Worldview Jenga Towers

Ever played Jenga? Jenga is a game where a tower is constructed of 54 wooden blocks. Players take turns removing blocks, one at a time, until the tower collapses.

Recently, I saw the following comment by an atheist on Facebook:

Creationists are not unwilling to listen to the evidence because they believe themselves to be correct. They are unwilling to listen because they must, at ANY cost, defend their ideologies because they are a Jenga tower of [expletive deleted]. Remove one peg and the whole thing comes down. Try getting anyone to deny something they’ve predicated their entire life on. It has to come from within. As it did for us.

Why do young-earth creationists defend their beliefs? And, why do atheists defend evolution?

It is ironic that this atheist would post such a comment, because creation is much more of a threat to an atheistic worldview than evolution could ever be to a Christian worldview. One’s worldview is the totality of a person’s beliefs. Like a Jenga tower, all worldviews have certain core beliefs that form the base. Without these foundational axioms, the entire worldview collapses. There are millions of Christians who believe God used some sort of evolutionary process to bring about the world as we now know it. Faith in Jesus Christ is not predicated on young earth creation. However, atheism is absolutely dependent on evolution, because any alternative that implies God or any other “higher power” completely contradicts the belief that no such God exists. An evolutionary worldview is the only possibility if one is going to maintain that nothing supernatural exists. To use the Jenga analogy, if any form of creation or intelligent design were true, not only is a peg removed from the Jenga tower of atheism, the entire table the tower was built upon disappears. This is why atheists so vehemently defend evolution and attack any notion of creation.

If faith in Jesus Christ is not predicated on a literal young-earth understanding of the Bible, then why do Biblical creationists so passionately defend a literal understanding of Genesis?

While it is true that one can be a Christian while believing that God used some sort of evolutionary process, to do so is inconsistent, and it undermines the authority of the Bible. Genesis clearly teaches that God created the universe in six normal days, not billions of years. The Gospel message is based on the fact that every person is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that everyone is a sinner because we have inherited a sin nature from our original ancestor, Adam (see Romans 5). If evolution is true, then the Genesis account is false, and if Genesis is false, then there is no original sin, and no need for a Savior. Christians base their belief in Jesus Christ on the fact that the Bible is correct when it talks about Jesus. Yet, if the Bible is wrong when it talks about origins, why would it be correct when it talks about Jesus?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying a person cannot be a saved, born-again Christian without a literal understanding of Genesis. What I am saying is that to do so, the Christian is being irrational. Numerous studies involving people who once called themselves Christians, but no longer do, have shown that belief in evolution is among the top reasons why people who are brought up in Christian homes and Bible-believing churches begin to question the Bible’s accuracy, eventually leading to complete rejection of Christian belief. Evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Atheists and other non-Christians understand this. Biblical young-earth creationists understand this. The only ones who can’t seem to understand this are those who try to cling to both the Bible and evolution.

Is evolution a proven fact, as many claim? Far from it. The scientific method requires experimentation that is observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution, in the sense of all life coming from a common ancestor, cannot be observed – it supposedly happened in the past. It cannot be tested or repeated for the same reason. The fact that we see changes in organisms today does not imply that all life came from a common origin. Common design elements in DNA does not necessarily mean common ancestry; it makes more sense that commonalities in DNA design are due to a common designer. Gaps in the fossil record, carbon-14 in fossils, and the tremendous amount of information in DNA all point to the truth of the Bible’s account and completely contradict evolution. This isn’t to say that evolutionists haven’t come up with all sorts of convoluted rescuing devices to maintain their belief in random, natural processes; however, the actual observable evidence is completely in harmony with the Biblical account, while extremely contradictory to the notion that life came to be as it is today all by itself. I could write volumes explaining this point further, but I won’t. A quick Google search will serve the purpose for any reader who really wants to seek out the truth of the matter. Ultimately, most atheistsand evolutionists really don’t care about the evidence, despite protestations to the contrary. They only care about maintaining their Jenga tower of unbelief.

If there was incontrovertible proof that evolution is true, would my Christianity come crashing down? Absolutely not; my faith in Jesus Christ is not dependent on my current understanding of the origins of the universe, but rather is based on a relationship with Him. True, I would have a crisis of faith, and I would need to seriously rebuild my understanding of the Bible, but I would remain a follower of Jesus Christ. Part of my Jenga tower worldview would fall, but the foundation would remain intact. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit dwells in me; it would be impossible for me to cease believing in the Savior Who has so radically changed me from the inside. It would be like denying oxygen. However, an atheist must maintain a belief in evolution, or their entire worldview must come crashing down. Atheism is impossible without evolution; it is critical to the foundation of an atheistic worldview.

This is why atheists must attack creation while defending evolution.

As a Christian, I defend the literal Truth of the Bible, not because I must for my Christianity to stand, but because I have a passion for seeing others come to know the Truth. Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” John 8:32. He also said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” John 14:6. We defend creation and challenge evolution because we want others to know Jesus.

Atheist Day – April 1 – Psalm 14:1

I had the following exchange (paraphrased) on Facebook the other day:

Me: Atheist Day is April 1. Psalm 14:1 – The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Atheist: Atheists aren’t fools. You’re a moron.

Me: Can there be anything more foolish that telling God that He doesn’t exist?

Atheist: I don’t tell gods they don’t exist. I don’t talk to fictional characters.

I had to paraphrase the atheist’s remarks, because she blocked me from seeing her comments a few minutes after she posted them.

I was both amused and saddened by this person’s answer. She apparently had no idea that by stating, “I don’t talk to fictional characters,” she was doing precisely what she argued she doesn’t do – she was telling God He doesn’t exist.

According to urban legend, a judge in Florida once declared that April 1 is “Atheist Day,” citing Psalm 14:1. This legend has been debunked; it apparently originated as a joke on a humor mailing list in 2002.

Is Atheism Foolish?

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

~ Psalm 14:1

Atheism is a very foolish worldview to hold. For one thing, atheism is completely illogical. An atheist contends that he or she knows there is no God. Logically, one cannot know that something does not exist.

Let’s use Bigfoot, also known as sasquatch, as an example. In order to know Bigfoot does not exist, one would have to look in every place Bigfoot could possibly exist. They would have to look in all of these places at the same time, to ensure Bigfoot wasn’t moving from place to place. They would also have to know what Bigfoot is. Otherwise, they might actually see Bigfoot, but not recognize it. Logically, no one can know Bigfoot does not exist. The best one can logically know is that they have never seen Bigfoot, or any evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. One can conclude that Bigfoot probably does not exist, but one cannot logically conclude absolutely that Bigfoot does not exist.  Personally, I don’t believe in Bigfoot.  However, it would be illogical to say I know Bigfoot does not exist.  I would be a sasquatch agnostic rather than an a-sasquatch-ist.

The same logic applies to God. In order to know God does not exist, one would need to be looking everywhere in the universe simultaneously, and would need to know what God looks like in order to recognize whether He was present, or not. Such a person would need to be omnipresent to look everywhere at once, and omniscient to know what God looks like. Unless a person is indeed omnipresent and omniscient, it is illogical to claim one knows God does not exist.


The most a person can logically claim is that they don’t know if God exists. This would be agnosticism, not atheism. At least with agnosticism, there is enough intellectual integrity to acknowledge not knowing for certain.


Another reason atheism is foolish is what is known as Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal (1633 – 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher. He argued that if a Christian is wrong about Christianity, they basically live a happy life, and when they die – they’re gone. They really haven’t lost anything by being wrong in their beliefs. However, if a non-Christian is wrong, although they may live a happy life here on earth, when they die, they end up in Hell. In other words, if one “wagers” on Christianity and loses, they lose nothing; if one “wagers” against Christianity and loses, they lose everything.


Although many atheists have devised convoluted scenarios they believe work around Pascal’s Wager, the same basic question remains: What if one is wrong about Christianity? If I, as a Christian, am wrong about Christianity, I’ll never know. When I die, I’ll just rot in the grave, and cease to exist. But, if an atheist is wrong about Christianity, they end up in Hell for eternity. That’s one bet I would not want to lose!


The most foolish thing about being an atheist is that atheist actually do know God exists. However, they intentionally suppress that knowledge.

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

~ Romans 1:18-23

God’s existence is obvious to anyone who is willing to see it. Everything in the universe points to His existence. The problem is that all people are born in rebellion against God.

² The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
³ They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

~ Psalm 14:2-3

Every person is born separated from God. Yet God, in His grace, reveals Himself to each of us, and gives us the opportunity to turn to Him.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

~ John 3:16

Those who choose to respond to the Gospel and receive Christ as Lord and Savior gain an eternal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Those who foolishly suppress the truth of the Gospel remain eternally separated from God, and spend eternity in Hell. This is why atheism is foolish. For God to offer forgiveness, reconciliation with Himself, and eternal life, yet to choose to tell Him, “No thank you. You do not exist,” is the most foolish thing a person could ever do.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 7

Some time ago, I read an article on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

Valerie Tarico

While I personally find most of the articles on this site to be little more than irrational liberal ranting, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

Ultimately, people who reject Jesus Christ do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can often learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #7: Political Meddling

If you look at religion-bashing quote-quip-photo-clip-links that circulate Facebook and Twitter, most of them are prompted by church incursions into the political sphere. A spat between two atheists erupted on my home page yesterday. “Why can’t ex-Christians just shut up about religion and get on with building a better world?” asked one. “Why can’t we shut up?!” screeched the other. “Because of shit like this!” He posted a link about Kansas giving doctors permission to deny contraception and accurate medical information to patients.

I myself give George W. Bush credit for transforming me from a politically indifferent, digging-in-the-garden agnostic into a culture warrior. He casually implied that, when going to war, he didn’t need to consult with his own father because he had consulted the big guy in the sky, and my evangelical relatives backed him up on that, and I thought, oh my God, the beliefs I was raised on are killing people. The Religious Right, and now the Catholic bishops, have brought religion into politics in the ugliest possible way short of holy war, and people who care about the greater good have taken notice. Lists of ugly Bible verses, articles about the psychology of religion, investigative exposes about Christian machinations in D.C. or rampant proselytizing in the military and public schools –all of these are popular among political progressives because it is impossible to drive progressive change without confronting religious fundamentalism.

Before I move on to the valid points Tarico makes, let me point out some of the logical problems with her arguments.

First, she presumes that the religious beliefs of Christians should have no bearing whatsoever in American politics. She implies that George W. Bush’s beliefs should have been left outside the White House gates, and that the Religious Right and Catholics have no business bringing their beliefs into the realm of politics. Yet, at the same time, she argues that her religious view – that God does not exist – should be the foundation of the American political mindset. What Tarico and others like her are arguing for is not the removal of religion, but the establishment of Secular Humanism as the state religion.

Besides the liberal use of question-begging epithets (ugly Bible verses, fundamentalism) and fear mongering (holy war), the other glaringly illogical line of reasoning is in the statement, “…and I thought, oh my God, the beliefs I was raised on are killing people.” First, it’s ironic that she thought, “…oh my God…,” since she says she doesn’t believe in God. Perhaps she was just trying to be funny. Or perhaps it is an indication that, subconsciously, she knows that God does exist, although she fights to suppress that truth. More important that the slip in theology is the irrationality of claiming that the reason we went to war in Iraq was because Bush thought God told him to. First, the fact that Bush prayed about it before making a decision does not mean evangelical Christianity was the cause of the war. And second, if one compares the number of deaths caused in the name of “christianity” versus those committed by atheistic or secular humanistic regimes, there is no comparison – hands down, atheism and secularism have taken far more lives in war than “christianity.” The evangelical Christian beliefs Tarico was raised on are not what caused the wars in Iraq and Iran; sin is what causes wars. If people all became Christians, and actually followed Biblical teaching, there would be no wars.

What can I as a follower of Jesus Christ learn from what Tarico says here?

First, we need to be careful how we mix our relationship with Jesus Christ with our political views. During the recent election season, this became quite evident. I must confess, at times I let my political disgust with President Obama tarnish my Christian witness. As one meme put it, “God does not want us to bring DEMOCRACY to people. He wants us to bring CHRIST to people.” Unfortunately, I now realize that some of my political postings on Facebook offended many of the people God has called me to reach with the Gospel. Regardless of whether we have a syncretistic humanist like Obama as President, or a Mormon like Romney, or even an evangelical like Bush, government is inherently secular and temporary. The Gospel has eternal implications. Political regimes will come and go, but human souls are eternal. The choices we make about which person becomes the President are only relevant for a brief time, but the choice we make about Jesus Christ affects us for eternity.

Secondly, Tarico’s thoughts point out how our underlying presuppositions define our worldview and actions. Because she rejects God, she must logically reject anything associated with God. She must believe that human beings are the ultimate authority in politics, morality, and every other aspect of life. In order to bring people to Jesus Christ, Christians cannot simply attack the symptoms of unbelief – abortion, socialism, evolution, homosexuality, and so on – but need to attack the underlying presuppositions that the unbeliever’s worldview is founded upon. We must help unbeliever understand why their foundational beliefs don’t make sense, and why Biblical Christianity is the only rational worldview based on reality. Focusing on the external symptoms doesn’t change hearts and minds. Only by building on the foundational truths of God’s Word can hearts and minds be turned to Jesus Christ.

Christian, be careful how you mix the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the gospel of your political views.

The Logical Fallacy of Requiring Material Evidence to Prove God’s Existence

The following graphic, which I saw on Facebook, sums up the argument I consistently hear from materialistic atheists in their arguments against God.

For many, this seems like a rational requirement. If something is true, there should be scientific evidence to prove it.

However, such a “rule” is actually nonsense. There are logical fallacies involved in requiring the use of the scientific method to prove the existence of God.

Fallacy #1 – It’s totally arbitrary

The first fallacy of requiring empirical scientific evidence to prove God’s existence is that such a requirement is total arbitrary.

When an atheist demands physical evidence for the existence of God, my first response is, “Why? Why is scientific evidence the only acceptable evidence?”

The usual response is, “Because the only way we can know anything is through physical evidence.”

And again, my response is, “Why?” And I usually get a confused stare, like I’m crazy for even asking such a question.

The point is, there is absolutely no logical reason why such a rule should exist – except for the worldview of the materialistic atheist. The materialistic atheist believes that the material world of matter and energy is all that exists. The thought that anything else could exist is absurd to them. However, material atheism is itself completely arbitrary.

Fallacy #2 – Category Error

A category error is “a type of informal fallacy where things that belong to one grouping are mistakenly placed in another,” or where “a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.” If someone says, “My coffee is a Republican,” they are committing a category error – coffee cannot be a Republican. Only people can be Republicans. Coffee does not belong to the category of things capable of being a Republican.

The Biblical God is not a material Being. He is not part of the natural universe. By definition, God is supernatural (super- “Above; over;” natural “Present in or produced by nature”). God is in an entirely different category than the natural universe. When one demands physical evidence for the existence of a non-physical Being, they are committing a category error fallacy. It would be like demanding DNA evidence for the existence of black holes, or asking for a test tube full of consciousness, or trying to put time in a bottle.

Fallacy #3 – It’s self-refuting

What do I mean by saying this rule is self-refuting? Basically, this rule, when applied to itself, contradicts itself.

First, the rule requires “empirical results of repeatable experimentation.” There is no way to conduct a repeatable experiment to empirically test whether “empirical results of repeatable experimentation” are required to argue for the supernatural. One cannot use the rule to test the validity of the rule.

Second, the rule requires “cogent, non-fallacious argumentation.” Yet, as I’ve already demonstrated, the rule itself is fallacious.

Fallacy #4 – Even when the rule is met, material atheists ignore the evidence

This fallacy isn’t with the rule itself, per se, but with the way atheists handle the scientific evidence that does support God’s existence.

There is a tremendous amount of “empirical results of repeatable experimentation” and much “cogent, non-fallacious argumentation” that supports the existence of God. The sheer volume of such evidence makes it impossible to present these evidences in this brief blog. A simple Google search will bring up tens of thousands of articles, peer-reviewed papers, and Websites that present the scientific arguments for God. My point is, when confronted with these evidences, the materialistic atheist will reject it anyway. Why? Because to acknowledge the validity of scientific evidence for the existence of God would completely shatter the material atheist’s entire worldview. They would be forced to face the fact that they are wrong. In other words, the material atheist cannot objectively examine scientific evidence that is presented; they must deny it, not because it isn’t scientific, but because it leads to conclusions they don’t want to acknowledge. Romans 1:18 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Those that reject God must suppress, or hide, the truth. Romans 1 continues:

¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Those who reject God ultimately do so, not because of a lack of evidence, but because they foolishly refuse to submit to His authority over their lives. The issue is not evidence; the issue is rebellion.

Christians need to continue to present the Gospel to non-Christians, including materialistic atheists. We must continually pray for the lost, be prepared to present cogent arguments when needed, and rely on the Holy Spirit to us to reach the lost. We must not be swayed by the fallacious arguments used to deny God, but must stand on the truth of God’s Word as the foundation of our beliefs.

Grabbed this off Facebook a couple of minutes after I posted this blog. It seemed to fit.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 6

Valerie Tarico

A while back, I read an article on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

While I personally find most of the articles on this site either tasteless or just plain nonsense, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

It’s important to recognize that people who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #6: Science Denial

One of my former youth group friends had his faith done in by a conversation with a Bible study leader who explained that dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible. Uh huh. Christians have come up with dozens of squishier, less falsifiable ways to explain the geological record: The “days” in Genesis 1 were really “ages.” Or God created the world with the fossils already in place to test our faith. Or the biblical creation story is really sacred metaphor. But young-earth creationists who believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago are stuck. And since almost half of the American public believes some version of this young-earth story, there are ample opportunities for inquiring minds to trip across proto-scientific nonsense.

Like other factors I’ve mentioned, science denial doesn’t just move believers to nonbelief; it also rallies opposition ranging from cantankerous bloggers to legal advocates. It provides fodder for comedians and critics: “If the world was created 6,000 years ago, what’s fueling your car?” It may produce some of the most far-reaching opposition to religious belief, because science advocates argue that faith, even socially benign faith, is a fundamentally flawed way of knowing. The Catholic church, perhaps still licking wounds about Galileo (it apologized finally in the 20th century), has managed to avoid embarrassing and easily disproven positions on evolutionary biology. But one could argue that its atheism-fostering positions on conception and contraception similarly rely on ignorance about or denial of biological science — in this case embryology and the basic fact that most embryos never become persons.

From my experience, the creation vs. evolution debate is the topic that is most likely to get a skeptic’s dander up. This is because atheism is utterly impossible unless evolution is true. If God or gods don’t exist, there must be a non-supernatural mechanism to explain how life came to be. The only remotely plausible explanation is evolution.

answersingenesis.org

I’ve always found it ironic that when most creationists discuss evolution and creation, they tend to focus on the observable scientific inconsistencies of evolutionary theory and the observable science supporting the Biblical creation model, while most evolutionists simply state evolution as dogma and ridicule the Biblical model – without bringing up actual scientific evidence. Tarico is no different. Granted, two paragraphs isn’t enough space to lay out any real scientific evidence one way or the other. Yet, she does manage to state her dogmatic faith in evolution, and throw out a few question-begging epithets against Biblical creation (“proto-scientific nonsense,” “science denial,” “denial of biological science”). She also throws out a huge straw-man argument: “… young-earth creationists … believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago.” Wrong. The 6,000-10,000 years ago part is correct. The “appeared in its present form” is absolutely wrong. Biblical creationists generally believe the earth was created “very good” (Genesis 1:31), but that it was radically changed because of sin (Genesis 3). It was tremendously altered by the global flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8). Furthermore, natural processes such as erosion, weathering, natural selection, and mutations have continued to change the earth and the organisms live here. But, then again, it’s easier to argue against a straw-man with dogma and name-calling than it is to argue logically against actual Biblical creation.

answersingenesis.org

The fact that some naïve Bible study leader ignorantly thought that “dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible” isn’t an argument against Biblical creationism. It does, however, point out the fact that too many Christians are ignorant of both science and the Bible. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Unfortunately, most Christians are not ready, and cannot give a defense of the Biblical account of Creation. The un-Biblical compromise positions Tarico mentions, such as the day-age theory, Genesis as a metaphor, or any number of other theories, cause as much confusion about the Bible as atheistic evolution. All origins theories other than the straight-forward Biblical account of six literal days a few thousand years ago take mankind’s fallible ideas and hold them in higher authority than God’s Word. All of these other theories question the authority of the straight-forward teaching of the Bible.

Christians, especially Christian leaders and teachers, need to educate themselves. We need to understand science and evolutionary theory. In fact, Christians need to understand evolution better than most evolutionists do. We need to understand what evolution teaches, as well as the scientific, logical, and theological problems with evolution. We need to understand how various dating methods arrive at ancient ages for the earth, and the arbitrary assumptions behind these methods. We also need to understand what the Bible actually says – and doesn’t say – about origins and the age of the earth. What we actually observe in the universe solidly confirms the Biblical account of creation, and show the millions-of-years-of-evolution dogma to be utterly impossible.

I would argue that it’s not the young-earth position that drives people away, as Tarico believes; rather, it’s ignorant Christians that are unprepared to explain how science confirms the Bible that cause confusion and doubt. Too many Christians appear ignorant of science, not because they embrace the Biblical creation, but because they actually are ignorant of both science and the Bible. Incidentally, most skeptics are just as ignorant – but that’s no excuse. If we want people to realize the absolute truth of the Bible, and embrace faith in Jesus Christ as the only rational reality, then we need to take 1 Peter 3:15 to heart, and stop being so ignorant and unprepared to defend the authority of Scripture.

---

Numerous resources are available to help the Christian understand Biblical creation. I recommend starting with the Answers Book 1, 2, and 3 available from Answers in Genesis. Ministries such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and many others have thousands of articles, books, DVDs, and other resources available – many for FREE.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 5

A while back, I read an article entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” published by skeptic Valerie Tarico on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org

While most of the articles on this site are either offensive or just plain silly, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

People who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). However, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can often learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #5: Disgusting and Immoral Behavior

The priest abuse scandal did more for the New Atheist movement than outspoken anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) , Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) , Sam Harris (The End of Faith ) or Bill Maher (Religulous) ever could. To make matters worse (or better, depending on your point of view) Bill Donohue of the Catholic League seems to be doing everything possible to fan those flames: On top of the abuse itself, followed by cover-ups, he is now insisting that the best defense of church property is a good offense against the victims, and has vowed to fight them “one by one.”

The Freedom from Religion Foundation publishes a bi-monthly newspaper that includes a regular feature: The Black Collar Crime Blotter. It features fraud, drug abuse, sex crimes and more by Protestant as well as Catholic clergy. The obvious purpose is to move readers from religion isn’t true to religion isn’t benign to religion is abhorrent and needs fighting. Moral outrage is a powerful emotion.

The Fallacy of Using Morality as an Argument Against God

answersingenesis.org

For the atheist, life exists purely as the result of chance mutations occurring within a chemical soup. People, trees, bacteria, and frogs are nothing more than complex chemical reactions. Morality is nothing more than just another biochemical process. Within an atheistic worldview, there is no basis for determining value for anything aside from human opinion. Morality cannot logically exist for the atheist. Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a universe that defines everything by chance. In an atheistic belief system, only human preference can define standards of right and wrong and such preferences may shift from person to person and culture to culture. For an atheist to argue that anything is immoral is irrational from an atheistic worldview.

Yet, atheists do believe in absolute morality. They do believe that certain actions are absolutely wrong, and others are absolutely right. Why? Because that’s how reality works. In the real world, absolute right and wrong do exist. The atheist must accept the existence of moral absolutes in order to function in reality, despite the fact that absolute morality cannot logically exist in their worldview.

Morality can only exist if there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. Atheism has no such absolute standard. Such an absolute standard can exist only because the absolute God exists. Atheists cannot acknowledge this; they must believe in absolute morality without acknowledging the Absolute basis for such a belief. Such a belief is irrational and illogical, yet they cling to it, because they refuse to acknowledge God.

Christian Immorality

Although the argument is irrational from the atheistic worldview, Tarico makes a valid point. Immoral behavior by Christians is a serious roadblock for many to receive the Gospel. Although it’s true that many of the examples cited by atheists involve people who aren’t true Christians, many examples do involve true believers. When Christians sin, non-believers notice. And, since all Christians sin, non-believers are going to see Christians do some horrible things.

How should Christians respond to this?

1. We need to understand that what makes us Christians is not our superior morality. What makes us Christians is reconciliation with God through the blood of Jesus Christ. Our sin separates us from God; the righteousness of Jesus Christ restores our relationship. It’s not our morality; it’s all Jesus. Not only do we need to understand this truth, but we need to make sure both the non-believers and other Christians in our lives understand this as well.
2. We need to live our lives in obedience to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. When we do sin, we need to repent. We need to be transparent about our sin, and sincere in our repentance. Those around us will see our sin; they need to see the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives as we overcome the sin.
3. We need to pray for our Christian brothers and sisters, especially those in leadership roles. We need to pray for strength to avoid temptation and sin, and we need to pray for sincere repentance when sin occurs.
4. We need to hold each other accountable, especially our Christian leaders. When sin becomes known, we need to hold each other accountable for that sin, and for repentance.

Nobody likes a hypocrite. Christians claim that Jesus Christ makes a difference in our lives. When non-believers see Christians embrace sin, it seems reasonable to see the hypocrisy as negation of the claim that Jesus Christ changes lives. We need to be honest about our shortcomings, and absolutely not view sin as acceptable. We need to allow others to see the Holy Spirit working in our lives. We will never be perfect; but when we fall short, we need to humbly do whatever is necessary to remedy the situation.

There are many people, both inside and outside of the church, who are undecided about where they stand in relation to Jesus Christ. Our job is to allow the Holy Spirit to use us to draw people toward Him, not to push people away. How we respond to sin is a major factor in whether we push people away, or draw them toward Jesus Christ.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 3

The anti-religion, left-wing, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org published an article by skeptic Valerie Tarico entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism.” While I find most of the articles on this site either offensive or just plain ignorant, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

Ultimately, people who reject Jesus Christ do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). However, there are also things that many in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

As a Christian, I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about why people leave the church. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Tarico’s third reason:

3. Misogyny. For psychological and social reasons females are more inclined toward religious belief than males. They are more likely to attend church services and to insist on raising their children in a faith community. They also appear more indifferent than males to rational critique of religion, like debates about theology or evolutionary biology. I was interested to notice recently that my YouTube channel, Life After Christianity, which focuses on the psychology of religion gets about 80 percent male viewers. Women are the church’s base constituency, but fortunately for atheists, this fact hasn’t caused conservative Christians to back off of sexism that is justified by – you got it – prooftexting from the Old and New Testaments.

Evangelical minister Jim Henderson recently published a book, The Resignation of Eve, in which he urges his fellow Christians to take a hard look at the consequences of sexism in the church. According to Henderson, old-school sexism has driven some women out of Christianity permanently, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. For those who stay, it means that many are less enthusiastic and engaged than they would be. Churches rely on women to volunteer in roles that range from secretary to director of children’s programs to missionaries. That takes a high level of confidence in church doctrines and also a strong sense of belonging. Biblical sexism cultivates neither. Between 1991 and 2011 the percent of women attending church in a typical week dropped by 11 points, from 55 to 44 percent.

Definitions

First, let’s define some terms:

Misogyny
is the hatred of women.

Sexism is:

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially
: discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Prooftexting means to pull a Bible passage out of context and to use it to justify a doctrinal position.

Misogyny and sexism in the Bible

Does the Bible promote misogyny, the hatred of women?

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, ²⁶ that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷ that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. ³⁰ For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ³¹ “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. ³³ Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33

There is no verse in the Bible that teaches the hatred of women. God does not hate any person. It is not in His nature to hate people. God hates sin, but loves everyone in the world (John 3:16). Because He loves all people, including women, He has commanded His people to love women, not to hate them.

Does the Bible teach sexism? The answer depends a lot on semantics. The Bible does not teach prejudice or discrimination; nor does it teach stereotyping. It does, however, teach that men and women have different roles and functions within the Church.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Genesis 2:18

To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

From the beginning, God created women and men to work together, but with differing roles. Those roles were in perfect harmony until sin entered the world. After the Fall, the roles of men and women changed for the worse, not because of God, but because of human sin.

Many atheists like to point to verses such as Leviticus 21:9, Leviticus 12:2, or Leviticus 15:19-23 to claim that God hates women. First, the atheist does exactly what they accuse Christians of doing when they prooftext – pull passages out of context to support their view. The Old Testament Law was never about making a person acceptable to God, but all about pointing to the need for a Savior. Men and women were uniquely created to be different from, but complementary to, each other. The Fall effected men and women differently – compare Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:17-19. As a result, the Law, which is all about demonstrating God’s holiness and our need for Jesus Christ, has variations for men and women.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

God created both men and women in His image. Men and women are of equal value to God. In Jesus Christ, men and women are equally loved, equally valued, equally accepted by God.

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12

¹ But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: ² that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; ³ the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— ⁴ that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, ⁵ to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Titus 2:1-5

Again, atheists and skeptics point to these verses, and others like them, to claim the Bible teaches misogyny. The problem is that such an assertion presupposes that differing roles implies superiority, that God values men more than women. This presupposition does not come from the Bible; rather, it is a sinful, man-made idea. One must cherry-pick verses out of context, and ignore other passages completely, to claim the Bible teaches that women’s roles are inferior to men’s roles. Granted, some in the church have done exactly this for centuries; but this doesn’t mean the Bible teaches it.

The Church and Sexism

What should the church’s position be on the roles of women in the church, the family, and society? Tarico is correct when she says that Christians need to take a hard look at the consequences of sexism in the church. Women should never be put down because of their God-given roles; rather, men need to value women above themselves, as Christ valued us above Himself. God created men and women to fill different roles, but human sin has corrupted the harmony and complementary nature of those roles. The church must make sure they are not prooftexting passages about the roles of men and women, but looking at all of Scripture to balance understanding. The Bible clearly teaches that women and men have different roles, and that men are to be the leaders; but, it also says that men are to love women as Christ loves the church. Tarico is correct when she states that misogyny and putting down women is wrong, and drives women from the church. But, she’s wrong in assuming that different God-given roles means that the Bible teaches that men are more important than women.

Is the Bible misogynist? Absolutely not.

Does the Bible teach sexism? In the sense of teaching that men are better than women, absolutely not. But, the Bible absolutely does teach that men and women have different, yet equally valued, God-given roles. Some will ignorantly call this sexism and misogyny. I call it God’s design for balance and diversity. As Christians, we need to make sure we have God’s Biblical perspective on this issue, not mankind’s perspective. If the Church has a correct Biblical view of women, then women will be drawn to the church, not pushed out, because the Church will show God’s love, respect, and honor toward them and their Biblical roles.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 2

Skeptic Valerie Tarico wrote an the article, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” for the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org. While I find most of the articles on this site either offensive or just plain ignorant, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

While people who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19), there are also things that many in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

As a Christian, I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about why people leave the church. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Tarico’s second reason:

2. Prooftexting. People who think of the Bible as the literally perfect word of God love to quote excerpts to argue their points. They often start with a verse in 1 Timothy: All scripture is given by inspiration of God (as if this circular argument would convince anyone but a true believer). They proceed to quote whatever authoritarian, anti-gay or anti-woman verse makes their point, like, Whoever spares the rod hates their children…Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being or Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. In doing so, they call into question biblical authority, because the Bible writers so obviously got these issues wrong. Literalists who prooftext are a tremendous asset to those who would like to see Bible worship fade away – because prooftexting on one side of an argument invites the same in return, and it is easy to find quotes from the Bible that are either scientifically absurd or morally repugnant.

Many liberal or modernist Christians see the Bible as a human document, an attempt by our spiritual ancestors to articulate their best understanding of God through the lens of imperfect human cultures and minds. Suppose such a Christian is confronted with a verse that says, for example, Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man (Numbers 31:17-18), or No man who has any defect may come near [to God in the temple]: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect,…(Leviticus 21:17-23). He or she can simply shrug and say, “Yeah, that’s ugly.” A couple of years ago a group of liberal Christians even kicked off an Internet competition to vote on the worst verse in the Bible. Their faith doesn’t stand or fall with the perfection of the Bible. Biblical literalists, on the other hand, give someone like me an excuse to talk about sexual slavery or bias against handicapped people in the Bible – in front of an audience who have been taught that the good book is uniformly good. For a wavering believer, the dissonance can be too much.

First, let’s define the term Prooftexting. Prooftexting means to pull a Bible passage out of context and to use it to justify a doctrinal position. Unfortunately, Tarico is correct; many Christians grab verses out of context to justify bad theology and sin. The ironic thing is that Tarico pulls the verses she quotes out of context to justify her conclusion that “the Bible writers so obviously got these issues wrong.” Prooftexting works both ways; skeptics are at least as bad about ignoring context as the Christians they rant against.

It’s also ironic that Tarico gives the answer to the problem of prooftexting: All scripture is given by inspiration of God… (1 Timothy 3:16). All scripture means ALL scripture. It means we can’t just grab the verses that seem to support our pet belief while ignoring the rest of the Bible. At various times in its history, the church has used prooftexting to justify slavery, inquisitions, and witch hunts. Today, some Christians use prooftexting to justify protesting the funerals of United States servicemen, racism, and hating homosexuals. Tarico is right – many Christians latch onto Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, but ignore John 8:11, “…And Jesus said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’” And, Tarico is also correct in pointing out that such bad theology and quoting the Bible out of context is “are a tremendous asset to those who would like to see Bible worship fade away.”

In my blogs, I make it a point to link to the Scriptures I quote, usually on BibleGateway.com. I do this in order to make it easier for my readers to check out the passages, in context, looking at multiple translations. I want to give my readers the opportunity to check out the context for themselves, to see that, in context, the passage agrees with the point I’m trying to make. And, if the reader disagrees, and feels I’m prooftexting, I want them to point out my error. Context is the most important element to correctly understanding God’s Word. One must not only look at the immediate context of a passage, but also how the passage fits with other related passages. When we fail to do this, we risk believing bad theology, and in turn, we risk living our lives contrary to God’s will. We risk sin, and sin will destroy us. Bad theology can destroy a church, and can drive away those who are teetering between belief and unbelief.

Tarico compares the approaches of “liberal or modernist Christians” and “Biblical literalists.” She concludes that the “liberal” approach is better, because the Bible contains errors, and those errors don’t create problems for Christians whose faith doesn’t “stand or fall with the perfection of the Bible.” She believes that for “Biblical literalists,” the “dissonance” of conflicting passages drives people away from the faith.

The problem with her argument is that she presupposes that the Bible contains errors and contradictions.

It’s true that there are many Biblical passages that, on the surface, seem to contradict each other, or seem to make God into an evil being. The problem is that most people – Christians and non-Christians alike – tend to prooftext these passages, pulling them out of context. The reason Bible passages seem to contradict each other is because people ignore the context in which they are given. Using Tarico’s example, when confronted with a verse like Numbers 31:17-18, ”Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man,” one needs to look at the immediate context of the entire chapter of Numbers 31. In this case, the Israelites had ignored God’s command to destroy the Midianites. Digging deeper, one would need to look at 1) why the Israelites disobeyed God; 2) why God wanted the Midianites destroyed; and 3) how this event fits into God’s overall plan of the redemption of humankind. When I look at a passage like this in the context of God’s love, holiness, omniscience, and sovereignty, I conclude that God had reasons I cannot fully understand for commanding the destruction of the Midianites, and that those reasons were based on His mercy and love. Perhaps in His mercy, He didn’t want more Midianites to be born, knowing that all of them would reject Him and choose Hell instead – leading others away from Him as well. When I look at the whole context of Scripture and the nature of God, I can begin to understand how a loving God can hate sin, and why He would use genocide to keep more people from ending up in Hell. I arrive at a different conclusion than the skeptic or the liberal Christian about this passage because I presuppose the Bible is true and take the passage in the context of the entire Bible.

The answer to prooftexting is not to simply ignore apparent contradictions. The answer is to begin with trust in God’s goodness, love, and mercy; to examine difficult passages in context, starting with the assumption that the Bible is the true Word of God; to allow the Holy Spirit to give insight and wisdom; and to dig deeper into the Bible to understand the big picture of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity. For a person teetering between belief and unbelief, the answer is not to water down the Bible; the answer is to dig deeper into the context and “give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

Is the Message of the Cross Foolishness?

1 Corinthians 1:18-25

¹⁸ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

²⁰ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ²² For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; ²³ but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

As I have talked with many atheists and skeptics over the years, the one attitude that comes up over and over is the belief that Christianity is foolish. They argue, God cannot be proved; the Bible is a collection of myths; and dead people don’t come back to life. Anybody who actually believes this stuff must be a simpleminded fool.

My typical response is to point out that the only reason these things seem foolish to them is because of their presuppositions. Most atheists begin with the presupposition that nothing supernatural exists; therefore, any argument for the existence of God must be false. The logic here is totally circular, yet, when I point this out, they can’t seem to understand. Because most atheists presuppose some version of naturalism, they believe that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything for certain. However, the very belief that all knowledge must come through observation of the natural world is self-refuting – one cannot observe that this belief is true. The very foundation of almost all of their arguments is based on a logical fallacy! But when I point out the fallacies in their thinking, they just don’t understand. It is incomprehensible to them that their entire worldview is based on an absurdity.

Most of the atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics I’ve interacted with are quite intelligent. I have often been frustrated by the fact that such obviously intelligent people can’t seem to understand the incongruity of their unbelief. To believe that the entire universe popped into existence all by itself, in all its vastness and complexity, without any supernatural intelligence guiding the process, is absurd. Yet, when I clearly show them why their thinking is preposterous, they just can’t seem to understand. How can intelligent people not understand simple logic, clearly explained?

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who choose to reject God. But, in reality, it is those who reject the Gospel who are fools.

¹ The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
Psalm 14:1

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Proverbs 9:10

Paul talks about the cross of Christ being a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks. In Paul’s day, the Jews knew a lot about God and the Bible, but most didn’t actually know God. To them, the cross was a “stumbling block.” Today, there are many “religious” people for whom the cross is also a stumbling block. The cross gets in the way of religiosity. The cross means we cannot make ourselves acceptable before a holy God. Only through the blood of Jesus can we be accepted by God.

The Greeks of Paul’s day were nominally polytheistic, but actually lived as atheists or agnostics. Much like today’s humanists, they believed human understanding was the ultimate authority, and they saw the cross of Christ as foolishness.

I finally realize that the reason most skeptics can’t understand the Gospel is not an issue of intelligence – it’s a matter of the will. They don’t understand because they don’t want to understand. 2 Peter 3:5 says that they are “willingly ignorant” – they choose to ignore the truth. Looking back, I was the same way before I received Christ. None of us seeks after God on our own (Romans 3:11); it is only because God seeks after us that any of can respond to the Gospel. The Bible clearly teaches that God seeks everyone in the world (John 3:16), but only those who choose to believe will be saved. And, it’s only after we have received Christ that God opens our minds so that we can really understand.

The cross of Christ seems foolish to those who choose to reject it. But, to those who choose to receive Christ when the Holy Spirit draws them to Himself, the cross is the power of God. The cross has the power to overcome our sin. The cross has the power to restore the relationship between us and God. And, the cross has the power to transform our lives. Real foolishness is to reject the cross.

The Christian Foundation of Atheist Values

What most atheists fail to recognize is that the majority of the beliefs that they value are Christian in origin.  In an April 15, 2012 article posted on www.theage.com.au, atheist Chris Berg acknowledges the Christian foundation of modern secular values.  Berg writes,

Berg

…virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away. It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.

Bacon

He is, of course, correct.  For example, most atheists highly value the scientific method as the primary means of gaining knowledge.  The scientific method was developed by Sir Francis Bacon – a Christian.  Bacon wrote, “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”  The scientific method was derived from Biblical principles.

A mantra of atheism is the separation of church and state – the core of atheist political philosophy.  Berg points out the Biblical origins of this concept:

Early Christian philosophers thought seriously about what Jesus’s words, ”Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” meant for the formation of political society.

Another core belief of most atheists if human rights.  Again, Berg points out the Christian origins of human rights:

The idea of human rights was founded centuries ago on Christian assumptions, advanced by Biblical argument, and advocated by theologians. Modern supporters of human rights have merely picked up a set of well-refined ethical and moral arguments.

At the end of his article, Berg makes the following profound statement:

But while our age may be secular, it is, at the same time, still a deeply Christian one. If atheists feel they must rip up everything that came before them, they will destroy the very foundations of that secularism.

I doubt that even Berg understands the implications of this statement.  Since modern atheism is built on a foundation of Christian beliefs, it is ultimately self-refuting!  If atheism is true, then God does not exist;  if God does not exist, then Biblical principles, such as truth, love, human rights, honesty, and reason are meaningless;  and, if these values are meaningless, modern atheism is also meaningless!

Here’s another example:  Atheists typically believe the scientific method is the source of knowledge.  The Humanist Manifesto III states, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.”  The scientific method is predicated on the fact that the universe follows absolute, unchanging, universal laws.  Here’s the paradox:  If there is no God, then why would the universe follow absolute, unchanging, universal laws?  If there is no God, then the universe should be random, and should not follow any laws at all!  Yet, it’s not random; it’s highly organized by absolute physical laws that should not exist if God does not exist.

Chris Berg is correct to recognize the Christian foundation for modern atheist values, but he’s completely missed the implications of this truth:  atheism is self-refuting, and therefore irrational.  Atheism couldn’t exist if it were true.  “If atheists feel they must rip up everything that came before them, they will destroy the very foundations of that secularism.”  If only atheists understood the implications of this statement!