DEBATING ATHEISM

 

 WHAT IS ATHEISM? Atheists define “atheism” in terms of what it literally means – “not a belief in gods.” This means that the only thing that atheism is about is the denial of the sufficiency of the evidence for a god.

Therefore, whatever evidence that you might present is easily countered by,
“There is not enough evidence,” or “There is no evidence for a god or gods.” This is very convenient for the atheist. It means “The burden of proof is on the theists to defend their claims that there is a god.” This allows the atheist to sit back and to put theists on the defensive to prove their claim.

 

However, nothing can be proved with objective certainty. Consequently, the atheist is always free to say, “Prove your proof.” Whatever proof you offer, they can still say, “Prove your proof,” endlessly.

 

However, atheists do have many beliefs like:

 

·       The finality of life at death.

·       Materialism and the denial of a spiritual, non-physical reality. Consequently, even consciousness is a matter of enough of the right atoms coalescing.

·       Naturalism and its prohibition of any non-naturalistic explanations. This includes the theory of evolution and any explanation of the origins of anything.

·       Biochemical determinism and the denial of freewill and culpability.

·       Moral relativism and the denial of any objective moral laws, even objective principles of justice.

 

Therefore, they also must be held accountable for their beliefs and required to demonstrate that they are more logical and evidential than those of the theist.

 

ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, DO WE HAVE FREEWILL?

I was very disturbed to read what a Christian had written on Facebook:

·       Free-willers hate the thought that they are not the one in control, therefore they hate God!

I knew that I needed to respond:

<

·       Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were NOT WILLING!”

This assumes that they could have been willing but refused. They had the option to act otherwise!

If none of us have freewill and, therefore, couldn’t have acted otherwise, then we would all bear the same guilt and these many teachings of Jesus could not be true:

·       Luke 12:47-48 “And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

Besides, God pleads with Israel that He has given her everything they needed:

·       Isaiah 5:1-4 “Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?”

Had God not given Israel freewill, they would be right to complain, “I never had a chance to behave better because You never gave us freewill.” However, Israel NEVER accused God of this!!!

Just one last thought: By claiming that we lack freewill, you are making God into the Creator and Author of sin and the Author of every act of genocide and rape, thereby compromising the revealed character of God:

·       1 John 1:5-6 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

Instead:

·       James 1:13-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted [enticed] by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts [entices] no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his OWN desire.

God does not give us the desire to sin, but He gives us over to the desires of our own heart (Romans 1:24-28).

If none of us have freewill and, therefore, couldn’t have acted otherwise, then we would all bear the same guilt and these many teachings of Jesus could not be true:

·       Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Jesus taught that there are levels of accountability. However, if none of us have freewill, then there is no basis for these levels. Besides, if we do not have freewill, they is no basis for blame. It would make us a machine like a computer, which is not morally culpable when it fails to perform as intended.

Besides, God pleads with Israel that He has given her EVERYTHING they needed:

·       Isaiah 5:1-4  Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes.  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?

Had God not given Israel freewill, they would be right to complain, “I never had a chance to behave better because You never gave us freewill.” However, Israel NEVER accused God of this!!!

You, therefore, are needlessly and unbiblically creating dissension within the Body of Christ. Please pray about this.>>

ANOTHER FATAL FLAW OF NATURALISM AND EVOLUTION

Both naturalism and the theory of evolution maintain that, through natural selection, we have evolved a brain that has conferred upon us many survival advantages by enabling us to accurately perceive and to rationally think about our world.

However, there are other forms of our neurological wiring that the naturalist dismisses as irrational, although perhaps adaptive. Theologian and pastor, Timothy Keller, has written about this inconsistency:

·       Evolutionists say that if God makes sense to us, it is not because he is really there, it’s only because that [irrational] belief helped us survive and so we are hard wired for it. However, if we can’t trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science? If our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to survive, not what is true, why trust them about anything at all?

·       What is not fair is to do what so many evolutionary scientists are doing now. They are applying the scalpel of their skepticism to what our minds tell us about God but not to what our minds are telling us about evolutionary science itself. (The Reason for God, Dutton, 2008, 137-38)

The evolutionist claims that both rationality and irrationality (for example, the belief in God) have enabled us to successful adapt. Keller points to the fact that the evolutionist is not applying his scalpel evenly. If our brains and their beliefs have enabled us to successfully navigate this world and even to understand more abstract things, why not also apply this to our intuition or belief in God? According to the evolutionist, this form of irrationality had once conferred a survival advantage, but how could irrationality – seeing the world through a distorted lens – do so? Perhaps then, their own theories are irrational, serving only a temporary purpose?

Besides, the evolutionist takes his scalpel to many other ideas or intuitions that do not fit into their naturalistic worldview. C.S. Lewis reflects on this tendency in regards to love and music:

·       You can’t, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behavior of your genes. You can’t go on getting very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is a pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. (141)

According to Lewis, a naturalistic meaningless universe does not accord with our intuitions about it. It is these intuitions that take us beyond what is evolutionarily “rational” and infuse life with meaning and fullness. Are these hot-wired intuitions feeding us a distorted message? Does evolution “win” by tricking us? Are our brains filled with evolutionary distortions? If so, won’t these “distortions” intrude into all other areas of life? And won’t such “irrational” thoughts distort the rational?

Today, based upon the naturalistic worldview, many deny the existence of freewill. In a materialistic world governed entirely by the laws of science, there is just no room or basis for freewill. Instead, although adaptive, believing that we have freewill is just another necessary prank of evolution.

However, we have the intuitive perception that we are freely, at least to some degree, making freewill decisions. Are we mistaken? If so, because these intuitions are so basic, if we doubt our freewill, what then can we not doubt? Should we not also doubt that perhaps we are an individual person rather than part of a corporate consciousness? Should we not also doubt that a physical world exists and that our thoughts and perceptions are all just imaginary?

Consequently, if we are to doubt our freewill, love, the fullness of vision we receive from music, and the existence of God, perhaps we must doubt everything else. But perhaps we should also doubt doubt itself.

Perhaps, instead, these beliefs are not only “necessary,” but they are also an accurate reflection of reality. And to doubt them is also to doubt everything else that we believe in.

This same problem exists in the area of morality. Naturalism instructs us that there are no objective moral laws. Instead, morality is just something that we create, even if largely based on our biochemical intuitions.

Instead, we intuit that when we violate our conscience, we violate objective moral laws, which exist beyond our biochemistry, and deserve punishment. We sense that something or Someone greater than us is condemning us, and that we need to confess our wrongdoing. This sense is so powerful, that when we don’t confess, we find ourselves forced to justify our misbehaviors. We are not able to simply say “who cares!” and walk away. Instead, the sense that we have done something wrong is so vivid and compelling that we have to address it in some way.

Does this sense grant us an accurate picture of reality? According to the naturalist, it might be necessary, but it is also irrational, since there is no Judge, no objective means of judgment, and no ultimate punishment.

The naturalistic worldview forces them to regard these various intuitions as necessary but also as irrational. But how can so many irrational beliefs have survival value? And won’t they permeate into what is “rational,” undermining our entire existence? And if these intuitions are irrational, perhaps also the naturalistic worldview?

OUR BELIEFS CAN KILL US

One extreme example of this is ISIS. Many join, and many will not escape alive. However, our beliefs can kill more subtly. What we think about ourselves can kill us.

Many years ago, after taking LSD, I lost the awareness that I was a human who could die. I could easily have jumped out of a window, thinking I could fly.

However, we can lose awareness of who we are, with deadly consequences, without taking LSD. 

In a vain attempt to dismiss the existence of God, many have opted for materialism - the belief that only a physical reality exists. However this belief entails other beliefs - that everything is determined by the laws of science. Consequently, everything is predetermined by these laws. As a result, they are convinced that freewill is only an illusion.

Some even relish this belief. If they do not have freewill, then they couldn't have acted otherwise, and they cannot be held accountable for their behavior.

Although this might serve to mitigate feelings of shame an guilt, it also carries unintended lethal baggage. For one thing, they have also relinquished their right to hold others accountable. Along with this, they have sacrificed vital concepts like justice, retribution, honor, dignity, courage, meaning, and any purpose for their lives.

But do these sacrifices kill? They will definitely kill relationships. What are you going to tell your wife, when she accuses you for pushing her? Are you going to apologize? You cannot honestly apologize, if you believe that you couldn't have done otherwise. But how then can there be reconciliation with your wife?

Nor can you require your children to apologize. After all, they too couldn't have behaved otherwise.

You can instead decide:

• I will apologize and will require my children to apologize even though we couldn't have done otherwise.

However, to apologize contradicts your worldview. It admits that your worldview fails to address the needs of your life. It is therefore dysfunctional and should be exchanged for a worldview that reflects reality and serves as a guide for life.

The denial of freewill and accountability kills in other ways. It tells criminals that they are not responsible for their rapes and murders. It even tells them that they lack the freewill to improve. 

Perhaps, even worse, it teaches them cynicism. It tells them that they do not deserve punishment, because their crimes had been pre-programmed into them.

If so, they will wonder why they are being punished if they couldn't have acted otherwise. They will see that your system of justice is just hypocrisy. Such an awareness will not inspire change and personal responsibility.

Instead, we need to be nourished with a coherent rationale for responsible living. Without this, I fear that our society cannot long endure. And why should we even care if we cannot do otherwise?

Should we deprive such people of the vote, a vote that is no more than a chemical-electrical reaction! And when deprived, should we take their complaint seriously?

This is not a flippant remark but a reality. To deny freewill is to deny that we are responsible and moral agents. It is also to seriously degrade humanity. If this human machine fails to respond in socially acceptable ways, why not simply deposit us in the city dump with the rest of the garbage!