What is more rational: to accept the truth claims of the "new atheists," or of Christian apologists? The answer rests with the logical proposition
that it
is more rational to believe something that is true than to believe something
that is false.
Atheist claims to
the contrary, the question whether God exists or not[1],
has not yet been answered using scientific methods, in spite of some
interesting attempts to do so.[2]
One way to settle this issue is to test truth
claims of the atheistic worldview and to weigh the logical conclusions derived
from that system of thought. Two logical
tests we can apply to the atheist worldview are the "Problem of Evil"
and the "Design Argument."
First, in examining the pervasiveness and persistence of
evil, we note that "...while atheists deny God's existence, they affirm
the reality of evil. They think the
existence of evil is one of the primary evidences that there is no God."[3]
Yet the very idea of evil presents a self-defeating
obstacle for atheists. Where does the
idea of evil originate if the universe is only material? Nietzsche, an icon of the atheistic movement,
explained that "...morality is merely an interpretation of certain
phenomena ─ more precisely, a misinterpretation.... Moral judgments are...never to be taken
literally: so understood, they always contain mere absurdity." [4]
Atheists must accept moral relativism because
they deny an absolute moral Lawgiver.
"If relativism is true, the objection against God based on evil
vanishes. There is no true evil to
discuss, only differing opinions about what is pleasant or unpleasant, desired
or not desired."[5] Those who sincerely reject absolute standards
of right and wrong are "a homicide detective's worst nightmare. The quintessential relativist is a sociopath,
one with no conscience."[6] The "problem of evil" argument
actually supports the existence of God because whenever atheists complain about
evil, they are making an appeal to an absolute standard, which must come from a
transcendent Lawgiver.
Atheists claim materialistic explanations for mysteries
of life and the universe are rationally superior to Theistic explanations. Yet they insist no evidence exists pointing
to supernatural explanations. This is
akin to losing your keys in the driveway, but because it is raining outside,
you only look for your keys in the garage.
Carl Sagan of Cosmos fame opined that scientists must always 'go where
the evidence leads them.' "We wish
to pursue the truth no matter where it leads.
But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both."[7] Yet when atheists seriously examine the
evidence for design and a Creator, they face a dilemma between the facts and
their worldview.
World famous atheist philosopher Antony Flew, after
arguing five decades in defense of atheism, became convinced God must
exist. "In his fascinating 2007
book There is a God, Flew explains
his reasons for recanting atheism and affirming the reality of God...He
highlights three main considerations: the laws of nature, the existence of the
cosmos, and the presence of life."[8]
On the regularity and dependability of
nature, "...renowned physicist Paul Davies has remarked that "even
the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that...there is a
rational basis to physical existence manifested as a law like order in
nature....So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially
theological worldview."[9] To be faithful to the scientific method puts
atheists in an untenable position: they
must deny obvious conclusions from their own data.
Evidence is mounting that the universe was designed and
created. "The fine tuning argument
for God is strong and getting stronger, as the astonishingly precise balance of
physical constants is continually clarified by science. For many folks, such as Antony Flew, the
inference to God has become irresistible."[10] To the dedicated scientist, the statistically
impossible fine-tuning of the universe demands an explanation. "...It is valid science to look for
intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeologists do it all the time. When they find pottery or arrowheads, they
rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it."[11]
However, this line of inquiry is fiercely resisted, and
atheists cannot give a rational explanation why the evidence should not be
pursued 'where it leads.' As Ben Stein,
producer of the documentary Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed explained, "We are losing our freedom in one of
the most important sectors of society: science. I have always assumed that scientists were
free to ask any question, to pursue any line of inquiry, without fear of
reprisal. But recently I've been alarmed
to discover that this is not the case.
Academic freedom and scientific research has been stifled due to
ideological worldviews, not where the evidence leads..."[12] "If the evidence falls so clearly on the
side of theism, then how does one explain the phenomenon of atheism?"[13] "The atheist's problem is rebellion
against the plain truth of God, as clearly revealed in nature...This is not a
loss of intelligence so much as a selective intellectual obtuseness or
imperviousness to truths related to God, ethics, and human nature." [14]
"Alvin Plantinga has developed an ingenious
argument showing why belief in naturalism can never be reasonable."[15] If Darwinian evolution were true, no feature
of natural selection requires our species to believe actual truth, so long as
we survived to continue the gene pool. In
fact, if a false belief helped an organism to survive, then the practicality of
that belief does not ensure its truth.[16] "Nor does the practicality of an entire
cognitive system guarantee that it is aimed at forming true beliefs. This means that...if naturalism is true, we
have no reason to believe it is true. If
ever there was a self-defeating worldview, this is it."[17]
Whether atheism is true or not, it is not logically
self-consistent. First, the atheist must
reject that we can know intellectual absolutes, since we are only products of
blind operations of chance, and our minds are not provably reliable. Second, the atheist must restrict the search
for truth only to places where a Creator may not be proven to exist. Based on the irrational behavior and logical contortions
atheists must use to defend their worldview, it appears belief in God is the
more rational proposition because it is more likely to be true.
For more articles related to Christian Apologetics, see:
[1]
Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian
Evidences, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), p. 284 [Authors define the Principle of the Excluded Middle, where there is nothing between
being and non-being, and obeying the Law of Non-contradiction, God cannot both
"be" and "not be" at the same time and in the same sense.]
[2]
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984
[3]Geisler
and Brooks, p. 33
[4]
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York:
Penguin, 1982), p. 501
[5]
Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl, Relativism:
Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998) p. 63
[6]
Beckwith and Koukl, p. 31 [the authors explain
[7]
Cosmos, episode 1, Carl Sagan,
Producer (Los Angeles, CA: Cosmos Studios, 1980)
[8]
James S. Spiegel, "The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to
Unbelief," (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), p. 42
[9]
Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize
Address," First Things 55
(August/September 1995), p. 32
[10]
James S. Spiegel, "The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to
Unbelief," (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010), p. 47
[11]
Geisler and Brooks, p. 236
[14]
Spiegel, p. 56
[15]
Spiegel, p. 58
[16]
Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper
Function, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), chapter 12
[17]
Spiegel, p. 59
