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.

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.

Presuppositional Apologetics: An Analysis and Critique

A bit more “academic” than my typical blogs. I actually wrote this for one of my seminary classes.

INTRODUCTION AND THESIS

    There are several approaches to Christian apologetics, or defending the Christian faith. This paper will examine presuppositionalism, a recently developed approach that relies less on evidences, and more on transcendental arguments, than traditional apologetic methods. This paper will summarize the key assumptions and methods of presuppositionalism, examine the benefits and drawbacks of the method, and list some of those who align themselves with the method. The thesis of this paper is that, despite whatever shortcomings the method may have, presuppositionalism provides effective tools for arguing for the truth of Christianity.

A SUMMARY OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL METHOD OF APOLOGETICS

Presuppositionalism is a system of apologetics that is generally considered to have begun with Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), although the roots of presuppositionalism can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin. Presuppositionalism arose from Calvinist and Reformed theology, and teaches that apologists should “presuppose the truth of Christianity and not to think that they can or must arrive at Christian convictions at the end of a chain of secular reasoning.”1

Presuppositionalism begins with a view of epistemology that holds that all knowledge comes by revelation from God. Van Til wrote, “As God has self-contained being and all other being has created or derivative being, so God has self-contained and man has derivative knowledge.”2 As a result, any worldview that does not presuppose the truth of God’s Word is foolishness and vain deception, resulting in suppression of the truth and futile conclusions.

Presuppositionalism also holds that there is no neutral ground between the believer and the unbeliever. One either holds to the biblical worldview, or one holds to an unbiblical worldview. For the apologist to give up the axiom of the inerrancy of scripture is to accept an unbiblical starting point, and is foolishness. Presuppositionalist John Frame states that 1 Peter 3:15 “means not only that the apologist must ‘set apart Jesus as Lord,’ but also that his argument must presuppose that lordship,” and that “apologetic argument is no more neutral than any other human activity. In apologetic argument, as in everything else we do, we must presuppose the truth of God’s Word.”3 Presuppositionalism holds that traditional forms of apologetics foolishly honor the unbiblical worldview of the unbeliever by attempting to find neutral ground that cannot exist.

Presuppositionalism also holds that all people ultimately must presuppose God’s existence, even if they do not know it. Logic, morality, uniformity in nature, and the preconditions of intelligibility all presume the existence of God. All other worldviews must be logically inconsistent in order to account for such things, and are therefore false. In other words, the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can rationally make sense of the universe.

Consequently, presuppositionalism holds that traditional arguments based on various evidences are insufficient. Instead, presuppositionalism focuses arguments at the system or worldview level, arguing against the presuppositions at the foundation of the unbeliever’s worldview. Bahnsen states, “the apologist needs to recognize that the debate between believer and unbeliever is fundamentally a dispute or clash between two complete worldviews – between ultimate commitments and assumptions which are contrary to each other.”4 Presuppositional apologetics uses a transcendental argument, which is “possible if and only if God’s existence is true from the outset of the argument itself.”5 This is an indirect method of proof that argues if the God of the Bible does not exist, we cannot know anything at all. The argument is not that one must believe God exists in order to know anything, but rather that God must exist, whether anyone believes in Him, or not. The argument states that logic, the universe, knowledge, uniformity in nature, and morality could not exist if Christian theism is not true. The believer and unbeliever “together think through the implications of each other’s most basic assumptions so that the Christian may show the non-Christian how the intelligibility of his experience, the meaningfulness of logic, and the possibility of science, proof, or interpretation can be maintained only on the basis of the Christian worldview.”6

ADVANTAGES OF PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

The main advantage of presuppositional apologetics is that transcendental arguments deal with the underlying assumptions below the surface of an unbeliever’s worldview, and demonstrate the unreasonableness and logical inconsistencies in all non-Christian worldviews. Whatever evidence or logical arguments the non-believer presents, the presuppositionalist counters by pointing out that the underlying assumptions of the arguments are inconsistent with the axioms of the non-believer’s worldview. All non-Christian worldviews, when taken to their logical conclusions, can be reduced to the absurd by this method. Additionally, presuppositionalism forces the burden of proof on the non-believer. It allows the Christian apologist to utilize an offensive, rather than a defensive, strategy. Once the non-believer is forced to acknowledge that his worldview is irrational, the door is opened to present the Gospel as the only rational alternative.

OBJECTIONS TO PRESUPPOSITIONALISM

One objection leveled against presuppositionalism is that it is a circular argument. It assumes the Bible is true in order to prove the Bible is true. Presuppositionalists would respond that circular argument is unavoidable, and not necessarily fallacious. Jason Lisle writes, “Some degree of circular reasoning is unavoidable when proving an ultimate standard…an ultimate standard cannot be proved from anything else, otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimate. Therefore, if it is to be proved, it must use itself as the criterion.”7 Note that the Bible itself uses this type of logic in Hebrews 6:13, which states, “When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself.”

Another objection to presuppositionalism is that it completely ignores evidence, and relies solely on logical arguments. This is not always the case, however. For example, Dr. Jason Lisle, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Colorado, is a young-earth creationist who uses presuppositional apologetics to argue for creationism. His use of evidence from astronomy is completely undergirded by a foundation of transcendental arguments and the authority of the Bible. He writes, “One perfectly appropriate use of scientific and historical evidence is to confirm biblical creation… When we say evidence confirms creation we mean that it is consistent with creation – it coincides and shows agreement.”8 He believes that evidence alone cannot prove creation, the Bible, or God, but evidence can and does provide support for belief.

Additionally, some have charged that presuppositionalism always assumes the reformed positions that only the elect few can understand Christianity, that logic and reason are totally corrupted by the Fall, and the non-elect cannot know anything. This may be true of Van Til and some other ultra-Calvinists, but not all presuppositionalists hold these views, and they are not necessary for the method to be successfully utilized.

CONCLUSIONS

    Although presuppositionalism was founded on theology with which non-Calvinists would disagree, the method has added much to the field of apologetics. Skeptics have long called Christianity irrational. Presuppositionalism shows that it is the skeptic who is irrational, and that biblical Christianity is the only rational worldview. It has infused Christian apologetics with additional tools that can be used by the Holy Spirit to reach people for Christ. For many unbelievers, traditional evidences have been unconvincing, but they are finding the presuppositional transcendental arguments more compelling. Whether the Christian should use a presuppositional approach, a traditional evidential approach, or some other approach, depends entirely on the skills and gifts of the apologist, the mindset of the unbeliever to whom the Gospel is being presented, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Most evidentialists include arguments at the presuppositional level, and most presuppositionalists utilize evidences in their arguments. The difference is primarily a matter of emphasis and underlying theology. I have personally found that a mixture of evidential and presuppositional approaches gives me more tools for reaching a wider range of lost souls for Christ.

SHORT LIST OF PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGISTS

The following Christian writers are aligned with the presuppositional method of apologetics:

• Cornelius Van Til
• Gordon Clark
• John Calvin
• Greg Bahnsen
• Francis Schaeffer
• John Frame
• Jason Lisle
• Ken Ham
• Richard Pratt
• Mike A. Robinson

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahnsen, Greg. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Edited by Robert Booth. Nacogdoches, Texas: Covenant Media Press, 1996.

Bahnsen, Greg. “The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics.” Westminster Theological Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 1-31. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000896523&site=ehost-live&scope=site
(accessed September 5, 2009).

Collett, Don. “Van Til and Transcendental Argument.” Westminster Theological Journal 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 289-306. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu: 2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001389134&site=ehost-live&scope=site
(accessed September 5, 2009).

Copenger, Mark. “Presuppositionalism.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner, 401-404. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 1994.

Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2009.

Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. Edited by William Edgar. Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2003.

Notes:

1. Coppenger, Mark, “Presuppositionalism,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, ed. Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 402.

2. Van Til, Cornelius, Christian Apologetics, ed. William Edgar (Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2003), 31-32.

3. Frame, John, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 1994), 9.

4. Bahnsen, Greg, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert Booth (Nacogdoches, Texas: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 68.

5. Collett, Don, “Apologetics: Van Til and Transcendental Argument,” Westminster Theological Journal 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003), 291. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001389134&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 5, 2009).

6. Bahnsen, Greg, “The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics,” Westminster Theological Journal 57, no. 1 (Spring 1995), 3. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000896523&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 5, 2009).

7. Lisle, Jason, The Ultimate Proof of Creation (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2009), 145.

8. Lisle, 98.

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!

Humanist Manifesto III – A Critical Analysis

Humanist Manifesto is the title of three statements outlining a Humanist worldview. The original Humanist Manifesto was published in 1933; the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973; and Humanist Manifetso III in 2003. Each of the three manifestos explains the humanist worldview, which does not include belief in any personal deity or “higher power.”

This analysis will focus entirely on Humanist Manifesto III, although the previous versions have similar issues.  Manifesto III is the shortest of the three documents; it has an introduction, six primary beliefs, and a conclusion.

There are unstated presupposed beliefs behind every statement contained in the Manifesto.  Many of these presuppositions depend on the existence of God in order to make any sense whatsoever.  The basic logical fallacy contained in Humanist Manifesto III is that, while it denies the existence of God, makes claims that are dependent on the existence of God.  In other words, if God does not exist, then the philosophies promoted by Manifesto III are irrational and unfounded.

What do I mean by this?  Take the first sentence of the Manifesto:  “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”  This sounds like a reasonable statement on the surface. However, in order to have the “ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives,” one must presuppose that such a thing as ethics actually exists.    The problem is, without God, there is no basis for the existence of ethics.  If the universe came into existence through mindless natural processes, then human beings are nothing more than highly complex chemical reactions.  There is no free will; our minds are nothing more than random electrochemical processes.  The very concept of ethics is meaningless – right and wrong do not actually exist.  Yet, right and wrong do exist, and the concept of ethics is not meaningless.  Since these concepts are meaningless if God does not exist, since they do exist, God must therefore exist.  The belief in ethics presupposes the existence of God.  For an atheist to believe in ethics, they must “borrow” from the Biblical worldview.

The first of the six primary beliefs promoted in the Manifesto states, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.”  Although it initially sounds plausible, this statement is actually subtly self-contradictory.  Why?  Because the statement itself cannot be derived from observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.  The statement, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis,” cannot be derived from observation; nor can it be derived through experimentation.  It must be pre-supposed, and any attempt to derive it through rational analysis is ultimately irrational circular logic.

Observation, experimentation, and rational analysis are only possible if one presupposes that the universe is uniform, unchanging, and logical.  However, if God does not exist, there is no reason why the universe should be uniform, unchanging, and logical; rather, it should be random.  A universe that was caused by a Big Bang from nothing should be completely random, if it would exist at all.  The laws of nature should not exist, and logic should not exist. Yet, they do exist.  The only reason that universe should be uniform, unchanging, and logical only if it came from a uniform, unchanging, and logical Creator.  Science presupposes an orderly universe, which is only possible because the universe in fact functions in a logical, ordered manner, which in turn is only possible if it was created by a logical, ordered, unchanging God.

Charles Darwin

The second point affirmed in the Manifesto states, “Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”  There are a number of problems with this statement.  First, the “unguided evolutionary change” referred to cannot be “derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis,” because it supposedly happened in the past.  The past cannot be directly observed in the present; only the present can be observed in the present.  Could evolution be established as fact through “rational analysis?”  Humanists and evolutionists would argue it can.  I disagree.  Again, there are several unprovable presuppositions that must be accepted in order to infer evolution in the past from observations in the present.   First, one must assume that the processes in the past are the same as processes in the present.  This belief, called uniformitarianism, cannot be observed or derived through experimentation; it must be assumed.  One must also assume that enough time has existed for these processes to have occurred.  Lastly, one must ignore the fact that mutations and natural selection do not cause new information to arise, as evolutionary processes require, but rather eliminate genetic information.   Actual observational data tells us that we are not evolving, but rather, we are de-evolving.  Every generation of human beings loses several thousand genes due to mutations.  No new genes have ever been observed to have evolved.

Secondly, and “unguided” process should not cause increased complexity, as required by Darwinian evolution.  Evolution postulates that after the first cell came into existence through some sort of abiogenesis, this first lifeform somehow became more complex and eventually turned into a multi-celled organism, that eventually turned into a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then some sort of mammal, then a primitive primate, eventually turning into you and me.  All of these major steps, as well as thousands of smaller, intermediary steps, somehow happened as the result of unguided, random chance.  Evolutionists must believe that each of the millions of new genes that were necessary for new structures, proteins, and biochemical processes arose through mutations – despite the fact that no mutation has ever been observed that has produced information that had not previously existed.  And, this had to happen randomly – without any kind of higher intelligence guiding the process.  This is far more preposterous than believing that the infinite, omnipotent God of the Bible created human beings.

The Manifesto states, “Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.”  The first problem is that, If God does not exist, and human beings are nothing more than highly evolved chemical reactions, as would be required by the Manifesto, then ethical values are not real.  They are nothing but extremely complex electrochemical reactions.

If ethical values are derived from human need, then they must constantly change.  They cannot be absolute.  Many atheists I have talked to have argued, “Atheists are just as ethical and moral as Christians.”  However, from the perspective of atheism, this statement is utter nonsense.  Ethics and morality are relative; what is ethical for you may not be ethical for me.  There is no absolute standard for ethics; morality is whatever a person decides it is.  When an atheist claims, “Atheists are just as ethical and moral as Christians,” my response is, “According to whose definition of ethics and morality?”  Since there is no universal definition, the statement is nonsense.  It may be true that atheists are moral, according to one person’s moral framework, but not according to another’s.  Only if there is an absolute standard does the statement even make sense, and there cannot be an absolute standard unless God exists and has communicated His absolute standard to humankind.

The Manifesto’s next major point:  “Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.”  My response is, why?  On what basis can such a claim be made?  If we are the mere “result of unguided evolutionary change,” then why do “humane ideals” even exist?  Again, if God does not exist, and we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum, then “humane ideals” cannot actually exist.  The Manifesto continues: “We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence…”  “Unguided evolutionary change” is purposeless, by definition.  How can purposeless change create purpose?  If God does not exist, the human mind is a purposeless collection of meaningless chemical reactions – how can purpose, wonder, awe, joy, or beauty actually exist?  Yet, these things do actually exist; therefore, God must exist.  Again, the Humanist must “borrow” truth from the Biblical worldview in order to build the foundation for Humanism.  Humanism must presuppose foundational truths that are inconsistent with its core values in order to be coherent, but this makes Humanism inconsistent, irrational, and fallacious.

The last two major beliefs proposed by the manifesto read, “Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships,” and “Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.”  I would largely agree; people are social in nature, because we were created in the Image of God for the purpose of having a loving relationship with Him, and with others.  Working to benefit society does produce happiness.  These beliefs are completely consistent with Biblical teaching and presuppositions.  However, for the Humanist, they are again inconsistent.  Once again, if humanity is the result of meaningless evolutionary change, then why does meaning exist?  How can meaninglessness produce meaning?  How can purposelessness give rise to purpose?  How can unguided processes cause happiness?

The Humanist Manifesto III is utter nonsense, because it must rely on values and conditions that cannot exist if the Manifesto is true, and God does not exist.  Ultimately, any philosophy, religion, or worldview that denies the Biblical God is illogical for the same reason; without God, the universe, the laws of nature, the mind, purpose, and meaning should not exist; yet, they do exist.  Therefore, the Biblical God must exist, and Christianity must be true.  What we observe in the universe around us is completely consistent with and absolutely confirms the truth of the Bible.  And, without Biblical presuppositions, the universe would be completely unintelligible and meaningless.

---

The full text of Humanist Manifesto III can be viewed at http://redbankhumanists.org/PDF/HumanistManifesto_III.pdf

How Can God Allow Evil?

The Problem of Evil

One of the main arguments skeptics use to challenge Christianity is the issue of a loving God permitting evil.

The Argument against the Existence of God Because of Evil

According to the Bible, God is:

1. God is all-knowing
2. God is all-powerful
3. God is all Loving

Yet evil exists.

Therefore, the God of the Bible cannot exist because He is either not all-knowing, not all-powerful, or not all loving.

Problems with the Argument

1. If there is no God, then what is evil?  There cannot be an absolute standard of good and evil without God.  In order to claim that evil exists, the skeptic must steal the concept of good and evil from the Christian worldview.  In fact, from an evolutionary worldview, death and suffering must be good, because they are the causes of natural selection (survival of the fittest).  This leads to a self-contradictory argument.
2. God’s love does not imply that pain and suffering cannot exist.  God uses pain and suffering to discipline us, much like a shepherd uses pain to direct his sheep or a parent uses pain to direct a child.
3. The fact that God is all-powerful does not imply that God can do everything.  God cannot violate His own nature.  God cannot lie, cannot act irrationally, and cannot be immoral.  Because He created us in His image, He also cannot violate our nature.  He gave us a will, and cannot force us to act against our wills.

The argument against God because of evil can be refuted by the addition of a fourth premise:

1. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.

As long as there exists at least one morally sufficient reason why God allows evil to exist, the skeptic’s argument falls apart.  What could such a “morally sufficient” reason be?  Some options:

1.  One might argue that God has reasons He has not revealed to us.  Although this is a weak argument, it would solve the problem of evil.
2. The second argument is that evil is caused by mankind’s sin rather than God’s will.  This is the traditional argument. Because they were created in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27), Adam and Eve had a free will choice to follow God or disobey.  Unfortunately, they chose disobedience.  Evil, then, is the result of Adam’s sin, which resulted in a curse upon the whole earth, since the whole earth was under his dominion (Gen 1:28, 3:17; Rom 8:19–22; Rev 22:3).
3. The third approach to providing a morally sufficient reason for evil is that evil serves redemptive or revelational purposes.  God uses evil for a greater good, the redemption of sinners and/or the revelation of Himself to His creation.
4. The fourth approach to providing a morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil is the “best of all worlds” theodicy.  Gottfried Leibniz argued that of all the worlds God could have created, the one He actually created is the best of all possible options.  He argued, “It is true that one may imagine possible worlds without sin and without unhappiness, and one could make some like Utopian or Sevarambian romances:  but these same worlds again would be very inferior to ours in goodness.”   Although God could have hypothetically created a world without evil, such a world would not have the benefit of freedom of will.
5. The final approach to the logical problem of evil is known as the free will argument.  This argument overlaps significantly with the other approaches, and has been proposed in various forms since the second century.  Simply stated, the free will defense claims that God could not have created humans with a free will without permitting them to exercise that will to do evil.  Alvin Plantinga proposed the following:

• Free will is of moral value. That is, a world with free will is better than one without it.
• It is a contradiction to say that God brings it about that humans freely will only the good
• God must bring about the best possible world in his capacity.
• Therefore, God must create a world with free will
• But then God is not responsible for evil (choices), since it is not in His power to bring it about that men freely choose only the good.

If God changed everyone’s personality so that they could not cause evil, it would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

As long as at least one of these arguments – or another argument – is true, then God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, and the skeptic’s argument is invalid.

Conclusion

The logical problem of evil, it seems, is more of a problem for the non-Christian than for the Christian.  Within Christian theology, there are several non-contradictory answers to the question of why God allows evil to exist.  Several of these morally sufficient reasons for God allowing evil have been presented here; undoubtedly, others also exist.  The problem for non-Christians is that they reject Christian theology.  Because they approach the problem of evil with false presuppositions, the problem of evil can never be resolved to their satisfaction.  The very syllogism they propose is fallacious, and no answer consistent with the teaching of the Bible can ever be consistent with a non-Christian’s worldview.  Thus, for the non-Christian, the so-called logical problem of evil is merely a symptom of a larger problem, the rejection of God and His Word.