Worldview of Jesus

Tag: objective

  • Examining the 10 Commandments of Atheism

    Examining the 10 Commandments of Atheism

    The Atheist Mind Humanist Heart website recently conducted a crowd sourcing project titled, “The ReThink Project”, where they asked their viewers to submit entries with the goal of developing the “Ten Commandments for the 21st century”. They had a slew of popular atheist names on the judge’s panel to narrow all the entries down to ten, which included well-known atheistic advocates such as Adam Savage from Mythbusters, Dan Barker from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience television show. There was a reasonable amount of responses from their fan base with over 2,800 entries submitted from over 18 countries. However I must admit, when I heard of the “ReThink Project”, I almost laughed aloud.

    The first question that ran through my head was, ‘how are they going to ground any moral values and duties to an objective standard without a God?’ Without an objective moral standard by which to differentiate morally good actions and morally evil actions, will any of their revised Ten Commandments make any sense? Below, I have listed their version of the Ten Commandments along with an explanation of why they believe it should be on the list. After the listed commandment and its explanation, I’ll outline my thoughts on whether their revised commandment truly aligns with an atheistic worldview. From an ontological perspective, moral laws (i.e. commandments) cannot be objectively grounded without the existence of a moral law giver (i.e. God) who would be the source by which all moral activity can be objectivity measured. Now that I’ve established the basis for my critique, I’ll jump into my assessment of each of their newly development atheistic commandments.

    1. “Be open minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence”

    Why: “It is essential in order for us to be able to collaboratively work together to find common solutions to pressing world problems”

    Despite the fact that the New Atheistic movement has been synonymous with a gross display of closed-mindedness, it’s important to ask, what moral obligation does anyone have to be open minded about anything under atheism? Why do “common solutions to pressing world problems” really matter? Obviously, as humans, we naturally feel like this statement is altruistic and morally admirable. It’s only natural to feel like we have a moral obligation to band together as the dominant human species and tackle sex-trafficking, ISIS, world pollution, and corrupt politicians. But the main question remains, why? Why, from an atheistic worldview, is there any reason to believe this sense of obligation is objective? Without a God, the individual atheist must answer this question if he or she is going to going to make it a commandment (i.e. moral obligation) for others to abide by.

    1. “Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you want to be true”

    Why: “We’re more likely to believe what we wish to be true over what we wish not to be true, regardless of veracity. If we’re interested in learning the truth, then we need to actively separate our beliefs from our desires”

    This is just as applicable to atheists as it is to theists. I’ve known both atheists and theists who believe what they do simply on the basis of wanting their worldviews to be true rather than believing what they do because their beliefs are evidentially aligned with reality. In fact, I feel too many people are like this. Not surprisingly, their rationale seems to be loaded with atheistic presuppositions. The rationale for this commandment seems to be underhandedly directed at theists who aren’t interested in seeking truth because they are incapable of separating beliefs from reality. While I agree that we should all strive to seek the truth, and those who honestly do so will undoubtedly find it, but what moral obligation is there to act in this way if God does not exist? Why is the quality of studiousness an admirable quality in an atheistic worldview versus the quality of laziness? This commandment to seek ‘what is most likely to be true’ cannot be judged as moral without an objective standard by which to measure it.

    1. “The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world”

    Why: “Every time humans have questions this method is used to solve them. If we don’t know, we don’t know but instead of making up the answer we use this method to reach a conclusion/answer”

    The scientific method is an excellent method of understanding the natural world. The scientific method gathers volumes of information that we can further study and use to come up with philosophical conclusions, which will grant us the ability to see theistic implications. In their explanation of the commandment, they pat themselves on the back for using the scientific method instead of “making up the answer”. When it comes to moral truths, are they devising their “10 Commandments for the 21st Century” by using the scientific method or are they just “making up the answer”? It seems that they wouldn’t have devised their version of the Ten Commandments while simultaneously believing their moral conclusions were false. I’d like to ask them how the scientific method assisted them in the construction of these new commandments.

    1. “Every person has the right to control their body”

    Why: “This includes a person\”s right to not be murdered, raped, imprisoned without just cause (violating another person\’s rights), kidnapped, attacked, tortured, etc. This also protects a person\’s freedom of speech and freedom to dress and represent themselves as they so choose”

    There are some interesting insights that can be made about this commandment. If they are going to live consistently with their 4th commandment, do you think they would be pro-life? As they said in their explanation, “This includes a person\”s right to not be murdered”. Given that an abortion would meet the definition of murder as the unborn baby is a person, their 4th commandment requires the atheist to be pro-life if they are going to live according to their own commandments they constructed. Given that many nonbelievers are traditionally pro-choice, it would be interesting to see how they would reconcile this contradiction between the commandment that they approved and their traditionally held position on the abortion issue.

    Atheists have been some of the fiercest aggressors against the Christian worldview in Western society. The words bigot, intolerant, hateful, narrow-minded, and homophobe haven’t been so grossly misused in the history of the English language to describe the Christian community simply because Christians haven’t embraced particular behaviors (particularly homosexuality) among society. While society is progressively embracing this behavior as a whole, the Christians who oppose homosexuality are being publically demonized for holding true to their beliefs. When atheists disagree with our standing in opposition of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc…, will this 4th commandment keep them from being toxic during dialogues?

    I repeat again, if the atheistic worldview is true, what rights do we have if God does not exist? Rights would be illusory and if anyone said they had a right to something, it would be their own personal construct rather than an objective reality established by God that all people can see and acknowledge.

    1. “God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life”

    Why: “When one does a good deed it isn’t because God tells one to do a good deed, but because one simply wants to be good person. As Human beings we are capable of defining our own, different, meanings for our lives, with or without a god”

    It’s true; atheists can be morally great people. In fact, I’ve known atheists that are far more moral than any religious person! We must ask however, do you need to have a personal relationship with God to be a morally good person? No, but God has placed the moral law on our hearts which is how we all acknowledge that there is an objective moral code by which to measure all moral actions. The explanation says, “When one does a good deed it isn’t because God tells one to do a good deed, but because one simply wants to be good person”. How are they defining ‘good’ without an objective standard? Is it the subjective standard that they’ve constructed on their own? Or possibly, is it the objective ‘good’ that we all know exists because the objective standard is written on our hearts? Without God, the term ‘good’ is meaningless in a moral sense.

    1. “Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them”

    Why: “It may sound obvious, but negligence and refusal to take responsibility are an immense source of harm in the world, from interpersonal relations to Global issues”

    How would consequences have any moral implications under an atheistic worldview? Let alone moral obligations! What reasons do we have to believe that atheism is the proper moral framework to take the 6th commandment seriously?

    1. “Treat others as you would want them to treat you and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective”

    Why: “If everyone did their best to carry this out as far as it can go, everyone would get along much better”

    Ah yes, the Golden Rule! It’s a good one. But again, the same question continues to arise, what reason do we have to believe that atheism demands such a moral obligation? Without an objective moral framework, how can a commandment authoritatively issue such an obligation?

    1. “We have the responsibility to include future generations”

    Why: “As human beings, we have great power. As Voltaire noted “With great power comes great responsibility.” To not consider others would be selfish and petty. We have demonstrated the ability to be magnanimous, are rapidly becoming more so, and will be even more so in the near future”

    What moral obligations do we have to future generations if atheism is correct? Their explanation highlights that it is morally detestable to be “selfish and petty”, but what basis does the atheist have to make such a moral judgment? When there is no objective standard, one cannot contrast morally good qualities from morally bad ones.

    1. “There is no one right way to live”

    Why: “If you look, even a little, you find many cultures living in moral societies that are fundamentally different, with only a few very basic principles being adhered to between them. Just because one group is different, does not mean they are wrong”

    What is the purpose of these Ten Commandments if they are not telling me how to live? Doesn’t commandment nine invalidate the entire purpose of developing these Ten Commandments? Why would you write commandment nine if by writing commandment nine you invalidate the entire list that attempts to tell me how to live in the ‘right way’? It’s a huge inconsistency.

    1. “Leave the world a better place than you found it”

    Why: “The Japanese concept of Kaizen teaches that small incremental improvements can have a profound effect over time. We should all strive to leave the world better than we found it be it through relieving the suffering of others, creating works of art, or passing along knowledge”

    Under an atheistic worldview (sounding repetitious), what moral obligation do I have to the world? The atheistic worldview does not necessarily require moral obligations. While most people feel like this is something all people should strive to do, but what real obligation is there to fulfill these feelings? These types of moral obligations are consistent with a theistic worldview, not an atheistic one.

    Conclusion

    With the moral framework of the atheistic worldview being grossly inadequate to make this commandment list philosophically sound, does this list serve any objective purpose whatsoever outside of constructing a merely subjective list of what they personally would like to see? I would say not. Since all of these commandments are completely subjective, what moral obligation do we have to them? The sad irony is that if philosophical materialism (i.e. atheism) is true, as many on the judges panel contend that it is, determinism is a reality and nobody can really be held morally accountable for their own actions because they’re merely walking meat-machines (i.e. molecules-in-motion) that are simply responding, moment by moment, to each and every preceding physical event. How can someone who is committed to philosophical materialism claim that objective moral standards and obligations exist when we (i.e. humanity) are material that is naturally reacting to preceding material events? If philosophical materialism is true, all material existence and actions can be compared to dominos falling from the very beginning of the universe. All actions would be the direct result of the event before it; hence the present event would be completely determined by its preceding event. Does determinism allow for objective morality? Absolutely not. Why? Freewill would not possible because all actions would be determined by a prior material event.

    That’s what makes this list of 10 Commands for the 21st Century so ridiculous. Like Frank Turek brilliantly says, “Atheists have to sit in God’s lap to slap his face”. Atheists are borrowing the objective moral framework provided by God to clumsily combat His existence. Obviously, atheists want us to take their commandments seriously but they have no ontological foundation to objectively formulate their 10 Commandments. Since objective morality provided by God is the only morality than demands a moral obligation, , I suppose their list of commandments is a mere compilation of their molecules-in-motion that happened to have developed as a result of all of their preceding physical events, which makes these commandments not only subjective, but determined. In other words, all the commandments that were compiled were physically determined and cannot be considered as morally objective in any sense. To be imaginative, let’s pretend that the atheistic worldview magically allowed for freewill; that would still not allow for an ontological foundation for the grounding of objective morality, hence making their list of 21st century commandments completely subjective.

    At the end of the day, the atheistic worldview is morally unlivable. Not because atheists are somehow incapable of living good moral lives but because there is no difference between good or evil without the objective moral standard set forth by God. Many atheistic scholars have come to terms with this reality. Atheist Richard Dawkins wrote in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,

    “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (p. 133)

    Atheist William Provine, a scholar of the history of evolutionary biology at Cornell University, said in a debate with Philip Johnson,

    “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either”

    Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse wrote in Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,

    “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory” (pp. 262-269)

    I can go on and on with atheist scholars supporting this position. Generally speaking, atheist academics have settled this fact. Morality is groundless without a moral law giver (i.e. God). Does that sound depressing? Absolutely, but it is the truth if God does not exist. My goal isn’t to put a damper on “The ReThink Project” but I may suggest that it strongly rethink its strategy. If it were to do that, their project may not be nearly as fun. Imagine if they were to advertise in a way that stayed loyal to their atheistic worldview! It might go a little something like this,

    “At Atheist Mind Humanist Heart, we’re developing a project that will update the 10 Commandments for the people of the 21st Century, and we need your help! While we recognize that all of your submissions to this project have been causally determined and your freewill is nothing more than a convenient illusion, we value what nature has ultimately forced you to write! Let your Darwinian roots take you as far as your freewill illusions will allow. Write like you have a mind of your own! Celebrate the notion of being open-minded and morally obligated to do certain things. Write as though it matters! Ascribe value to actions and behaviors when there is none to be had! Enjoy my fellow freethinkers, as though you were really free to think!”

    I pray that nobody took personal offense to my parody but I honestly feel it (as ridiculous as it was) was a more accurate representation of the atheistic worldview than the one presented in the “ReThink Project”. I honestly don’t blame the atheists who desire a system of morality that affirms absolute moral standards. Life would be truly unlivable without them. For example, if someone robbed your home and harmed your family, you could not objectively say that this person did anything wrong! Maybe this man thinks that robbing and harming is morally acceptable. Also, you couldn’t hold him morally accountable because he is merely behaving in accordance with his molecules that are physically reacting from one moment to the next. Are you beginning to see how this is unlivable?

    It’s admirable to be an atheist and affirm the existence of objective morals but it stands in the face of atheism itself. It is an inconsistent position to hold if one wishes to be a loyal atheist. Loyal atheism would require one to deny the existence of all morality. They couldn’t affirm that there was a moral difference between Hitler and Jesus because there is no objective moral standard by which to compare the two. In the end, it’s a hard subject to handle for the atheist because it’s evident that everyone wants to affirm certain moral truths to be absolute. It’s undeniable that God has truly written the moral law on our hearts.

     

     

  • Does Atheism Solve the Problem of Evil?

    Does Atheism Solve the Problem of Evil?

    Recently, I was listening to a Cross Examined podcast with Frank Turek where he was interviewing Oxford mathematician and Christian philosopher John Lennox on a lecture titled “If God, Why Evil?” I love listening to Lennox speak because he has a mastery of this subject matter and he is such an amazingly clear and concise communicator and thinker. Much like Ravi Zacharias in the way he communicates, there are few that can communicate complex topics as winsomely and persuasively as he does. Lennox is truly one of the finest Christian intellects of our generation and there are few more qualified to provide authoritative insights into the nature of the problem of evil than he.

    As I was listening, he brought up a side of the problem of evil that I haven’t examined much before until recently. As he described it, those that choose not to believe in a God because of the existence of evil fail to understand that atheism does not adequately solve the problem of evil in the most important respect. Atheism removes hope from the equation entirely. With God, we are certain of the existence of hope regardless of how poor our understanding is of the existence of evil. Those that become upset with the tragedies of this life and resort to atheism as a solution are failing to comprehend that the problem of evil and suffering will exist nonetheless. There are a couple conundrums that atheism faces when attempting to serve as an adequate explanatory framework for evil and suffering…

    If Atheism is True, No Hope Exists

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugb8St6az_Q

    The video above beautifully and simply addresses the problems that arise when atheism attempts to answer the intellectual problem of evil. Many atheists would point out that the hopelessness of our universe does not mean that their atheistic answer to suffering and evil is incorrect. I wholeheartedly agree. The hopefulness or hopelessness of an argument is irrelevant. The question must inevitably arise however, how comprehensively has atheism truly answered this question if in the process of removing God; they’ve also removed any remnant of hope that would emotionally help them through their suffering? Lennox states, “There is a sense in which atheism does solve the intellectual problem, but we have to notice that it doesn’t take away the suffering”. This is the problem with the atheistic position that many bypass in their intellectually clumsy desire to remove a God that would permit evil to exist. While the problem of evil may very well be perceived as a problem for the Christian, the Christian can at least “have hope in the face of suffering” unlike the atheist who has no hope while suffering and must face the grim reality of death being the ultimate end of their existence after a lifetime of suffering evil.

    Nature of God

    It will help us answer the question further to learn more about the nature of God. For the Christian, Jesus is God incarnate and came to die on a cross for our sins and rose on the third day, showing that “God has not remained distant from our suffering but has become a part of it”. God has endured more suffering than we can imagine and the suffering he endured was part and parcel of our salvific relationship we can choose to have with Him. Our fallen nature has brought upon most of the evil that we observe within creation and God took it upon Himself to rectify the misdeeds of His creation through the suffering on the cross so that we may have the opportunity, if we so choose, to give our lives to Him and receive eternal salvation (i.e. hope).

    The atheistic critique that God would be the author of evil in spite of Him voluntarily subjecting himself to the very evil that He is accused of creating is farcical. Jesus Christ voluntarily gave His life for us in an incomprehensibly excruciating death while begging the Father to extend forgiveness to His executioners because they ‘do not know what they do’. It seems that through Jesus’ life on earth, he experienced His fair share of evil and suffering. Jesus saw disease, death, violence, prostitution, thievery, and brokenness of every stripe. Jesus “became a part of it” and brought more hope than we deserve along with him. If atheists claim that evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God, it’s their claim to prove. While freewill allows for moral virtue, it also allows for the possibility of horrendous evil. The fact that God loves us enough to allow us to make our own choices is also reflective of His loving nature. God’s gift of freewill among mankind does not make God morally responsible for the evil choices freely made among those who chose to do evil instead of good.

    Conclusion

    In the grand scheme of things, if atheism is true, there is no hope for any sort of ultimate justice or compensation. Those that commit atrocities throughout history like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao will not receive punishment for their atrocities. Those who lived a righteous God-fearing life would have ultimately lived a life of virtue in vain. Lennox adds that he believes that “it could be argued that atheism makes it worse because now there is no hope”. Regardless of the existence of hope, we must ask ourselves where the evidence points.

    The existence of objective moral values and duties serves as a valuable piece of philosophical evidence. We typically don’t have to be told that murder, stealing, theft is immoral because it is self evident. God has written a transcendent moral law on our hearts so that we know that an objective moral standard exists. Without an objective standard, how can we truly measure whether an action is morally good or evil with objectivity? Some declare that morals are merely subjective and dependent on the individual person or society. However, when someone steals their car they’ll be the first complaining about how immoral stealing is. Just remind them, ‘that person must believe stealing is morally permissible so you really shouldn’t be upset’. Moral relativism is truly unlivable. If you don’t believe me, look in the history books and see how many millions of people who died under the morally relativistic atheistic dictatorships of the 20th century.

    If Jesus was who he claimed to be, which I contend that he is, we can be sure that the existence of suffering and evil is not incompatible with the existence of God. Jesus himself lived through evil and conquered it by rising on the third day. In the end, those that resort to atheism to solve this problem are left empty handed. Not only is the moral evidence for atheism deficient but other areas of study have provided strong compelling arguments for the existence of God that further corroborate the conclusion that suffering and evil should not be the roadblock that keeps one from accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus has provided us the hope that we need to get through times of suffering and can give us the strength to fight the evil that may attempt to engulf our lives.

  • Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    The proposal that someone can resurrect after being dead for three days is often a very tough product to sell in todays’ westernized self-proclaimed intellectual culture, which is primarily dominated by naturalists who claim that nothing can occur outside of the laws of nature. Of course, we Christians firmly hold to the idea that our Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, rose from the dead three days after being crucified. Some of us place faith in this fact solely based upon the reading of the Bible and others have read the Bible and have gone the extra mile to confirm the historical credibility of such a claim. Regardless of how you came to your faith in Christ and his resurrection, it is important that we assess our own beliefs by objectively viewing the facts to see how they reinforce or contradict our worldview.

    In the defense of the skeptic, Christians are making a gigantic claim. You would be somewhat skeptical if you heard your friend say, “You are not going to believe this but Bob (who died three days ago) is now alive and talking to everyone in front of the mortuary. You should stop by and see him!” You would likely think your friend was crazy and would not seriously consider the notion that Bob could resurrect from the dead because it is believed that once a living organism dies, it remains dead.

    However, imagine if you started getting text messages from multiple friends saying something like, “Did you hear? Bob is back from the dead and he is in front of the mortuary! You should come down!” If you are anything like me, you would probably come to the conclusion that your friends are playing a distasteful joke on you and would dismiss the text messages as foolish. After receiving the texts, pretend you turned on your computer and logged into Facebook only to find that there are pictures of Bob in front of the mortuary on some of your friend’s profiles with posts stating, “Bob is back from the dead! He says Jesus brought him back!” Now, you are starting to become a little less skeptical of your friends’ wild and seemingly impossible claims. Even though you went to Bob’s “showing” earlier that same day and intended to go to his funeral the following day, the evidence is compiling high enough to compel you to investigate the evidence to its conclusion.

    With this newfound evidence, you jump into the car and drive hurriedly to the mortuary to see if these claims are genuine rather than some morbid prank. You get to the mortuary only to see Bob surrounded by a group of ecstatic people who are as shocked to see Bob as you. The seemingly impossible claims were truthful. Bob’s claim that Jesus raised him from the dead validated the existence of the Christian God because you recognize that a corpse does not naturally rise from the dead without divine intervention. This divine intervention can now be attested to by Bob, you, and all of those who also witnessed Bob back from the dead. Those that do not believe in this event can view the evidence for themselves however their non-belief would be contrary to the evidence provided by the eyewitnesses.

    Using this illustration, we can identify the natural absurdities of what Christians are asking skeptics to believe. However, using the same example, we can recognize that if we follow the evidence to where it leads, we will discover our Savior as long as the investigation is approached with the commitment to accept the logical conclusion of the available evidence. However, imagine that the evidence was never followed. Bob being raised from the dead by God would have been dismissed due a failure of being ideologically accepting of supernatural occurrences. If presuppositions are devastatingly devout to a naturalistic worldview, even the strong evidence as the one presented in this example could potentially be disregarded or easily dismissed as a hoax. The truth is plain to see in the case of Bob and Jesus but the lack of openness to the supernatural hinders people from discovering the truth in both stories.

    This illustration does not serve the purpose of portraying an exact parallel to Jesus’s resurrection. The point behind this example expresses how dogmatic naturalistic ideologies keep some people from accepting the logical conclusions that are founded on objective evidence. The facts contained within the minimal facts argument are accepted by a large majority of New Testament scholars, which include believers and skeptics. While everyone may not find the Bible to be a reliable authority, these facts that are being presented are historically reliable and can be attested to by scholarly skeptics and believers alike. As you read, allow yourself to objectively weigh the resurrection hypothesis versus all naturalistic hypotheses and let the evidence dictate your conclusion, not your ideology.

    The Minimal Facts

    To preface the remainder of this article, it is important to lay out the facts that serve as the foundation for the minimal facts argument. They are as follows…

    1. Jesus died by crucifixion
    2. The disciples of Jesus were sincerely convinced that he rose from the dead and appeared to them
    3. Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus), who was a persecutor of the Christians, suddenly changed his beliefs towards Christianity
    4. James (brother of Jesus), who was a skeptic of the Christian faith, suddenly changed his beliefs towards Christianity
    5. The Tomb of Jesus was found empty three days after the crucifixion of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 48-76)

    These are the facts that a majority of New Testament scholars consider to be historically accurate. As stated before, these scholars are not solely believers of Christianity but also include skeptics who aggressively question the notion that the resurrection actually happened. However, their skepticism of Jesus’ resurrection does not prevent them from acknowledging that there are certain facts that can be known regarding the life, ministry, crucifixion, and post-death happenings of Jesus.

    Fact One – Jesus Died by Crucifixion

    We can acknowledge that all four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, testify that Jesus was crucified (Habermas and Licona 2004, 48). These New Testament gospels were written roughly 30 – 50 years following the crucifixion of Jesus, which is considered a tremendously early source in the study of ancient antiquity. However, the Biblical sources are not the only sources for the historical fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion.

    There are multiple extra biblical sources for the crucifixion of Jesus. The first of them being Josephus, who was a Jewish historian, wrote concerning Jesus, “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified” (Josephus 1981, Volume 9). The second source we have is Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD), a senator and historian for the Roman Empire, who writes, “Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate” (Tacitus 115). The third source we have is Lucian of Samosata (125 AD – 180 AD), a Greek satirist and a skeptic of the Christian faith, who writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (Lucian of Samosata Mid-second century, 11-13). The fourth source we have is Mara Bar-Serapion, who wrote to his son in 73 AD from prison with the following comments, “Or [what advantage came to] the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from the very time their kingdom was driven away from them?” (Donaldson, Roberts and Coxe 1935-1952). As you may notice, the quote from Mara does not specifically reference the crucifixion; however it makes a specific reference to the “murder” of their “Wise King”.

    Upon viewing the multiple sources of the crucifixion of Jesus, we can say with confidence that it is a historically reliable claim that Jesus was crucified during this time period of the first century. Outside of the few people in academia who venture to believe that Jesus never existed at all, most objective New Testament scholars acknowledge the solid foundation of reliable evidence for this fact, which leads them to the undeniable conclusion that Jesus was crucified in the first century.

    Fact Two – The Disciples Sincerely Believed Jesus Rose from the Dead and Appeared to them

    There are two major sub-facts that need to be viewed closely in order to truly appreciate the full impact of this second fact. The two sub-facts include the disciples making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and had appeared to them and the second is that the disciples were radically transformed from being individuals who abandoned Jesus after his execution to intensely loyal advocates of Jesus’ gospel who courageously faced intense persecution, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom (Habermas and Licona 2004, 50). These two facts that make up second fact of this argument, allow us to put ourselves in the disciples’ shoes and hopefully allow us to imagine how we would react in the same situation.

    The disciples made the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and that he had appeared to them. The sources of this claim fall into three separate categories. The first is the testimony of Paul and the disciples. The second source is the oral tradition of the early church. The third and last source is the written works of the early church. These three sources are able to historically establish these claims as reliable historical fact (Habermas and Licona 2004, 51).

    First, the testimony of Paul and the disciples serve as a valuable indication for what they actually believed. While that may be a rather obvious statement, it is essential that we are able to identify why it is monumentally important when discussing the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who maintained that his authority was equal to that of other apostles, noted a specific verse containing his position on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 8 (NASB),

    “3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.”

    Paul made this personal claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead because he claimed that Jesus appeared to him along with Cephas, the twelve Disciples, five hundred brethren, James, the apostles, and then to Paul himself. Paul personally knew Peter, James, and John (Galatians 1:18 – 19; 2:2 – 20) and the Bible also states that Paul fellowshipped with the disciples (Acts 9:26 – 30; 15:1 – 35). This is also attested to by other early church writers that lived within one hundred years of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 51). Historically, Paul can confidently be classified as an early independent source.

    Along with Paul, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) serve as an excellent source that is well-accepted to have been written within the first century (Habermas and Licona 2004, 53). Like Paul, each Gospel attests to the resurrection of Jesus. In addition to Paul and the four Gospels, we have the book of Acts, which was written as a sequel to Luke, falling in line with the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. The Gospels and the Pauline writings were all considered to be written within the first century which makes them exceptionally early accounts. Given that these books were written by individuals that had been present at the recorded events or interviewed people who were eyewitnesses to the actual events, it would be reasonable to conclude that these writings reflected what they genuinely believed to be true.

    Oral tradition was used to preserve the message being passed along. Clearly, they would not be able to record events in the same manner that we do today for obvious reasons. They could not whip out their smart phone in first-century Palestine and start recording things Jesus said or did. While this would be ideal for us moderns, those that existed in the first century had to work with the resources they had available to them. In the first century Jewish culture, an efficient way to preserve information was through the means of oral tradition. Oral tradition was a method of teaching others and it was frequently used in the form of creeds, hymns, story summaries, and poetry in order to more easily memorize the information being preserved (Habermas and Licona 2004, 52).

    A good example that we can view in support of this oral tradition is viewing 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 5 (cited earlier). This scripture is identified as a creed that was used in the earliest traditions of Christianity and actually predates the writings of Paul. It is believed by many scholars that Paul received this creed from Peter and James while fellowshipping with them in Jerusalem (Habermas and Licona 2004, 52), which would mean that Paul would have learned this creed from the disciples directly within five years of the crucifixion of Jesus.

    Lastly, the writings of the early church were written by the apostolic fathers, which were the individuals who succeeded the original apostles (Habermas and Licona 2004, 53). Some of these apostolic fathers could have spent a good deal of time with the apostles and could have possibly been appointed by them. However, the main takeaway from their writings should be that they are reflective of what the apostles thought and believed about the resurrection. It is important to study the apostolic writings in order to further evaluate the “bigger picture” of what the apostles believed about Jesus’ resurrection.

    Apostolic Father Clement (referred to in Philippians 4:3) spent a good amount of time with the apostles, particularly Peter, according to early church fathers by the name of Irenaeus and Tertullian. They both wrote about Clement in the time period of the late second century – early third century and wrote about how Clement had direct interaction with the apostles and how Clement received first hand instructions and observed their early traditions (Habermas and Licona 2004, 54).
    Now that we have multiple church leaders commenting on how Clement received specific guidance from the apostles directly, what does Clement actually say about the resurrection? Clement wrote,

    “Therefore, having received the orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come” (First Clement 42:3)

    What implications does this have in our investigation of what the apostles truly believed? This assures us that the apostles remained true to their belief that Jesus rose from the dead and that they had seen him after the resurrection. This further confirms the claims being made in the New Testament were not claims conjured at a later date by someone else completely disconnected from the original events.

    Polycarp (69 AD – 155 AD), along with Clement, is another Apostolic Father who mentioned the resurrection of Jesus five times in his letters to the church in Philippi (Habermas and Licona 2004, 55). According to writers of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the content of the messages that Polycarp was sending derived directly from the original apostles because it was said that he was appointed to his position by the apostles, which wanted to preserve the Christian messages by providing their successors with all of the correct information and doctrines. Polycarp ultimately was martyred in Smyrna at the age of 86 in 160 AD (Habermas and Licona 2004, 55).

    After the claims of the resurrection of Jesus were made and the ultimate determination is made that this is what they sincerely believed, how did this belief actually affect their lives? There are several resources that we can look to in order to gather an insight into how their lives were transformed. All the resources that are currently available reinforce the fact that these apostles were willing to suffer for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

    A good place to start for this insight would be the book of Acts. However, there are other sources that can be found in the early apostolic writings. Clement wrote about the sufferings and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul,

    “Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set the good apostles before our eyes. Peter, who because of unrighteous envy endured, not one or two, but many afflictions, and having borne witness went to the due glorious place. Because of envy and rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize. Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders. Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place. He became a great example of steadfastness” – First Clement 5:2 – 7

    Polycarp, in the same spirit as Clement, wrote the following to the Philippians that reinforced Clement’s message regarding the suffering of Paul and the rest of the apostles, “They are in the place due them with the Lord, in association with them also the suffered. For they did not love the present age…” (Polycarp n.d.) Polycarp’s testimony granted us an insight into the sufferings the apostles went through.

    During the lifetime of Polycarp, he had forwarded on his apostolic teachings to many people, including Ignatius. Ignatius wrote seven letters recording the information he was given by Polycarp regarding the teachings he received directly from the original apostles. He wrote about how the disciples were strengthened by Jesus, which led them not to fear death, but rather they believed that through death “they are found” (Habermas and Licona 2004, 57).

    Along with Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, we can also look at the writing of Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius as resources for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul and we can use Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement as sources for the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 59). These sources that are being evaluated are not found in the Bible and are considered legitimate historical references to people who actually lived and died. They corroborate the message of the Bible.

    Given the testimony of Paul, oral tradition, and the written tradition, we can feel confident in proclaiming that we know that the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead and that Jesus appeared to them. It is a reasonable assumption that these apostles believed in the resurrection with so much certainty and sincerity that they were willing to die a martyr’s death.

    Fact Three – Paul dramatically changed his stance on Christianity in a very short period of time

    Paul the apostle was once known as Saul of Tarsus. Prior to Paul seeing the appearance of the resurrected Jesus, he was a devastatingly loyal persecutor and murderer of Christians. The actions of the pre-Christian Paul are described in the book of Acts. Given all of the good things that were done by Paul after his conversion, it is hard to imagine that he could have done all of those horrible things to Christians. Prior to becoming a Christian, Paul’s reputation was specifically known for being a persecutor of Christians. It almost seems as though he is a transformed person after the appearance of Jesus.
    Paul wrote a narrative about his conversion to Christianity, so the notion that we should question his own testimony regarding his experience seems to be unnecessary. In addition, we have multiple attestations regarding his strong belief that he did see the appearance of the Lord along with independent attestation for the suffering of Paul by the apostolic fathers who mentored under Paul. The significant amount of attestations to the fact that Paul was a transformed person after the appearance of Jesus is notable in a historically investigation like this one.

    In this case, we are not solely relying upon secondary evidence. We have primary evidence directly from the source. Paul’s own writings exemplify his persecutory pre-Christian lifestyle along with how his life was completely transformed because of Jesus appearing to him. After Paul gives his testimony through his writings, we have further corroboration through the apostolic fathers of his beliefs along with the experiences of suffering and ultimate martyrdom he was put through for his unfailing belief in the resurrected Jesus. Ultimately, this builds a strong case for Paul’s life being completely transformed because of his claim that Jesus appeared to him after the crucifixion.

    Fact Four – James dramatically changed his stance on Christianity in a very short period of time

    The story about the conversion of James and subsequent transformation is not as well documented as what we have for Paul, but there is certainly enough evidence to establish that James was a skeptic prior to the crucifixion and a believer in resurrection of Jesus after he had an appearance of Jesus alive after the crucifixion. There are multiple sources that confirm the fact that James was once a skeptic before his belief in the resurrected Jesus and multiple sources for the fact that the appearance he had of the risen Jesus transformed his life to the point to where he was willing to be martyred in order to remain loyal to the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

    The Gospels record that Jesus’ brothers, who included James, did not believe Jesus and the message of his ministry. Below are three scriptures that depict the nonbelief of friends and family,

    “21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”” – Mark 3:21 (NASB)

    “3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.”” – Mark 6:3 – 4 (NASB)

    “5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him” – John 7:5 (NASB)

    Given these particular scriptures, we are confident that James was not a supporter of Jesus. However, the transformation in James’ life began when James saw the appearance of Jesus. As was noted earlier in the article, one of the earliest creedal materials that are currently known is 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 7, which indicates that Jesus had appeared to James.
    “3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” – 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 7 (NASB)

    After viewing the scriptures that present the facts that James was indeed a skeptic as well as the scripture that stated that Jesus appeared to James, how can we be certain that James actually martyred himself for the belief in the resurrection of Jesus? As discussed in the “Fact Two” section of this article, Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement are sources for the martyrdom of James (Habermas and Licona 2004, 59). The idea that James can transform from a skeptic to a full-blown martyr for the belief system that he was originally skeptical of is nonsensical without something radical occurring in his life. In this case, given the circumstances behind what was going on in James’ life at that period of time, are we to believe that James abandoned his skepticism of Jesus without having believed in the resurrection? What else could possibly explain James’ devout loyalty to Jesus after having been skeptical his whole life of him?

    Fact Five – The Empty Tomb

    This is a fact that is not supported by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars as the other four facts are, however it is still considered to be historically reliable by 75% of New Testament scholars (Habermas and Licona 2004, 70). While this is not an overwhelming percentage, it is still a rather high percentage. There are good reasons for why three out of four scholars advocate for this fact. The evidence for why the tomb was empty on the third day is certainly compelling enough to still be considered a fact for this minimal facts argument.

    There are three arguments in favor of Jesus’ tomb being empty on the third day. These three arguments are the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of the women. These three arguments in support of the empty tomb give us confidence that we can validly claim the tomb was empty as fact. After viewing all of them, it will be clear that there is substantive reasoning behind the idea of the empty tomb.

    The Jerusalem factor is the theory that Christianity would have not expanded in the manner that it did if the body would have been present in the tomb in Jerusalem, which is where Jesus was crucified, buried, and where he first appeared after the crucifixion. The reason why Christianity would have become a complete flop if Jesus had remained in the tomb is because everyone in Jerusalem would have heard about it. In fact, if the body of Jesus was still present in the tomb when the claims of his resurrection were being made, the Romans and Jewish leadership would have publicly displayed Jesus’ corpse to show everyone to prove that Jesus was undeniably dead. If this would have happened, the power of the resurrection claim would have completely lost all power and the movement would have likely failed (Habermas and Licona 2004, 70).

    According to the book of Acts, the public Christian ministry began fifty days after the crucifixion of Jesus. There is no record of any exhumation of Jesus’ body at this time by anyone. You would think that the local leadership would want to stomp out this claim in any way they could. Despite the decomposition of the corpse after fifty days, the arid climate would allow for the corpse to keep certain distinctive physical qualities such as hair, stature, and wounds, which would have identified the identity of the highly decomposed corpse (Habermas and Licona 2004, 70).

    Not only would the leadership of Jerusalem been happy to provide a possibly identifiable corpse, they would have gladly produced any corpse! The enemies of Jesus would have been happy to see any corpse as long as it was from the tomb of Jesus. In addition to that, the believers of Jesus would have been dissuaded from believing in the resurrection of Jesus if they had seen a slightly recognizable corpse being publicly displayed in Jerusalem. The confidence of the resurrection of Jesus would have been extinguished dramatically because of the public display of the corpse, which would have had disastrous repercussions on the expansion of the early Christian church (Habermas and Licona 2004, 71). Given these observations, along with the fact that there is no record of any exhumation occurring in Jerusalem, it is a reasonable assumption that the tomb was empty on the third day after the crucifixion using the Jerusalem factor.

    The second argument for the empty tomb is that there was enemy attestation. This argument illustrates that the individuals who opposed early Christianity admitted to the tomb being empty. The most popular citation of this argument would be found in Matthew 28:12 – 13 (NASB),

    “12 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’”

    While this may be the most cited, there are other sources to look to for a similar message. These messages can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, and De Spectaculis 30 (Habermas and Licona 2004, 71). At that time, the Jews would have no incentive to admit that the tomb was empty unless it actually was. In fact, it would have been more convenient for them to have found the corpse of Jesus in his tomb because they could have easily stomped out the early Christian movement, which they considered blasphemous. As stated in Matthew 28:12 – 13, they concocted the theory that Jesus’ disciples had taken the body, which would inevitably mean that the tomb would be empty.

    The last argument for the empty tomb would be the testimony of women. It is a much different time in the 21st century western society than it was in first century Palestine. The woman’s testimony in today’s culture is accredited with just as much credibility as a man’s. However, this was not always so. In fact, it was the exact opposite. The quotes from that time period below illustrate how much credit was given to a woman’s testimony.

    “Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women” – Talmud, Sotah 19a

    “The world cannot exist without males and without females – happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females” – Talmud, Kiddushin 82b

    “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or ear of punishment” (Josephus 1981)

    “Any evidence with a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a women” – Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8

    After reading these quotes, you may be taken aback. This is completely contradictory to what we currently believe of women. While this may be the case, this gives us a grander insight into how the testimony of women would have been perceived in the first century.

    Do you think women would have been taken seriously in first century Palestine? Absolutely not! In fact, they would have been immediately disregarded as being a person you could not trust. For the New Testament writers to testify that the women were the ones to discover the empty tomb on the third day would have been viewed as an embarrassment. If the writers wanted to add credibility to their story, they would have manufactured a story about how the male disciples discovered the empty tomb because it would have been perceived as more trustworthy. Remaining loyal to the historical happenings despite cultural stigmas would be the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament has the women discovering the empty tomb included, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that their story is truthful rather than a fictional fabrication.

    Conclusion

    In the introduction of this article, a challenge was posed to the reader. It was to allow oneself to read through the facts and objectively analyze whether or not a naturalistic theory can be formulated that can explain all of the facts better than the resurrection hypothesis. Regardless of one’s ultimate conclusion, there should have undoubtedly been deep thought put into the potential possibilities of what best explains the facts.

    The introduction also laid out a silly story about a friend coming back from the dead. In the story, there was a natural hesitancy of this outrageous claim until the evidence was presented and considered. Once the evidence was followed, it was discovered that Bob was raised from the dead at the hand of Jesus. In our case with viewing the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, every person is in this same circumstance on a much higher scale. However, the consequences are eternal in the case of investigating the resurrection of Jesus.

    Investigation of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus should be done objectively. We should allow ourselves to become historians and dig for the truth! This article can serve as your launching pad! You may want to pick up the book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. After reading this book, you might find yourself knowing more than you ever thought possible about the resurrection of Jesus.

    Those that reject the resurrection hypothesis do so on an ideological basis, not an evidential one. The basis for which we evaluate this evidence is not always empirical, but oftentimes circumstantial. Skeptics often reject circumstantial evidence, but they fail to realize that circumstantial evidence is the primary type of evidence that convicts murders and other types of criminals in a court of law. It seems as though circumstantial evidence is our greatest asset in most every other investigation, but somehow it is denied as untenable by the skeptic in this case. Or is it a mere failure to overcome ideologies that will not allow for supernatural possibilities? For skeptics who remain skeptical after thoroughly researching the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, there is a massive amount of reconciling the historical evidence to formulate a merely naturalistic conclusion. Naturalism simply does not simultaneously explain all of the known facts. The resurrection hypothesis best explains all five established facts better than any other naturalistic hypothesis anyone has ever came up with.

    Writing from a personal perspective, the resurrection of Jesus is undoubtedly a historical event. When a historical event is true, the facts will always align with the truth. As Christians, Christ has laid out our historical case for us and we must be open to accept the conclusions of His evidence. No conspiracy theorist can mask the truth of the resurrection of Jesus without having manipulated truth along the way. Jesus grants us truth. Jesus said, “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” in John 18:37 (NASB). We must continue to follow His voice and align our worldviews with His. Only then will we be able to fully see the truth that He provides.

    Bibliography
    Donaldson, J., A. Roberts, and A.C. Coxe. The Babylonian Talmud. London, 1935-1952.
    Haberman, Gary R, and Michael R Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004.
    Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
    Josephus. Antiquities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
    Lucian of Samosata. The Death of Peregrine. Mid-second century.
    Tacitus. Annals. 115.

  • 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)

  • An Introduction to the Moral Argument

    An Introduction to the Moral Argument

    In our current day, proclaiming that you’re a Christian is somewhat of a social taboo in the eyes of many social media outlets. Christians are seemingly becoming the minority in the eyes of the Western secular culture with our alleged outlandish and intolerant moral views on popular social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. The media often portrays Christians in a rather unflattering manner as a hateful, intolerant, bigoted, judgmental group.  Fortunately, none of these moral critiques against Christians carry any weight unless there is a foundation for the existence of objectivemoral values and duties. Hence, to evaluate this matter more thoroughly, the thesis of this article is to assess whether or not there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that objective moral values and duties do exist.

    Before discussing this topic any further, I would like to identify what I mean by “objective”.  “Objective” is being used with the meaning of, “independent of human opinion”.  For example, the Holocaust during WWII was objectively bad despite whether the Nazis felt what they were doing was objectively good. The reality is that it is objectively wrong to murder innocent people.  To illustrate another example; murder, rape, torture, theft, adultery, and lying are also objectively wrong.  Those that participate in those activities would be objectively wrong regardless of whether they think they are doing something morally right.
    Now that “objective” has been identified in its proper context, it is now time to lay the foundation for the objectivity of morals in relationship to the existence of God. This argument is called; “the Moral Argument” and the premises are laid as follows:
    1)     If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
    2)    Objective moral values and duties do exist
    3)    Therefore, God exists[1]
    The further discussion will highlight the elements of the argument that make it effective and philosophically compelling. In addition to highlighting the elements of the argument, I’ll also evaluate the most common objections to the moral argument while laying out a comprehensive assessment of their shortcomings.
    Affirmation of Objective Moral Values and Duties
    This is a powerful argument among Christians today because a majority of people of all worldviews affirm the existence of objective moral values and duties. The reason for wanting to affirm objective moral values and duties is evident to anyone who has gone through a terrible tragedy or has ever been exposed to tragic events such as the terror attacks on 9/11, the Holocaust during WWII, the Columbine High School shooting, the recent shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and the like.
    You may wonder why all people (atheists and theists) desperately want to affirm objective moral values and duties.  You may ask, “Why is that important?” I think this is best illustrated when we look at the moral argument with the assumption that God does not exist.  Given that we’re assuming that God does not exist, we then find ourselves in a world that does not have objective moral values and duties.  Any morals that we observe among society would be the incidental byproduct of biological evolution and societal conditioning that has developed within our species to assist humanity in its survival.  If we witnessed each other performing seemingly good deeds within our society, it wouldn’t be because it was objectively good.  It would be because our embedded natural instinct is to help each other in order to propagate our species.  By the same token, if we were to observe someone in the act of murder; they wouldn’t be acting objectively immoral. They would simply be acting unfashionably according to their social structure and we could identify that action as being counter-productive in the propagation of human species.
    The reasons for this lack of moral objectively in a universe with no God is specifically identified by its lack of foundation in which to ground moral values and duties, thereby nothing can be considered objectively good or bad. A competent authority is needed to establish these objective moral foundations[2]. The atheistic worldview does not allow for objective moral values and duties because it lacks God, which is the competent authority needed to establish objective moral values and duties.
    Misusing “Good”
    However, there are critiques posed upon this argument which conclude that objective moral values and duties are also attainable under atheism. A prominent atheist by the name of Sam Harris authored the book, “The Moral Landscape”, and dedicated it to proving the notion that you don’t need God to have objective moral values and duties.  He is very creative in his argument; however it falls quite short from fully justifying how atheism begins to reconcile objective moral values and duties while being in a Godless universe.
    It is creative because Harris uses the English language to manipulate the meaning of “good”.  He plays a rousing game of semantics with the term, “good”.  Meaning, he is not using the term “good” to mean moral good.  He often uses the term “good” to mean something related to the flourishing of sentient life[3]. In order to identify the differences between the word “good” in the moral context and the context that refers to “good” as the flourishing of sentient life, I’ll illustrate the point with some examples.
    For example, moral good would refer to what is identified as an act such as generosity, putting others before oneself, loving one another, volunteering at a local homeless shelter, and other traditionally accepted actions associated with moral good. The way Harris is using “good” is in reference to the flourishing of sentient life forms.  For example, it would be beneficial for all sentient life to behave in a manner that assists in their flourishing and expansion3. However, we must ask, why is the flourishing of sentient life objectively good in the moral sense?
    While it is good for flourishing to occur among sentient life, there is nothing that would lead us to conclude that it is objectively moral for sentient life to flourish.  Dr. William Lane Craig likened it to the flourishing of corn3. We can identify what helps corn to flourish but assisting it in its flourishing doesn’t illustrate how objectively moral we are or it is. We can all acknowledge the flourishing of sentient life is good because sentient beings like to flourish, however there is no moral objectivity that underlies the foundation of the flourishing.
    This type of evaluation is an ontological versus semantic analysis.  The ontological nature of evaluating morals would be to identify the foundation of those morals. Meaning, what the foundation for objective morals? Is it God or is it nature? The semantic nature of “good” would be to evaluate the meaning of the term and would not play any role in trying to identify the ontological foundation for morality3.  This distinction is important to identify when responding to the claim that the objective moral foundation can be identified by nature. Simply put, creaturely flourishing and objective morality are two separate subjects3. 
    Atheists That Affirm No Objective Morals
    I’ve used the example with Harris and his “moral landscape” because he is of a minority of atheist scholars that continue to propagate the notion of objective morals from an atheistic worldview. You may be curious about what other atheist scholars have said about morality from an atheistic worldview.  I’ll list a few quotes below that describe what has been said about morality in a universe that is without a God:
    “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” – Richard Dawkins[4]
    “The position of the modern evolutionist…is that humans have an awareness of morality…because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands and feet and teeth…Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” they think they are referencing above and beyond themselves…Nevertheless,…such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,…and any deeper meaning is illusory” – Michael Ruse[5]
    “Morality…is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends… In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate” – Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson[6]
    As you can see, these atheists are being very honest and candid about their approach to morality from an atheistic worldview. They are indeed remaining true to their worldview. It is often hard to approach this topic in a straightforward and honest fashion simply because it is difficult for some people to come to the conclusion that we are no more important than any other living creature on this planet in terms of our morality without God. Without God, every action done by each of us wouldn’t be morally good or bad.  It would simply be morally neutral without a basis for measuring good or bad. Any appearance of morals would be the byproduct of social conditioning over thousands of years, and nothing more. The following is an eloquent quote by Francis Beckwith on the reality of objective morals:
    “to deny the existence of universally objective moral distinctions, one must admit that Mother Teresa was no more or less moral than Adolf Hitler, that torturing three-year-olds for fun is neither good nor evil, that giving 10 percent of one’s financial surplus is neither praiseworthy nor condemnable, that raping a woman is neither right nor wrong, and that providing food and shelter for one’s spouse and children is neither a good thing nor a bad thing”[7]
    Being Untrue to your Worldview
    However, many atheists still desire to affirm that these moral values are objective despite their lack of belief in a God. It is certainly a curious position to take from an atheistic worldview. Nearly all of the atheists that I know are people I’d consider to be upright and moral people. However, they don’t acknowledge their morals to be founded in a transcendent source. I once had a discussion on the issue of morality with one of my atheist friends. Needless to say, she was repulsed that I would ever suggest that morals were founded in God rather than in nature. She took offense that I would offer such a proposition because she thought I was attacking her moral integrity. She thought that since she didn’t believe God, I was somehow suggesting she wasn’t a moral person. Needless to say, that wasn’t the point I was attempting to get across.  
    Please understand that atheists are fully capable of being moral. This is a common misunderstanding among atheists when speaking on this topic. Many atheists feel that theists are making the assertion that people who don’t believe in God are not capable of being morally good people. That is completely false. It is certainly possible to be a morally good person without the belief in God. The distinctions between being morally good and knowing how objective morals are grounded are two completely different subjects. Simply put, the faith that there is a God isn’t a requirement for our objective morality, God is[8].
    The Euthyphro Dilemma
    There is a popular objection that many atheists use called the Euthyphro dilemma. The Euthyphro dilemma was developed as a character in one of Plato’s dialogues. The objection to the moral argument is as follows:
    “Either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good”1
    The first half of the dilemma states that, “something is good because God wills it”. That means that God could have willed anything to be good. God could have potentially willed rape, murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… to be good. If those horrible actions were to be willed by God as good, then we would have the moral duty to perform those things to one another. What is good becomes arbitrary under this option. Therefore, the first half of this dilemma clearly seems to be an implausible assertion because the possibility of murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… being good simply because God wills it undermines the fact that some moral values are necessary in this world 1.
    The second half states that, “God wills something because it is good”. That means that whatever is good is completely independent of God and would completely undercut the first premise of the moral argument (If God does not exist, objectivemoral values and duties do not exist). If we contend that the first premise of the moral argument is true, we see that objective moral values are dependent upon God for their moral grounding. Therefore, God does not will something because it is good 1.
    An attentive observer of this dilemma will notice that this dilemma is not exhaustive of all the options for the foundation of morals. Essentially, Plato didn’t include every option for why morals are good or bad from a theistic point of view. This third option not included in the Euthyphro dilemma is as follows:
    “God wills something because He is good”6
    This alternative means that God’s own nature is the standard by which goodness is measured and the commands placed upon us are reflective of His nature. Our duties are dependent upon the commands issued to us by God, which are reflective of His nature6
    By no means is the Euthyphro dilemma the authoritative and empirical method for identifying how morals can be identified as good in a theistic worldview. In fact, we are presented with an insufficient amount of choices under the Euthyphro dilemma. The reality is the moral status of an action is determined by the nature of God and any moral action is determined by God’s will6.
    Atheistic Moral Platonism
    This is a rather confusing objection to the moral argument however it is often posed. Plato also proposed that moral good exists on its own independently of God. When Christian thinkers evaluated this idea, they identified that the moral good Plato was referring to was actually God himself. Given this proposal, many atheistic thinkers may say that morally good actions exist without the need for any foundation because moral good is believed to be objectively independent of God6.
    Given the principles that have been laid out thus far regarding the moral argument, we find that it is implausible to infer that objective moral values exist without being founded in a transcendent Being. This view also doesn’t address how objective moral duties can result from it. This view does imply that good moral qualities exist independently of God however under this view, what objective obligation do I have to perform any of these good moral duties? 6
    Under this very same worldview of moral Platonism, morally bad actions like hate, rape, murder, lying, etc… identically exist just as the morally good actions do. Without the ontological foundation supporting moral Platonism that addresses moral duties, the moral good and bad are meaningless because there is no moral obligation to be good or bad6.
    Lastly, to be a committed moral Platonist, you would be committed to believing that biological evolution developed in a manner that would separate the moral realm from the realm of creatures. As a result, these creatures would then need to be capable of comprehending the objectivity of morals. Given that morals are objective under this view, creatures would have to identify with this moral realm that is completely distinct from them and identify with the objectivity of its morals. On the whole, it appears drastically more plausible that the wholly independent natural and moral realms are under the authority of God rather than interpreting the presence of objective morals as a coincidental biological compatibility6.
    Conclusion
    As I touched on in the introduction, while the secular media freely scrutinizes Christians for remaining true to their worldview, they freely violate theirs by saying that what Christians represent is morally wrong. They can’t make that type of conclusion if there is no objective right and wrong. Gaining insight into the moral argument can give you an understanding of the fallacies that are being made when you hear secular individuals speak of objective morality while disaffirming God’s existence.
    Many reasons have been laid out for the understanding of objective moral values and duties, the reasons for their objectivity, and the analysis of the most common objections to the moral argument. The moral argument is one of the most valuable arguments for any Christian apologist. The reason why is because people can relate to the reality of objective moral values and duties in their hearts.
    People want to know that objective moral values exist because it brings them peace of mind knowing that there will ultimately be justice done to those who have committed wrongdoing and for those who have acted righteously. Why else would people be so distraught when they see unspeakable acts like 9/11, the Holocaust, and the Aurora, CO movie theater shooting? The reason why is because we have an innate belief that these actions are objectively wrong. If we felt that all actions are morally neutral, we couldn’t objectively differentiate between an act of love and an act of hate.
    This moral argument is an important argument to understand. We are made in the image of God[9] and the nature of God is the reflection of the moral good. If we are made in the image of God, it makes perfect sense why we have an innate grasp on objective morality and strive to affirm it despite whether we believe in God or not. Humanity does affirm these values naturally without being incentivized. While we desire to affirm these objective morals that we experience, we must address and investigate which worldview makes the most sense of these objective moral values and duties. To me, it is clear that without God, we cannot claim the existence of objective moral values and duties as true while claiming to have been led by the evidence to the most plausible conclusion.

    [1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books) Chapter 4
    [2]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
    [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] 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)
    [5] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-89.
    [6] Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Philosophy of Biology, ed. Michael Ruse (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 316
    [7] Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl, Relativism(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
    [8] William Lane Craig, One Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 6
    [9] Genesis 1:27
  • Misusing “Good”

    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

  • The Moral Argument

    The Moral Argument

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

    The video above is of Dr. William Lane Craig describing the moral argument for the existence of God.  The moral argument is a very powerful argument as nearly everyone can relate with it.  At first glance a skeptic would likely be hesitant to agree because of the obvious theistic implications associated with it.  However, would an atheist stick to their worldview after seriously pondering the premises of this argument?  Let’s take a closer look at what those implications are after reviewing the moral argument itself:

    1)     If God does not exist, objectivemoral values and duties do not exist
    2)     Objective moral values and duties do exist
    3)     Therefore, God exists

    So, the first premise states that if God does not exist, there are not objective moral values.  Before we progress, I’d like to define objective as “existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions”.  Now, let’s dissect that premise.  For the argument to be valid, God would be the authority on morality if He existed.  If He didn’t exist, all observable signs of morality would be pure illusory.  That’s to say that these signs of morality would purely be a byproduct of socio-cultural evolution and nothing would be objectively right or wrong.  Essentially, by natural selection, our species has developed behavioral patterns that are beneficial to the propagation of our human species.

    However, do we witness the lack of objectivity in the moral sense?  Do we consider the holocaust in Nazi Germany objectively wrong?  How about the raping of a little girl?  Or, when the terrorists crashed commercial jets into the Twins Towers on 9/11 and killed thousands of people?  If someone were to deny the first premise, that person would then be committed to affirming that these actions are not objectively wrong.  These people committing these atrocities are not morally guilty of anything objectivelyevil under an atheist worldview because there are no objective moral foundations.  If God does not exist, these actions would simply be categorized as behaving outside of what would be considered culturally acceptable. 

     However, many atheists confirm that there are objectivemoral foundations in this world but really can’t explain why outside of personally feeling there is a “right” and “wrong”.  One of the most prominent atheist apologists Richard Dawkins writes in his book “The God Delusion”, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”.  If Richard Dawkins can admit that if we are truly purposeless, it would follow logically that good and evil lack an objective foundation.  It is difficult to think that the holocaust, rape, or 9/11 as NOT being objectively evil, but that is what the atheist is faced with if they were committed to their worldview.  Many atheist philosophers have come to this same conclusion after realizing the theistic implications of morals being objective.

     That is NOT to say that atheists are incapable of being moral.  I have atheist friends and family members who are incredibly moral people.  This is a difficult topic because a majority of people affirm objective morals but don’t realize the theistic implication of doing so.  It is important to understand that we observe objective morality on a daily basis, and not as a byproduct of socio-cultural conditioning, but through God.  We are made in His image and that is why when good or bad things happen, we are able to objectively define them as such.