone great lengths to disprove the historicity of Jesus by coming up with absurd conspiracy theories that don’t have enough plausibility, explanatory power, or explanatory scope to outweigh the resurrection hypothesis.  The fact is, it is perfectly reasonable to place your faith and trust in God given the evidence at hand.  That is what makes atheism a faith rather than a fact.

    Notes

    1 Definition of Atheism (Oxford Dictionaries). http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

    2 Atheism and agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1

    3 Atheism (Encyclopedia Britannica). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

    4 John Lennox, God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God?(Oxford, England: Lion Hudson plc) Chapter 1