Do you have a CHOICE?

It was the late Dr. Carl Sagan who (omnisciently?) quipped:

"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

Really? Wow....now that is an amazingly open-minded and tolerant statement, but we will have to table that tempting motion for another blog...moving on.

In his latest (and most controversial) novel, the world's most renowned theoretical physicist has attempted to clarify his position on the role of God (or, more accurately the lack thereof) in the creation of the Universe.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

                   --Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design




Spontaneous creation??? Hmmm. It seems that, even though the superstition of spontaneous generation of life was demonstrated to be folly over a century ago, modern physics has resurrected this fairy tale and dressed it up in a fancy new outfit. Where is all of this going? Give me a second, it's quite interesting, and, well, to be honest, it's really quite terrifying. Let's move on from physics to biology.

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, atheist and evolutionary proponent Richard Dawkins, has postulated that the amazing design and intricate and complex patterns and relationships we observe in nature are, in fact, an illusion of sorts.

He contends that they only appear to have been designed, when, in reality, they are all the results of blind, unconscious, uncaring, and purely chemically-driven processes.

Here comes the rub inherent in the philosophically naturalistic worldview that these three men, these icons of science, represent:

Since the natural cosmos is all there is, then everything that happens is purely the result of chemical interactions according to physical laws.

Is anyone offended by that statement...yet?


If not, let me restate the naturalist proposition in another inescapable way:



As humans, we do not actually have a free will to make free choices, due to the fact that we are merely a collection of atoms which obey chemical and physical laws. Everything that we do is determined purely by the laws governing the Universe, and choice/freedom is merely an illusion.

Let me illustrate. You are at the shoe store, and out of several dozen sneakers, you have settled on selecting one of two possible pairs, both of which you really like. You can think of a lot of reasons for purchasing either one. There is comfort to consider, and economics, and even style, fashion, and the quality of the build...these all factor in---or so we think. We make our decision, yes, we have made it, "I'll take the blue pair, please. Thank you."


We have made our choice...or have we? According to the strict naturalistic worldviews of Sagan, Hawking, and Dawkins, we haven't really made a free choice. Freedom is an illusion. What really occurred is the movement of billions of atoms along synaptic pathways to cause the atoms in the muscles of your tongue, throat, thorax, and mandibles to "say" those words (not really words, just vibrations of other molecules that move across the medium of air).

According to naturalism, you had no choice, because there really is no YOU (strictly speaking), there is nothing except atoms moving around in space. Your "will" doesn't exist actually, you just "think" that you have choice, but the idea of a "soul" or "will" or "person" is just the stuff of myth, fantasy, and, er, um, religion (gasp).

Atoms will always behave in carefully prepared patterns according to physical law, such as the laws of chemical interaction, or gravity, with maybe a super-tiny aberration caused by some quantum particle interaction. Since naturalism denies that you are a "person" in the sense of a free-willed agent with a non-material will, then you are just a biological machine, operating only according to strict chemical/physical laws. Self-consciousness is a natural phenomenon, but, alas, an intricate cosmic delusion. Enjoy.



To put it even more simply, imagine the "first" action at the "beginning" of the universe to be a single domino falling. Obviously that led to the next one falling, and so on, down to...uh, well, um, me and you. We are just more complex dominoes continuing to do what dominoes do. Simple.

Philosophers call this unavoidable conclusion:

Determinism: 
the view that all events will predictably occur due exclusively to natural law and are not affected by any other force or agency
(indeed, because none exist, in their view anyway. This is a reductionist approach, but a necessary one).


The world's largest digital encyclopedia defines it thus: "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Determinism states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. "

The ramifications and implications of such a philosophy are frightening (though that, in of itself, is not grounds to dismiss it as invalid. The truth can be terrifying, or it can be wonderful---those are merely our reactions to it and therefore do not have any bearing upon truth itself, per se).

Naturalists cannot escape that the logical conclusion of their hypothesis is that everything-- every decision, every act, every belief, every "choice" is only the natural product of chemical reactions.



Do you know of someone who loves poetry, or modern art, or perhaps enjoys the subtleties of the ballet? There are completely natural and unavoidable chemical explanations for all of those fancies, or even obsessions.


Do you know a Buddhist? They are only a Buddhist because the atoms and the chemical reactions inside their brain have, in the strictest of senses, forced them to be a Buddhist. Buddhism seems logical to them because they are just programmed to "accept" it.

The same is true of atheists, such as Dawkins, as well. Their rejection of God is inescapable. They can say that they have "arrived" at their conclusion using logical, rational, and intellectual evaluations...but, sorry, if atheism is true, then all arguments for/against the existence of God are illusions. The chemistry in their brains have made them "believe" in atheism. The truth is irrelevant, the facts are irrelevant, indeed, the "evidence" is irrelevant. Atheists are atheists because they are pre-programmed to be atheists. It cannot be avoided due to naturalism.


Every word you speak, every move you make, every emotion you feel is in actuality just a pre-programmed set of complex chemical reactions. Every act of courage, such as those rescuing others from buildings aflame, to the tearful and joyful reunions of loved ones brought back together, all bravery and love, all honor and goodwill, all honesty and all integrity, just illusions, just names we give to unavoidable chemical reactions.
 
Don't celebrate the hero, they didn't actually choose to place themselves in harm's way, the atoms inside their neurons moved in predictable pathways to lead to such an outcome. The gratitude "felt" in those who have received the benefit of the "hero's" actions are merely chemical reactions as well...granted, a heart-warming illusion.


But some are now seeing the darker side of this worldview. Just as an appreciation of "beauty" (an illusion) is caused by atoms moving about in time and space, so are the heinous and brutal acts of the criminal. According to the naturalist, the fast hands of the sidewalk pick-pocket and the sick rage of the serial killer are unavoidable, predetermined, because everything is the result of atoms moving around according to physical laws.

Since (if) the universe is just matter moving about in space due to energy, then think about this horrifying conclusion:


There is no fundamental difference between the the slaughter of a child with a butcher knife and the carving of a beautiful sculpture by a master craftsman. According to the pure naturalist, both are merely the movement of atoms, through space, due to energy.
(This isn't my belief, it's inescapably theirs)

At the atomic level, there is absolutely zero difference between violent rape and the planting of a garden. They are identical in the most fundamental of ways...at least according to the determinism endorsed by the pure naturalist.


How can we hold the offender accountable for his/her crime when they are nothing more than a collection of atoms, moving through space, due to energy? Can in be that some atoms are evil and others good? Rationality laughs at such a blasphemous utterance.

Listen to what Dawkins himself said about this problem of determinism:

"What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do...None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, 'Oh well he couldn't help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.'"

The interviewer saw his opportunity in the shallow and philosophically-hypocritical statement and pressed the Oxford scholar:

Interviewer: "But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?"

Dawkins: "I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with, otherwise life would be intolerable."

As Science Officer Mr. Spock would say: "Fascinating."

Recently Stephen Hawking opened himself up for a Q&A, and a student challenged him, pointing out that his theories eliminated the possibility of free will. Hawking's response? To paraphrase, he said that because we do not know the future, determinism looks and feels like free will. There was an audible groan that went through that educated audience.


In effect, he said that we have the appearance and the feeling of something that doesn't actually exist, and that it's alright to live in that self-deception (such as Dawkins alluded to earlier).

In another place Stephen Hawking flatly denied free will, demeaning it as "just an illusion". He said that his research and theoretical analysis led him to believe that "Quantum physics...leads us to accept a new form of determinism:"





This may be a mouthful, but it is worth reading and pondering. Here is what Douglas Wilson asserted concerning this inescapable conclusion:

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."
Is all of this new?

Not actually. The early Greek scientists Leucippus and Democritus were probably among the first to articulate some form of determinism when they speculated that every action in the world was caused by the movement/interaction of atoms.

Moving into the 20th century, the prolific and insightful author, G. K. Chesterton, offered this stunning rebuke:
"...when materialism leads men to complete fatalism (as it generally does), it is quite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating force. It is absurd to say that you are especially advancing freedom when you only use free thought to destroy free will. ..Similarly you may say, if you like, that the...determinist...is free to disbelieve in the reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that he is not free to raise, to curse...to justify, to urge, to punish, to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say "thank you" for the mustard."

Getting back to the (real) reality...
We have listened to the words of three of the most respected naturalists, each building upon the secular speculation of the other. But now, let's read the words of the most famous and most respected philosopher of all time:

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

     -- Jesus Christ (as recorded in John 3:16)

Speaking to those who were continually rejecting Him, Jesus said:

"And you will not come to Me, that you might have life." (John 5:40)

In the Old Testament, God spoke to the children of Israel through His servant Joshua:

"And if it seems evil for you to serve the LORD, then choose this day whom you will serve..."
Now, I could be wrong (and often am), but I think these three verses are pretty clear. It sounds like the Bible teaches that we have (can it be?) a free will. This is ground-breaking stuff. In John 3:16, Jesus offers salvation to whoever will believe in Him, He says that those who are rejecting Him will not come to Him, and Joshua implores the people to make a decision, to choose.


It's important how you begin...

The scriptures record that God created humanity in His image. Does this have to do with how we look? Of course not, it refers to our moral image, that we are small reflections of Him, independent beings with personality, creativity, intelligence, emotion, and a will.

In order for us to have a voluntary and loving relationship with God, He created us with a free will, otherwise we would be automatons, merely robots parroting the words: "I love you, God. I love you, God." But God gave us a choice, to accept Him, or to reject Him.



In the perfect environment of Eden, God created a single and simple test. To obey would be to choose God, to violate His command would reveal their choice to rebel in rejection of Him and His love.

We know their decision (yes, they made a decision...not their atoms, or the deterministic pre-programming of natural law) and down through history we have all done likewise. All of us have chosen to rebel against God, to sin, to disobey. We may be sinners by nature, but we are certainly sinners by choice.

The scriptures declare that one day every person will stand in judgment before God. Now, even looking at this from a purely logical and moral standpoint, if God created us without a free will, in some sort of deterministic charade, then how could He hold a person accountable for their actions? The reason there is a judgment is because we have a choice.

Chemistry and physics do not answer the question about why the rich kid steals, or the smart kid cheats, or the politician lies, or so on. There comes a point of decision, and we decide to sin.

A more important decision...


The Bible describes another decision, another choice that affects every man, woman, and child in the world. It says:

"And we know that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

God the Father chose to send His Son to die on the cross for our sins, so that we could be saved. Jesus, the Son, said:

"No man takes (my life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down..."

Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice, He gave His life for us willingly.

But now, fittingly, the final choice is ours. He has done everything necessary to save us from our sins, but we have to willingly turn to Him to accept that salvation and to enter back into a right relationship with God.

The music band MIKES CHAIR encapsulates the cry of the heart in all of us, in their song "Someone Worth Dying For"

Am I more than flesh and bone?

(in other words, not just a "physical" arrangement of atoms)

Am I really something beautiful?

I'm not just some wandering soul

That you don't see and you don't know

Yeah I wanna believe, Jesus help me believe

that I am someone worth dying for.
----------------------------------------------

You are...and He did.

The Gospel: To Offend or Not Offend...

A fairly new term has cropped up in religious circles of late. We hear of churches being "this" and Bible studies offering "this" and even types of evangelism practicing "this."

But what is "this"?






The phrase is "seeker friendly" or "seeker sensitive." You know, there are:

"Seeker friendly" churches.

"Seeker friendly" programs.

"Seeker friendly" ____________ (fill in the spiritual blank)

Now, before we move on, please hear my heart. I am not against methods and practices which encourage people who are "seeking" God, and I am not against churches adopting concepts that help to get the gospel to the lost, in fact, evangelism is among my greatest passions.


The term or concept of "seeker friendly" (usually) though goes much, much farther, and has a far more darker side than most Christians are aware of.  More often than not, the concept of "seeker friendly" has to do with how the "gospel" is presented, and the goal is to present something that will not "offend", "turn off", or be negative in any sort of way.



Some may be protesting:

"Well, what's wrong with that? I mean, whatever it takes to get 'em in the door! Right?!"

Actually----no.

The problem is that the gospel itself IS offensive to our human nature. The fact that Jesus had to suffer, shed His blood, and die on the cross to pay the price for our sins to save us from hell is...well, a bit of a blow to the ego of mankind.

The apostle Paul put it this way:

"...we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews, a stumbling block, and to the gentiles, foolishness."
(I Corinthians 1:23)

The Greek word that we translate "gospel" literally means "good news", but it's the kind of good news that is only good when you understand the "bad news," too. You see, the good news is that Jesus really did die on a cross to pay the price for your sins and my sins, to save us from a lost eternity. But, embedded within that, is a whole host of "bad news" that we must be willing to admit.




First, we are sinners. The Lord says: "For ALL have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God" and "There is no one righteous, no, not even one..." (Romans 3:23, 3:12).  No one likes to hear that, no one wants to believe that they are sinful, but God says it. It is the truth. Every time we look in the mirror, we are looking at a spiritual "most wanted" photo with the word "guilty" at the bottom. We willingly lie, deceive, lust, and are unthankful, just to name a few. There's no denying it.

Secondly, our sin deserves the judgment of a holy God. God actually does hate sin. Psalm 5:5 reveals: "(The LORD) hates all workers of sin." God also says: "But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you..." (Isaiah 59:2)

Sin separates us from a holy God, and if we die in that state of separation, we will ultimately be lost in the judgment of the lake of fire. In Revelation 20:15 we read these chilling words: "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

If that's not offensive, then I don't know what is.

But, that's only a PART of the gospel, albeit a necessary one to acknowledge. The other side of that "gospel coin" is the good news.

First, that God created us and loves us (John 3:16)

Secondly, that the Father sent Jesus, the Son, to take your place and my place on the cross, and that He died to pay the penalty for our sins against a righteous and holy God.

Finally, that God can now offer salvation and forgiveness as a totally FREE GIFT to any and all who are willing to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. (Ephesians 2:8,9, Romans 6:23)

You see, the good news wouldn't make any sense, if it weren't for the bad news, too. If you just tell someone that God loves them and that Jesus died for them, they might smile and say: "That's nice." But it has no effect, no power in their heart until they understand why He came, why He had to die, and what they must do about His free offer of grace.

Here is a simple example: Imagine that you are sitting in a doctor's office awaiting the physician to return after a vigorous and thorough examination and testing. The wise medical professional walks into the room and says, "I have some good news, it looks like you are a perfect candidate for brain surgery!" 

He smiles...

...you don't.

"What do you mean---brain surgery?!?!" you exclaim in shock.

He gets a surprised look on his face, then slaps his forehead. "I'm sorry," he begins, "look at this latest MRI scan. You've got a life-threatening tumor in your temporal lobe. But, good news, this kind of surgery is almost always successful at stopping this type of cancer."

You see, it wasn't until the BAD NEWS (you have brain cancer) was understood, that the GOOD NEWS (brain surgery shows excellent results) really made any sense. I don't care how nice, or "seeker friendly" the doctor is, no one is going to submit to life-threatening brain surgery without a little explanation of WHY it is necessary.

The good news of the gospel isn't good news unless a person understands how dangerous their spiritual condition is. Think about it, every unsaved person is one heartbeat away from a lost eternity. That is about as precarious as one could even imagine.  They need to know the truth.

Now, I am not advocating that every Christian runs out into the streets with posters proclaiming: "You're headed to hell, accept Jesus now!"

There are ways of getting your point across that won't immediately alienate the listeners, and that won't relegate you as a "fanatic nut-job."






As we read the book of Acts, which is a record of how the early Christians began to evangelize a lost world, we see different examples of techniques used to get people to realize their need, and them to present Jesus as the solution.  If the audiences were predominantly Jewish, the early Christians would often begin by pointing out the many prophecies in the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) that spoke of a coming Savior who would die for our sins, and then introduce them to Jesus, the fulfillment of those prophecies.

If the audiences were logical types, then you will often read of the apostle Paul and others using logic and reasoning to demonstrate the validity of the fundamentals of the gospel. If they were non-Jewish religious types, we will see a case being presented with proofs of the One True God, and of our sinfulness, and then of Jesus as the answer to our greatest need.

Though the gospel is offensive in it's core message (we are sinners deserving of God's judgment) it doesn't have to be presented in the most offensive way. The doctor won't just walk into a room and say that you have a problem, without at least seeking to identify a possible or probably solution(s). The good news, really is good news, never forget that.

The problem with the ultimate end of this "seeker friendly" environment, such as we see demonstrated in the Emergent (Emerging) Church Movement, is that it avoids (or removes) the very foundation for the gospel itself. You see, if we aren't sinners, then Jesus didn't need to come and die for us to save us, in fact, we don't need saving, maybe we just need "remodeling." Jesus isn't our "remodeler" or our "workout coach" or our "best buddy", He is first and foremost our SAVIOR, and as sinners, that is our biggest need.

I will end with a humorous but sad illustration of the danger of this "seeker friendly" movement as it relates to the gospel. This is a hypothetical discussion at a strategy meeting in a local "seeker friendly" church.

Speaker 1: "According to the Bible, the gospel is that we are sinners and deserve to be punished, but that God loves us and sent Jesus to die on the cross to pay for our sins so that we could receive the free gift of eternal life."

Speaker 2: "What?! That'll never fly in today's culture. It's so, well, negative, and, um, harsh."

Speaker 3: "Yeah, gimme a break! That intolerant hellfire and brimstone business has no place in the modern church, it might've worked 2000 years ago, but now, come on, people don't need judgment crammed down their throat."

Speaker 1: "Well, what do you folks recommend?"

Speaker 4: "Let's focus on the positive, minimize the negative...works in business, why not in the church?!"

Speaker 1: "OK, gimme a sec to re-word this, ok, now, um, let's see. The gospel is that God loves us and sent Jesus to die on the cross so that we could receive the free gift of eternal life."

Speaker 5: "Nope, never work. That whole business about death and Jesus dying, too morbid. That's a bit uncivilized!"

Speaker 6: "I agree, nix the death stuff."

Speaker 1: "OK, no death. Hold on, ok, now, I'm just about there.Alright: the gospel is that God loves us and sent Jesus so that we could receive the free gift of eternal life."

Speaker 3: "I don't know, something still seems a bit negative. Oh, I know, it's that whole business about receiving the gift of eternal life. It sounds like we are reminding them that they DON'T have it."

Speaker 7: "But they don't have it, that is, if they aren't saved--that's what the Bible says."

Speaker 2: "Now that's exactly the kind of talk we don't need in our church, you'll run people off with that kind of dogmatic bible-babble."

Speaker 3: "Yeah, and we might want to leave off any reference to Jesus. That would offend a lot of orthodox Jews, and even most Muslims."

Speaker 1: "Ok, I think I've got it reworked now. How's this: The gospel is that God loves us."

Speaker 2: "Drop the word 'Gospel', too outdated, archaic, meaningless in today's culture."

Speaker 1: "Alrighty, then, how about...God loves us."

Speaker 5: "It's pretty close, but I'm worried about offending different seekers, like agnostics, or maybe some of our far eastern friends who don't really accept the concept of a personal god. It could cause them to not come back."

Speaker 2: "Great point, not sure how I missed that one."

Speaker 1: "Well, now let me see, take that out, and, uh, OK, here we go....LOVE."

Speaker 3: "Now that's a message worth spreading around!"

Speaker 6: (wiping tears away) "It's...it's beautiful!"

Speaker 4: "I'm gonna go put that our on digital road sign right now!"

Speaker 2: "Give it three months, we'll have to start a new building project to hold all the new people!"

Speaker 1: "Praise God, meeting adjourned."







.

The Problem of Morality for Atheism: a pot of gold for the seeker

The story is told of a bright, eager college student in a philosophy class. The teacher had given instructions about an essay test that could cover any topic of deep personal interest to each student. He set out several colored folders on his desk and told the students to pick one and place their finished essay test into it before the end of the class period. The eager young student poured his heart and mind into his carefully argued thesis, and with minutes to spare, confidently strolled up to the aged professor, opened a blue folder and slid his test in.




The professor peered at him from above rounded-spectacles. "What was your thesis, young man?" The student smiled, "It's about how atheism denies objective morality."  The wise sage nodded ever so slightly. "I see, I see," he said. The professor then pulled out the student's test and without even glancing at a single line of the meticulous draft, put a large, red "F" at the top of the paper. The student's countenance dropped as his eyes darted from the grade to the teacher's face. "But, but, I don't understand...you haven't even read it, how can you fail me?!"



"Oh, I'm sorry, " the instructor continued, "let me explain. I don't like the color blue, so all tests in the blue folder get an 'F'". The student was indignant. He looked at the teacher, then around at the few remaining students scattered about. "But--that's not fair! It isn't right!"

How quickly the true inward reality of an issue comes knocking when we least expect it. All the carefully crafted arguments and cleverly arranged research vanishes like the emperor's clothes once exposed to the light of even a child's comprehension of the facts. The atheist is in a quandary: on the one hand, they worship at the mantra "The universe--all there ever was, is, or ever will be" but yet on the other hand they cannot escape the universal experience of (gasp! here it comes) morality.

Morality, that inner witness to something that "ought to be", a conscious and yet subconscious acknowledgement that some things are intrinsically "right" and others are undeniably "wrong".  That pleasant sense of FAIRNESS or that horrific realization of INEQUALITY, or INJUSTICE.  People often speak of the "innocence of a child," in other words, kids will often point out the fundamental issues that us "adults" are too complicated and sophisticated to, um...admit.

Take a mother and father with three young kids. On Christmas morning, the children rush down to the living room and see a boatload of beautifully wrapped gifts under a brilliantly decorated tree. But, upon closer inspection, to the horror of the other two, all of the gifts are for the same child. All for him, NONE for them. Now, ask them about the reality of the fundamental issue of morality or fairness. They will tell you the truth, every time. Even the one who has been the beneficiary of such a lopsided affair will express a certain amount of discomfort, even though it is unfair in their favor.

Here in America we cherish and value the Declaration of Independence. Drafted by a mix of intelligent, enlightened, and thoughtful founders, it declares:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Right there, within the first few paragraphs of arguably one of the most important, quoted, and well-supported documents of all time, is a treasure trove of understanding about this issue. Notice certain key words, such as "self-evident", "equal", and "Rights." Also, note the foundation of these moral issues: Their Creator. America's founders, whether deist, theist, or fundamental Christian, considered to be among the greatest congregations of educated people ever assembled, understood and laid out the case before us ever so eloquently. Morality is a universal truth, and it is given by our Creator.

 Moving forward at least two centuries, the famous Oxford professor and former-atheist-turned-Christian, C.S. Lewis, put it ever so bluntly (as he was known to do):

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike...Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish."

In fact, it was the irrefutable issue of morality, of the undeniable witness of fairness, equality, and justice, that tormented the mind of the brilliant skeptic. As he wrestled with the implications of this universal phenomenon, the light of a greater truth began to dawn on his intellectual horizon. As he finally emerged out of the haze of his own arrogant self-deception, he declared:

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."

Now, stay with me here, I promise it will pay off. The atheist is an extremely precarious position once the debate goes down the line of the concept of objective morality---and here's why. As the framers of the Declaration correctly asserted, morality can only exist if there is a higher authority, endowed by our "Creator". Without a lawgiver, an authority, a Creator, a God, who has made the Universe, and all that is within it, including us, then obviously morality is nothing more than an illusion. But the universal witness is incontrovertible, morality exists.






Leprechauns and the Pot of Gold

We have all heard the children's story of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but unfortunately, it is guarded by jealous leprechauns. These tiny green menaces will do all in their power to keep us from "stealing" their magical treasure troves.  Now, if you ever find one of these magical pots of gold, guess what...that's pretty good evidence for the existence of Leprechauns, since the two are always linked together. Leprechauns and pots of gold are two sides of the same coin.

What does this have to do with God, atheists, and morality?

Everything.

Let's pull back the veil of the analogy for just a bit. Instead of "pot of gold", let's replace that with "morality". Instead of leprechauns, let's say "God." (no disrespect intended). Now, for the atheist, who asserts that there is no Creator, no God, no lawgiver, no higher authority---he/she has been hit in a head-on collision with an irrefutable fact. They cannot allow the concept of morality, of fairness, of right and wrong, without admitting the leprechaun behind that pot of gold.

So, Who Has the Delusion?

Perhaps the most famous living atheist is Richard Dawkins. But poor Richard has fallen into this little pot-of-gold-trap in his most famous recent book, The God Delusion. In this attack-book, he sets his sights on Christianity (as he always does).


He immediately goes after the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. He alleges that the God of the Bible is the most evil, sadistic, and repulsive figure of all literature.

Watch out Professor. That's a downward spiral that you don't really want to go down. Actually, it's not that you shouldn't go there, or that you wouldn't go there---to be blunt, you CAN'T go there. As a committed anti-theist, who denies anything higher than man, you cannot make those assertions. It's illogical. If there is no God, no Creator, then, guess what? There is no good, bad, evil, right, or wrong. Richard Dawkins cannot claim that the God of the Bible is evil or bad---because, by very definition of his own worldview, Dawkins cannot allow for those concepts. They simply don't exist in the world of Richard Dawkins. Things may be inconvenient, or disappointing...but they cannot be wrong, or bad, or unfair, or unjust...or any of the charges that he has laid out in his self-refuting case against God.

Once an atheist makes value claims regarding morality, they have admitted their own contradiction, in a sense, they have won the argument for the theist (those who believe in God). This lack of a cogent and cohesive argument comes up all of the time in debates with skeptics. They invariably point out tragedies, disasters, and horrible evils in the world, and then challenge: "How could a loving God allow these terrible and evil things, if He really existed?"

Thank you for the challenge, for you have admitted to the pot of gold, and now perhaps you will finally see the leprechaun. An atheist cannot challenge a Christian based on the accusation that God is unjust or unfair to allow evil in a world that He created. To do so, is for the atheist to admit that, deep down, he/she feels repulsed by the corruption, the evil, the vile actions of others----but why? If there is no God, then nothing is evil, or wrong, or vile. But, alas! They cannot escape the very fabric of their own conscience.

The next time you run into an avowed atheist, tell them that you will respect the arguments of any belief system, except for atheists.

When they say: "But, that is unfair!"---

---just smile.


That little pot of gold is truly priceless.