Friday, June 12, 2020


My father had been color-blind. He couldn't see the color red. Therefore, he was inclined to believe that it didn't exist. We are the same way. We might be blinded to certain very obvious realities and conclude, "If I don't see evidence for it, it doesn't exist." However, in many cases, the problem resides with those who think that they see and actually do not see.

When it comes to the question of God, the problem of seeing is not with our sensory mechanisms but with our will. Many have admitted that they refuse to see or acknowledge God. For example, Thomas Nagel, professor emeritus of philosophy at NYU admitted:

·       I am talking of...the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true...It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God. I don't want the universe to be like that...I am curious whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God. (The Last Word, Oxford University Press, 1997, 130)

Nagel is unusual. Even though he has expressed a high regard for intelligent design, something for which he had incurred great disapproval, he still admits that he has an aversion to the idea of God.

However, many others have confessed to such an aversion. Author of “The Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley, had also been very candid about his rejection of a higher meaning to life:

·       I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)

Nor are scientists immune to these commitments to a God-less world. Todd C. Scott admitted:

·       Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic [mindless and purpose-less].

Richard Lewontin also admitted the bias of present-day science:

·       We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs. . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Why color-blindness does not make us morally culpable; God-blindness does:

·       For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Everything is an artifact of God’s making (ID), whether the smallest atom, the fine-tuning of the universe, the immutable and elegant laws of science, or life and consciousness. We don’t see these things as God’s designs because we refuse to see them. We are without excuse!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.