“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”. – Psalm 14-:1
A majority of Americans believe the main tenents of Christianity to be true, not merely myth or one of many belief systems. Unfortunately, there has been a concentrated effort to promote an evolution-based secular humanism as established state ‘religion.’ According to the religion of secular humanism, naturalism and skepticism are the gospel; and moral relativism represents a pliable replacement to the Ten Commandments.
I say let them have their own churches and immediately cease implementing their godless worldview as the law of the land. Historically, Judeo-Christian values and principles were acknowledged and respected as THE essential component of a well-ordered civil society. As we have removed this vital component, our republic continues to fragment.
The realities of our current day came to mind as I read Ravi Zacharias’ excellent Christian apologetic Has Christianity Failed You? I’d like to take a moment to focus on an excerpt from the book that I feel brilliantly summarizes the absurdity of the purely naturalistic worldview espoused by Atheists.
On pages 77-78 of Chapter 3, titled “Points of Tension”, Zacharias eloquently outlines the implausibility of the Atheist’s case against God. Only willful ignorance against knowable, experiential realities can account for the rigid adherence to such a narrow and irrational worldview.
First Ravi asserts:
…what is left to believe if we dispense with God and the miracle of life itself? We argue for the existence of things and continue to believe they exist, even though mathematically impossible. We default to the belief that ultimate cause is something physical, even though no physical entity, however sanctioned, explains its own existence.
Ravi is one hundred percent correct, of course. How can we have a creation without a creator? How can we have evolution without an origin? When relying solely on naturalistic methods and understandings, we are confined to certain explanatory limits. The most daunting barrier to a purely naturalistic worldview is the fact that nothing exists in the physical realm without being organically produced somehow. The atheist’s house of cards falls at it’s very foundation. In the case of naturalistic theories, the origin (as well as many other crucial aspects of their natural/existential explanations) can never be accounted for, thus making the exclusion of the unnatural, or supernatural, irrational. Why embrace mathematical impossibilities and disregard evidence that runs contrary to naturalism? Such intellectual dishonesty is highly deceptive and irresponsible.
Next, Ravi explains:
We hunger for love and meaning, even though we believe they are constructs of the mind and of culture and conditioning. We believe that only the empirical world is true, yet we posit this belief in the metaphysical terms. We believe that matter has produced mind but that the mind transcends matter. We believe that everything that comes into being must have a cause, yet we believe the universe is causeless. We assume intelligence behind intelligibility – except for the universe. We believe in humanity’s ability to totally transcend the mind and are forced to concede that we are subject to an unbreakable determinism.” We deny the absoluteness of good and evil, yet we fill our prisons with relativists who have believed this-often highly educated and successful citizens.
Here again, Ravi exposes a fatal flaw of the atheists’ narrowly naturalistic view of humanity and it’s surroundings. For the atheist, man’s propensity to seek ‘love’ and ‘fulfillment’ are arbitrarily acquired emotional constructs. The atheist must advocate something along these lines: that man’s natural desire for comfort, companionship, and self-worth are mere instincts that have evolved as man has undergone a certain level of civilization and sophistication through the centuries. But this flies in the face of our ability to think and theorize in the first place. Man’s capacity to reason is often ignored or excluded from the realm of objective inquiry. As a result, some of the most essential questions of all fall prey to a biased and ideological type of circular reasoning.
The naturalist relies on the ‘god of nature’ to produce a perfect blending of elements, materials, and conditions required to generate and sustain life over time. While morality and individual rights are altered, extended, and rewritten based on the whims and demands of these ‘material beings.’ The most ironic part of the atheistic perspective is ‘humanity’ putting ‘faith’ in his own unexplained, relativistic capacity to establish meaningful societal constructs in a world that is ultimately meaningless. Inconceivably, this ‘humanity’ is believed to be a ‘by-product’ of the blind evolution and progression of mindless organisms.
Where is our self-worth in all this? Considering our whole existence is essentially deemed an accident.
Ravi concludes his analysis of the inconsistent naturalist by proposing an important question to the reader. Which belief system endorses a ‘god of the gaps’ mentality as a central part of their belief system and overall worldview? Objective seekers need to thoughtfully consider this question and consider the intellectual (and more importantly, the existential) ramifications of their choice.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” – Psalm 19:1
Photo credit: reuvenim (Creative Commons)