A Christian Analysis Of Atheism, Part 2
Try as the atheist might to manipulate objective data to fit their hypothesis with some evolutionists going so far as to invoke the law in order to suppress perspectives conflicting with their origins account, the assumptions of atheism fail to square with the facts of nature and with the revelation of nature’s God. At one time earlier in the modern era, it was quite common for the atheist to portray himself as the true friend and ally of science. However, as impartial observational science has probed deeper onto the macroscopic realm of cosmic space as well as the microscopic world of the subatomic particle, this relationship once prided by the atheist turned out not to be as solid as originally thought.
The scientific establishment and the philosophical elites once derided the so-called “theistic proofs” for the existence of God as the outdated wisdom of a less-enlightened era. It turns out, however, that these time-honored arguments may be as relevant as the latest academic journals.
The cosmological argument, perhaps the best known, states that all finite realities and structures have a cause. Therefore, ultimately there must be an uncaused cause complete in itself in order to get the proverbial billiard ball rolling; this the theist declared to be God.
Naturalistic cosmologists steeped in atheism such as Carl Sagan once tried to dance around the issue by saying that the cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be. But it seems that the laws of physics don’t exactly have a record of contributing to their local PBS station.
The Laws of Thermodynamics declare that, left to themselves, systems degrade to the maximum level of entropy; or in laymen’s terms, things wear out. Employing this principle, one is forced to conclude that, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.
It has been noted that the theistic proofs do not necessarily reveal the God of Judeo-Christian adoration but at best point the seeker in His direction. Likewise, the findings of science point the individual in the direction of a yet more definitive source of knowledge standing in opposition to the claims of atheism.
Scripture strikes the decisive blow against those daring to spit cognitively in the face of God. Psalms 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”
Until the scientist can replicate life on his own from nothing whatsoever, that verse settles the issue of whether the universe sings the praises of an omnipotent Creator or testifies to the cruel fact of an arbitrary universe devoid of plan or purpose. Some will no doubt continue to insist upon their own path of stubbornness despite what the very molecules they are breathing might be telling them.
Of those failing to be persuaded by the evidence, Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Webster’s defines fool as “a person devoid of reason or intelligence.” Either the educated person assents to the reality of God or his so-called “education” is not worth the value of the parchment the big-shot degree is printed upon.
If the skeptic still refuses to abandon atheism in light of the objective evidence, one is left with no alternative but to drag out the rotten fruits produced by this faulty system in terms of ruined lived and fallen nations. For instead of establishing a set of moral values resting upon a foundation apart from divine revelation as originally postulated by the adherents of early atheistic modernism, one ends up with an ethical system based upon the absolutist relativism of postmodernism where almost anything goes except daring to set forth some kind of behavioral standard binding upon all.
According to Chuck Colson in Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages, in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God, there is no legitimate ground in which one can exclude the arguments and proposals of Nazis, serial killers, and pedophiles (47). From today’s headlines, the nation is coming to realize in the most brutal of ways that these ideas do not confine themselves to academic journals or newspaper opinion pages. And in the case of school shootings such as Columbine High, this radical antipathy towards God can in fact turn deadly.
If the lawlessness of atheism can wreak havoc upon individual lives, just imagine its affects magnified across entire societies. The major dictatorships of the twentieth century testify to this blood-soaked historical truth. Founded upon assorted atheistic ideologies, these totalitarian regimes promised secular heavens on earth but instead dragged their nations down to the very borders of hell.
Unfettered by eternal external standards, those holding the reins of power in such societies had nothing to hamper the implementation of their most extreme policy whims, not even the value of innocent human lives. For example, Mao Zedong of the People’s Republic of China slaughtered five million of his own countrymen in pursuit of his Cultural Revolution and related kinds of Communist nonsense.
While the United States has not yet eliminated that many (at least among those fortunate enough to escape the womb alive), the Orwellian day is here when good will be called evil and evil called good. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett aptly noted on an appearance on “Meet The Press” that, had the Columbine killers greeted one another with “Hail the King of Kings” rather than their trademark “Heil Hitler”, school officials would have intervened since an affirmation of theism — especially of a Christian variety — is the one thing an atheistic educational system cannot tolerate. School officials did not intervene and the rest is history, with organized unbelief claiming yet a few more in its unrelenting war upon God and humanity.
As public rhetoricians are fond of pointing out, mankind stands at a crossroads. The choice, however, goes to a level deeper than the choice between Democrats and Republicans that Americans must make on election day.
The decision to be made transcends the limited purposes of institutionalized politics to embrace fundamental issues of worldview and belief. The nature of this conflict can be discovered in a comparison and contrast between atheism and Christianity.
From the fundamental postulate regarding the nonexistence of God, atheism attempts to formulate a comprehensive framework upon which to hang its understanding of mankind and the universe. Without God to account for the cosmos in which they find themselves, atheists argue that the complexity of nature arose through a process of gradual evolution governed by the rules of chance.
This process of evolution, to the atheist, serves as the dynamic against which man strives to find and determine his role upon the earth. As such, everything is thus in a state of flux and nothing is fixed as man struggles to figure things out against the backdrop of a cold and purposeless void.
Not even fundamental issues such as individual rights, personal ethics, or social institutions can afford to remain fixed and stagnant. And if innocent human lives are ruined or destroyed, that may seem regrettable at this moment along the long evolutionary chain, but mankind will ultimately get things worked out and the piles of corpses littering history’s ditches will not seem so nauseous upon further enlightenment.
Of these ideas, Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Any history book objective enough to attest to the horrors of the twentieth century testifies to this startling truth.
Standing in contrast to the lonely pointlessness of atheism is Judeo-Christian theism recognizing God as the fundamental proposition of the universe. Like atheism, the Judeo-Christian tradition builds its system around its conceptual foundation as well. But since its basis is drastically different from that of atheism, the conclusions drawn by Christianity are considerably different.
Christianity holds that, since the universe was created from nothing through the Word of God, all creation is dependent upon Him at all times. Colossians 1:17 says, “…by him all things consist.”
Since man is God’s creation, it is therefore God’s right to determine the standards by which man shall conduct his own affairs. And since God loves His creation, it follows that His standards are for the benefit of His children. These standards are communicated to mankind in a number of ways.
One such way is through individual conscience. Romans 2:14 says, “For when Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” While God has written the Law across the heart of man, man has suppressed this truth through sin.
God has overcome this development by making Himself known in the person of His Son Jesus Christ and through the direct propositional revelation of His Word and the Holy Bible of which II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” It is within this framework of Law and Grace that the balance between the individual and society is found as this system and the objective standards established by it protect the individual since it recognizes the worth and fallen character of each. That is why Psalms 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”
Atheism remains one of the most serious intellectual challenges faced by the contemporary Christian. Despite its obvious scientific and sociological shortcomings, the powerful adherents of this system positioned in influential sectors of society such as government and academia have enshrined this worldview as the official dogma of civilization nearly as stifling as anything allegedly imposed by the medieval Catholic Church.
Yet despite considerable efforts to enforce this system as an orthodoxy that goes so far as to jail students daring to pray around a flagpole, like its sister system in the former Soviet Union, Western atheism is a decaying ideology. It is amid this decay often resulting in social and individual ruin that the Christian is able to proclaim the superiority of the theistic alternative and the God of its adoration.
© Dr. Frederick Meekins
Link to this page
More from WesternFront America!
- Cause For Celebration: An Examination Of The Cosmological Argument
- “The Blessing And The Curse Of America”
- America’s Crossing of the Rubicon.
- For The Sake Of Eternity Christians Need To Better Understand The Future
- Fallout from The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Part 2)
WesternFront America Recommends
- A Nation of Conspiracies (The Wall Street Journal)
- A Perfectly Framed Assassination (The Wall Street Journal)
- Greek Prime Minister: Traders are Conspiring Against Us (The Wall Street Journal)
- Pelosi's Pig in a Poke (The Wall Street Journal)
- Assessing the Value of a College Degree (The Wall Street Journal)
![Recommend [HansGruen]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/logo-recommend-me.png){kind=logo}
![Recommend [HansGruen]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/badge/02me.png){kind=icon}
You are as much an atheist towards the existence of the gods who were once worshipped by as many people who today worship Yahweh, as you are atheistic towards the existence of Allah. The intellectually honest position is not that a creator exists until it can be proven otherwise, because the identity of that creator is immediately imbued with the characteristics assigned to it by the religion of the individual enquirer–as you have shown by quoting scripture alongside your personal opinion of individual scientists, as opposed to a rebuttal of their work or their conclusions in the context they were intended to be read.
To separate the question of a creator’s existence from the bias of the particular person or group genuinely interested in an answer, requires that the evidence for and against be measured not so that it confirms an existing subjective belief, but so that it disproves an existing theory which has been objectively ascertained; what Popper denoted as the deductive logic of scientific discovery.
The burden of proof is not upon those who already have a pre-existing belief that a creator exists, to prove that this is so, until they use that conviction to make statements upon reality which have already been fully described independent of unknown factors and by the least assumptions made as to their origin.
In cosmology, if your existing theory is that, for example, the so-called universal constant proves a ‘fine-tuning’ argument, I think you would enjoy reading Nobel Prize winning Physicist Steven Weinberg, on his disproof’s of Hoyle’s fixed constants, which he successfully demonstrated to be, in fact, within a 20% margin of error–and not “constant” at all. Hoyle, incidentally, agreed that the method which Weinberg eventually used was a valid one and agreed that steady-state theory was falsified.
We no-doubt both agree that boil in the bag atheists, who simply call themselves irreligious because they are too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday morning, are not in the same ball-park as Voltaire, Russell or Rand. Nor are blog comment trolls who have read a few chapters of Hitchens and Harris. Yet when you cite this kind of atheist alongside your rather disingenuous view of the “scientific establishment”, you are foisting a deception upon yourself and your readers, that to ignore the weight of evidence which comes down on the side of a creator-less universe, is the Christian thing to do. It isn’t. The Christian thing to do is to acknowledge your pre-existing conclusions and accept that the only explanation for the existence of everything is something beyond our current understanding.
To assert that this will be forever the case, no matter what the evidence shows us, is a logical fallacy. It is effectively saying that because you can’t disprove something responsible for everything does not exist, it must therefore exist. Russell’s teapot. Against this kind of hermetically sealed commitment to failed cognition, there is simply no way to debate the finer points of interest, which are genuinely mysterious and challenging. But to assume that they will forever remain so, because of an emotional attachment to a book of plagiarised Pagan astrology myths, is simply dishonest–no matter how well meaning that dishonesty is held.
This article makes my head hurt, I don’t even want to go through and refute it, I just want to be sick.
My only comment is that while the article itself is well written (from a purely grammatical/ spelling angle) it does not contain much truth.
You quoted the following, “Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages, in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God,” interestingly it was “Christians” that caused the first “Dark Ages.”
Also, you state that every religion leads to the Judeo/ Christian ideal of “God” however, what you are forgetting is the obvious areas within “Christianity” that take from far older religions.
As you have a “PhD.” from some wonderful little Oral Roberts styled university I will not attempt to argue this any further…