More Than Matter


Are you more valuable than the chair on which you sit or the desk at which you work?  If you are an atheist, how do you come to a conclusion?

Some people who make the claim that God does not exist or that they aren’t convinced that God exists do not understand that materialism is their default position.  Materialism, being the claim that all that exists is material (matter), is a big problem for the atheist because, if no God exists, all material things, in the objective sense, can only be equal to all other material things.  There lacks an objective way to determine value.  So, ultimately, you could not reason that you are more valuable than furniture.

I think they (materialists) think that by escaping the dominion of a Good Good Father, they may continue on their own merry way without repercussion.  When by denying God in favor of materialism, they have actually injected themselves into a universe without meaning, objective mortality, and laws of logic, since these things are all immaterial.  They also find themselves without the faculties to discover truth.

Of course, nobody who claims the non-existence of God acts like the default position of materialism is true.  They actually behave more consistently with those who believe in God.  They work and learn and create in ways that exhibit meaningful lives.  They follow an objectively moral path that condemns violence against the helpless and condemns lying and cheating.  And they champion their intellect as a way to solve problems and, ironically, as a way to reason that the very God that gave them the ability to do so does not exist.

Speaking of intellect, why would you trust anything that you know if your intelligence is not the product of greater intelligence, a Great Mind?  Why believe anything you think is true?  Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, John Lennox explains:

“There are not many options — essentially, just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”

So when materialists disagree with this article, they have already defeated themselves because their own worldview turns the very action of reasoning into a mere series of predetermined physical causes that can only result in a conclusion based on the collision of material in one’s brain, instead of a process by which one can determine truth, wherever the evidence may lead, based on observation and logic.  How do you find truth on a world where predetermined bodily physics determines what we think, how we feel, and how we act?  Answer is, you don’t.

The fact is that we defeat materialistic claims every moment of our lives.  To illustrate, facebook friend Paul Ross poetically writes:

“I transcend matter everytime I have a thought, because matter (Impersonal mindless purposeless undirected processes) are not conscious. Everytime I make a decision, because matter has no will.

Everytime I move in faith, because matter has no beliefs. Everytime I care, because matter could not care less.

 Everytime I reason, because matter is devoid of reasoning.  Everytime I intend something, because matter has no intentions.

Everytime I purpose something, because matter has no purpose, and everytime I pray, because matter has no requests.”

Again, the doctrine of Materialism maintains that you are only a product of the material of which you are composed.  Nothing more.  I say doctrine because this is a system of belief just like any of religion.  The difference here is that those of theism actually describe reality completely.

Accepting materialism as reality puts you in conflict with common sense as well as God. He says you are more.  You are valuable.  You are a moral creation.  You are a conscious being.  Whether theist or atheist, you already understand this to be true.  How do I know this?  Because Romans 1: 19-20 proclaims it.  But also because you profess this every day with the way you live your life.

God Bless.


Atheists Don’t Exist

atheists dont exist2

Atheists do not give themselves enough credit for achieving such a high level of certainty while announcing definitively that God does not exist.  One can only assume that such a revelation could only be put forth if the entire universe had been painstakingly searched for the presence of a deity.  That the vastness of time and space had been conquered.  And knowledge of every dimension had been accrued and analyzed.

Of course, the atheist hasn’t really accomplished any of this.  Nor has he considered the overwhelming amount of evidence provided by science, history, philosophy, and logic.  Much of the time, they avoid accepting the burden of proof by claiming that they simply lack a belief in a God and positing that it’s the theist’s job to change their (the atheist’s) mind.  Sadly, debating from a position of weakness.

But where does this certainty come from?  Isn’t “God doesn’t exist” an incredibly bold claim, considering how easily the notion can be debunked?  From his book, The Answer to the Atheist Handbook, Romanian minister Richard Wurmbrand, who was imprisoned for his Christian beliefs by communists in 1948, discusses the folly of such atheist assertions:

“Atheists assert that there is no God.  How can they be sure?  The book you are reading was conceived in prison.  The guards regularly searched our cells for forbidden objects . . . They did not find them.  We waited until they had left.  Then we took them out of their hiding places.  You search a cell for an object and you do not find it.  But is it right to maintain that it is not there?  Who has searched the infinite universe to ascertain that there is no God?”

But what if it could be true? What if an atheist could attain this kind of knowledge?  Then we have a different problem.  For argument’s sake, he has somehow traversed the far reaches of the universe, in search of a deity.  Having achieved knowledge of all time and space.  And searched every dimension, momentously finding it lacking a Good Good Father.  Wouldn’t that person adorned with special attributes and abilities such as these, in fact, be God?

Clearly, a material being does not exist that could accomplish what atheists claim because they are not equipped for the job.  This being would have to be eternal and all powerful so as not to be constrained by time and distance.  He would need to be immaterial and limitless in order to constantly observe all of reality simultaneously in the event that, like Wurmbrand’s guards, the deity might reappear when the atheist left any particular corner of the universe.

So one needs the characteristics of God to know definitively that God does not exist.  Who has the characteristics of God?  Answer:   only God.  Crunch!  The atheist’s premise is promptly crushed under it’s own weight.

No, the intellectually honest atheist cannot be an atheist at all.  The best defense he can muster would be to claim that the evidence of God is unconvincing or the God’s existence is unknowable.  Taking the person from atheism to agnosticism.  The philosopher Alvin Plantinga refers to this when he said:

“. . . lack of evidence [for God], if  indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism.  No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there is an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars.  The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.  In the same way, the failure of theistic arguments, if they indeed fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism.  Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.”

The honest agnostic cannot confirm or, more importantly, deny the existence of a Good Good Father.

God bless.



Inconsistent Atheism


Naturalistic Atheism describes a universe ruled only by the push and pull of blind natural forces upon matter.  Nothing else exists apart from the physical world.  Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins provided a popular illustration of this worldview in his 1996 book, River Out Of Eden:

“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 the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good.  Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.  DNA neither knows nor cares.  DNA just is.  And we dance to its music.”

Is this consistent with the way anyone actually lives?  Do atheists actually see the universe this way?  Can society accept the ramifications of this worldview?    The answer to all three questions is a resounding no.  One only has to review the claims made above and apply them to their own life to refute them.  Described above is a rather cold world, void of meaning, justice, and any sense of good or evil.  An existence, I suspect, that most would agree is not their experience of reality.

The immediate problem here is that Dawkins tells us life is without meaning because the universe is controlled by blind physical forces and genetic replication.  He’s using science in an attempt to convince us that something immaterial does not exist.  Does anyone else see a problem?  Of course, science can only report on things that can be tested.  So is it any wonder that Dr. Dawkins cannot discover meaning through the lens of his microscope? Or record it’s weight?  Or identify its origin?  The use of observational science to respond to a philosophical problem is inappropriate since these kind of questions simply cannot be answered by science.  So, instead, scientists, like Dawkins, must discount the existence of meaning, and a meaning-giver, right from the start.

Here’s what I mean by meaning.  According to James Anderson’s inciteful article from called, “Can Life Have Meaning Without God?”, meaning involves the careful consideration of at least three concepts:  purpose, significance, and value.  Folks who may be afraid to sound boastful need not worry that proclaiming meaning for their life is as conceited as it sounds. After all,  after some personal introspection, don’t you think that most people see their lives as having a fundamental goal (purpose), a contribution to the grand scheme of things (significance), and a betterment of the world (value).  According to Dr. Dawkins, atheists don’t believe this, or do they?  One only has to look at Dawkins’ own biography to see that he seems to believe that his life has meaning.  From his wikipedia page:

“He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen’s supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year.”

“In his scientific works, Dawkins is best known for his popularisation of the gene as the principal unit of selection in evolution; this view is most clearly set out in his books:[36]

The Selfish Gene (1976), in which he notes that “all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities”.

“Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and a supporter of various atheist, secular, and humanistic organisations. He is a patron of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement.”

Wouldn’t studying zoology at Oxford, being tutored by a Nobel Prize winner, and earning Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees denote a life of purpose?  What if you were a writer of  successful scientific books aiming to accurately describe the universe?  Wouldn’t you say that pursuit is significant?  And why else would he support atheist, secular and humanistic organizations if he did not think his doing so would be of value?  No, Richard Dawkins says that life is without meaning, but lives in a manner that says quite the opposite.

You might say, “But wait.  Maybe the good doctor meant that meaning is not granted from outside one’s self.  Couldn’t he simply choose to commit his life to the noble pursuits of science and education thereby giving purpose, significance, and value to his own life?”

In response, that view sounds reasonable until you realize that if it were true then any one person’s self-created meaning would be equal to all other self-created meanings of the world.  In other words, Hitler’s meaning would be just as purposeful, significant, and valuable as Ghandi’s.  From Anderson’s article, “The only way we could non-arbitrarily discriminate between all these subjectively meaningful lives—to deem one better or more worthy than another—is by smuggling some objective values through the back door. Sooner or later the meaning-from-within camp has to pilfer from the meaning-from-outside camp.”

Furthermore, do you have the ability to bestow meaning onto your own life?  Can you give your own life meaning if your life lacks meaning from the beginning?  Anderson asks, “How can meaningful choices arise out of a meaningless life?”  The truth is that we lack the authority to give our own lives meaning due to our limited view of the big picture.  Wouldn’t any self-created meaning be based solely on our own personal whims?

Moreover, declaring that your life or anyone else’s life lacks meaning denies the obvious effect that one life may have on others.  In other words, even if German industrialist hero Oskar Schindler would have testified that his life was without meaning, the 1,200 Jewish laborers that he saved during the Holocaust, when asked, would certainly disagree.  Schindler’s actions during that horrible time in history meant the survival of generations of Jews.  An incredibly meaningful life indeed.

Discussion of the Holocaust can easily lead us to the next troubling aspect of Dawkins’s worldview:  justice and good or evil.  Again, we can call on another quote.  This one is a particularly over-the-top rant from the Dawkins’s bestseller on atheism, The God Delusion:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant    character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

If you compare the quote above from The God Delusion and the first quote from River Out Of Eden, you’ll notice the mention of justice in both instances.  More specifically, he says there isn’t “any justice” and that here the OT God is “unjust”.  How can this be?  Which quote is true, if either?  See, by painting God as unjust, he presupposes the existence of something just, since injustice is a deficiency of justice.  Dr. Frank Turek explains this compellingly about evil in his terrific book, “Stealing From God”:

“Evil is like rust in a car; If you take all the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing. . . In other words, evil only makes sense against the backdrop of good.  That’s why we often describe evil as negations of good things.  We say someone is immoral, unjust, unfair, dishonest, etc.”

So to paraphrase Dawkins’s delusional quote:  God is not good.  This again takes an objective moral stand that is denied credibility in his first quote where he declares there is “no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good.”  Dawkins cannot resist because he has to know at some level that objective moral truths and values exist.  Meaning that there is truth beyond the push and pull of natural forces.  He cannot sustain his own view that the world is ruled only by moral opinion.

Undoubtedly, we would not recognize a society that lived out this worldview consistently.  This view allows the existence of a Holocaust that is not objectively wrong or evil.  The nazis could never be blamed for the horrors inflicted upon the Jewish people, since they were simply “dancing” to the music of their DNA.  This atrocity, that is, if atrocities could exist here, wouldn’t be their fault.  Calling acts such as these war crimes could only be considered, at worst, a mere difference of opinion.  Without the grounding of something or someone objectively good, each action in the universe would have equal value, none worse than another.

In his book, mentioned above, Dr. Frank Turek discusses a great example as to how far a consistent atheist would have to go to maintain his worldview, which occurred during a debate between Turek and David Silverman, president of American Atheists.  Dr. Turek pressed his opponent that without the existence of God, there is no objective morality (meaning right or wrong are not based on opinion).  Eventually, Silverman, in his pursuit of consistency, had to admit that there was no way to hold the nazis accountable for what they did.  The immoral nature of the Holocaust cannot be affirmed by the atheist worldview.  The kicker here is that Silverman is himself a Jew!  A world of consistent atheism is a world of complete madness.

Someone may say, “Wait, wait.  People have done horrible things in the name of Christ, haven’t they?  Are Christians any better?  What about their inconsistencies?”

Of course, Christians have fallen short.  You can look for examples throughout history or even the facebook pages of some believers.  But you should not judge a philosophy by its misuse.  And you are right, there are inconsistencies, but we have a name for those inconsistencies.  We call it sin.  And unlike atheism, Christianity has a solution for this problem:  The life-saving blood of Jesus Christ.

We have a Lord who stepped down from his throne in heaven and took our punishment because He loves us that much.  The reality of Him reveals lives of purpose, significance, and value and a universe where the shadows (injustice and evil), as Turek puts it, prove the sunshine (objective good).  Atheism only has these created, blind natural forces, physics against molecules, that fail miserably to describe reality as society observes it.  

God Bless.