Worldview of Jesus

Tag: atheism

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)

January 27, 2013
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!

January 19, 2013
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?”

August 26, 2012
Misusing “Good”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxwjTcPW_78&feature=player_embedded]

In April 2011 at the University of Notre Dame, William Lane Craig and Sam Harris came together to debate the topic, “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?”. Oddly enough, atheist Harris contends that there are objective moral values and duties in this universe and wrote his book, “The Moral Landscape”, to explain how objective moral values and duties can be explained from an atheist perspective¹. This is odd because many atheists, like Richard Dawkins, often contend that there are no objective moral values because there isn’t a God in which to provide the foundation for their objectivity. As Dawkins suggests, “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”². Among atheist scholars, Harris is a minority in his viewpoint that the atheistic worldview can ground objective moral values and duties.

It needs to be identified that Harris’ reasoning for acknowledging “objective” morals in the atheist worldview is because he is using the word, “good”, in a non-moral sense. Harris often refers to the moral quality of “good” as synonymous with the property of creaturely flourishing. However, given that creaturely flourishing and moral “good” are separate, how is it that Harris contends that objective morals are still grounded?³ In the above video of the debate, Dr. Craig describes this objection in detail regarding creaturely flourishing not being identical to moral “good” as Harris suggests.

It seems that Harris believes that we have moral duties; however there isn’t any reason for anyone to think that we have moral duties under atheism because there isn’t a foundation set forth to construct those moral duties. Moral obligations arise because of a competent authority. Dr. Craig uses the example of getting pulled over by a police officer. When a police officer turns on his sirens and requests that we pull to the side of the road, we are legally obligated to perform the duty of pulling our vehicle to the side of the road. By contrast, if a pedestrian requested for us to pull to the side of the road, we have no legal obligation to perform the duty of pulling to the side of the road³. The same analogy can be used for atheism. Under atheism, there isn’t a competent authority to place any moral duties upon us while in theism there is. That is what separates objective and subjective in this case on moral objectivity.

During the debate, Craig made use of the Divine Command Theory (DCT). DCT states that our moral duties are a result of the commands of a just and loving God⁴. In which case, the DCT derives an “ought” from an “is” because God commanded that we oughtto do something because it is commanded by God. Many may ask, “why are we obligated simply because God commanded it?”, which goes back to moral duties being grounded in a the competent authority that was discussed earlier⁴. Under an atheistic worldview, there is no ought because there isn’t a competent authority in which to ground “ought”.

Craig mentions repeatedly that Harris was confusing moral ontology with moral semantics, which is the primary cause in Harris’ misuse of the word “good”. Moral ontology addresses the foundation of moral values and duties while moral semantics addresses the meaning of the moral terms³. Simply dealing with moral semantics will be able to differentiate the meanings between moral terms but will not be able to address how moral values and duties have an objective foundation. When Harris uses “good” and “bad”, he often is referring to a pleasurable life and a miserable life, however these are not moral uses of the word. A pleasurable life of creaturely flourishing isn’t the same as being morally good³.

Hence, Sam Harris falls short of explaining how objective morality exists in a world without God. Giving examples of how creaturely flourishing is good fails to truly explain how morality is objective in an atheistic worldview. While creaturely flourishing is a good thing, however, think of the consequences of identifying creaturely flourishing and moral good as the same. To illustrate a hypothetical example, if it was shown that the greatest amount of human flourishing occurred when disabled individuals were removed from society by means of euthanasia, it would be morally irresponsible for us not to euthanize these individuals simply because more humans would flourish without them. I don’t think anybody would agree that would be a moral thing to do. Not even Dr. Harris.

Grounding “good” in the act of creaturely flourishing is simply an act of creative desperation on behalf of Sam Harris. Harris’ use of the word “good” gives people the illusion that he is using it morally, but upon closer examination, we find that he isn’t. He is faced with how we can derive an “ought” from an “is” without a foundation for the “ought”. On atheism, there is no competent authority suggesting that we ought to be morally good. As theists, whether we are right or wrong, we can hold to the position that if we are wrong we can acknowledge that morals are illusory and nothing more. Misusing the term “good” does nothing more than skew the meaning of its reality.

Notes

1 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010),

2 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 (1992),

3 William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011

4 William Lane Craig, Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “ought” from an “Is” from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theistic-ethics-derive-an-ought-from-an-is

June 27, 2012
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 metaphysical beliefsin 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

June 17, 2012
The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwo4Zq-CyFs&feature=player_embedded]

This is one of the primary arguments for atheists against theism, and rightfully so may I add. I have seen loved ones go through suffering and the thought of “why would God permit this?” inevitably creeps into your mind. Particularly when you see someone who you love go through tremendous amounts of pain and suffering for seemingly no justified reason. When you personally see someone who you love suffer, it fills your heart with doubt and tackles your emotions forcefully. This emotional problem of suffering also creeps in when you see how many underserved deaths due to free moral agents (terrorist attacks, car bombs, genocide, etc…) or natural evil (cancer, hurricanes, tornados, etc…) of people who you’ve never met before. We see these types of events on television frequently and it grieves us to think that God would allow these types of sufferings to occur under His discretion.

I, admittedly, have overcome this obstacle and feel that it was the biggest one to conquer in my Christianity. It was only when I looked into the issues of suffering from the eyes of God would I find peace in the fact that suffering and God are not incompatible in any light. I know that statement requires justification, and I am prepared to give that justification with a clear conscious and while fully trusting the Lord.

In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig suggests that “God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in this world”. As Christians, how do we justify a statement that would allow God to permit suffering and evil as long as they are morally sufficient? Let’s start by identifying the two problems of suffering. There is the intellectual problem and the emotional problem of suffering. The intellectual problem of suffering addresses the plausibility of God and suffering coexisting at the same time and the emotional problem of suffering is when people dislike the prospect of a God permitting suffering ¹. Of these two, the intellectual problem addresses the reality of the issue while the emotional problem results in a rejection of faith rather than a refutation of the faith ¹.

Atheists/skeptics would argue that if He did exist and He permitted the suffering/evil, He obviously prefers a world with suffering/evil within it and therefore He is evil or perverse. However, if God exists, we would be extremely miniscule and not have the capacity to grasp an omniscient mind such as the one God has. We are not capable of foreseeing the long-term benefits of the current suffering in this world. For example, taking our child to the doctor when he/she is convinced we’re torturing him/her; however, as parents, know it is for the greater good. On a much grander scale, God can be arranging the pieces of life in a manner that allows for the greatest amount of people to engage in a relationship with Him while justifiably allowing the evil/suffering ¹.

Our human limitations are drastically impotent in foreseeing the greatest good of suffering. Some people claim that it is improbable that God lacks a good reason for allowing the suffering in this world; however who are we to say what is and is not improbable? We are finite beings that live in very limited space and time. God, being the greatest possible being, is omniscient of all events of past, present, and future. We cannot make an accurate claim to know what God has in store for humanity throughout times of suffering. As finite beings, we are extremely limited within the framework of history ¹.

If you look back to the moral argument (refer to post on 5/31/12), the simple identifying of objective moral values would indicate that there is a God. Since we are able to identify objective morality and sense that evil and suffering are objectively bad, we must acknowledge that we cannot allow our emotions to take ahold of our intellect and convince us that there isn’t a God or that He is evil because He allows suffering/evil. Based upon our past observations of Jesus, we see that God loved us enough to send His son Jesus Christ to die for our sins!

While I acknowledged my own struggles with this particular issue myself, I found that God understands my best interests better than I do due to His omniscient nature. In addition, this line of reasoning falls in line with the overwhelming amount of other evidence in favor of there being a God. The full scope of evidence leads me to believe that God isn’t a God of malice of ill-intent. He is a personal God that we can experience and rely upon. When we do, we find that God can have a significant personal impact in our lives.

Notes

1 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 4

June 11, 2012
Evolution for the Christian…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c&feature=player_embedded]

Above is a video of Dr. William Lane Craig discussing the Biblical perspective on evolution. This is a topic of great sensitivity for many Christians as many Christians are committed to a literal interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis. However, are we Biblically obligated to a six day creation? Is there a set interpretation of Genesis that would obligate all Christians to believe in a six day creation? There are many Christians that believe in a six day creation however this view isn’t supported with modern day science. From an exegetical stance, we find that there isn’t any verbiage within Genesis or elsewhere that would indicate to its readers that the creation was literally completed by God in six 24 hour days. God wants us to love Him with all of our heart, soul, and our minds. As Christians, it is important to be open to where the evidence leads us without fear that it will contradict our Lord. Christians should welcome all scientific evidence because it will ultimately reinforce our belief in God.

In this video, Dr. Craig highlights the improbability of Darwinian evolutionary theory as it accounts for the massive complexity of biology. Dr. Craig states that, “If evolution did occur on this planet, it was literally a miracle, and therefore evidence for the existence of God”. As Christians, we should feel secure in following the evidence where it leads us. As for atheists, evolution is “the only game in town” because they have no other explanation to account for the origination of living organisms on this planet. As it stands today in modern biology, it is still a mystery as to how the first single-cell organism originated. The atheist has to justify how being came from non-being in the biological sense as well as the cosmological sense. In all matters of origin (whether we speak of organisms or the universe), the atheist is placing faith that science will one day justify how things such as living beings and universes come into existence without causation. Now…that is blind faith.

May 19, 2012