Is Religion a Curse? My Personal Thoughts on the Moral Implications of Jesus-God and no God
Have you ever heard that argument? People should be anti-religious, because religion has caused violence throughout every century it has existed. Even Christianity, a religion supposedly big on love and the next life, has been the cause of horrors such as the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, exploitation by missionaries, and anti-Semitism(1).
I haven't heard that argument in a long time, but have quite a bit to say about the subject.
If you are an atheist, I must warn you that this post contains very provocative material for someone who denies God has anything to do with the human race. I mention rape, murder, and the Holocaust. But if you do continue reading, please don't stop at some displeasing subject and judge me. Read the whole thing. I'm not trying to be mean, not at all. I take evasive maneuvers to make sure of that (like right now).
What really bothers me today is that there is a classroom philosophy which does justify Hitler's Holocaust: "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
"But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." (2)
Now my history professor reminded me that Hitler's presented justification is arguably just a smokescreen because he knew what he was doing was evil. But whether or not he really did believe evolutionary theory encompasses all aspects of the human race is technically irrelevant. For starters, his logic makes perfect sense: since this is the way the world is, he has good reason to kill the weak. Second, an evolutionary story of creation without God leads straight to determinism. And when one considers that, it becomes painfully clear that, if true, all the crimes people have committed -- even in the name of God -- were caused by evolution, not religion. Richard Dawkins put it this way: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
I have made a much more detailed and formidable argument that atheism denies the existence of morality, see here. Part of that is the lack of free will, which I presented elsewhere. In both places I cite Dawkins. So, Hitler's presented reasoning doesn't make him morally right because it's the way the world is, it just means what he did makes sense and wasn't morally wrong.
But Jesus was a Jew. His Disciples were Jews. The great missionary Paul was a Jew. Jesus said in John 4:22, "Salvation is from the Jews," because the Old Testament has been prophesying Him ever since the beginning. John 3:16 has Jesus dying for the eternal salvation of all mankind: "For God so loved the world He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life". Romans 1:16 defines the Gospel as "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."
"What are the consequences of Singer's outrageous Darwinian ideas? He believes that parents should be able to kill their newborn infants until they are 28 days of age! These beliefs are perfectly consistent with Darwinism. If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species. The only question is, why limit infanticide at 28 days, or, for that matter, 28 months or 28 years? If there is no Moral Law Giver, then there's nothing wrong with murder at any age! Of course, Darwinists such as Singer might reject this conclusion, but they have no objective grounds for disagreeing unless they can appeal to a standard beyond themselves -- a Moral Law Giver." (3)
Jeremiah 1:4-5 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Psalm 139:13-16 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
Jesus died on the cross to save every human being from their sins before they were even a twinkle in their mother's eye.
"Shocking as they are, these Darwinian conclusions about murder and rape should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the moral implications of Darwinism. Why? Because according to Darwinists, all behaviors are genetically determined. While some Darwinists might disagree with the implication that murder and rape are not wrong (precisely because the Moral Law speaks to them through their consciences), those conclusions are the inexorable result of their worldview. For if only material things exist, then murder and rape are nothing more than the results of chemical reactions in a criminal's brain brought about by natural selection. Moreoever, murder and rape can't be objectively wrong (i.e., against the Moral Law) because there are no laws if only chemicals exist. Objective moral laws require a transcendent Law-Giver ... consistent Darwinists can only consider murder and rape as personal dislikes, not real moral wrongs." (4)
Remember how Richard Dawkins put it: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." Why condemn men who forcibly sexually penetrate a women? Raping someone isn't bad, those men are just doing what their programming has told them to do for the good of fulfilling the essential purpose of propagating their species. Rapers just dance to their DNA. So dance along!
What a sick idea. The Feminist movement would have a fit with this conclusion, yet is Feminism necessarily associated with theism? I know very little about political issues but I know enough to suspect the answer is no. Jesus, however, thought much better of women than just beings with a potential to be rape-ragdolls. Besides dying to save them from their sins, He treated them with great respect. I will write an entire blog post about that sometime soon.
Such conclusions of Darwinists are the logical outworks of atheism, not Christianity. Evolutionary ethics logically validate genocide, rape, and murder. The logical outworks of Christianity, in deep contrast, are love and hope for a perfect afterlife. I don't mean by this that all atheists are approving of evil deeds. I'm not trying to demonize Darwinists. I'm not trying to make them look like bad guys. Atheists are usually very moral people -- sometimes even more moral than Christians! I know a handful of atheists, and enjoy their company. My history professor, who may or may not be a theist but doesn't take such a stance in class, is obviously anti-racist and anti-genocide (as shown by calling what Hitler did bad and condemning slavery without grounding morality). But if they do believe that objective morality exists, that does not mean they can justify their claim.
Some years ago, I talked to an atheist volunteering at a library who said that right and wrong weren't really real, they were just opinions. I wouldn't call that volunteer a bad person. Actually, I think atheists who are in their worldview and can admit their ethical implications because they are convinced there is no other reasonable way, are very tough (especially if they also can live a life of optimism and selflessness). Think about it. Who do you know that doesn't want it to be evil if someone robs them blind? If those atheists are willing to admit that conclusion, it is not because they want it to be that way.
Yes, contrary to a stereotype you might know, I don't believe that all Darwinists are going to be depressed. Some may, and that is a perfectly logical response, but with no objective way to live, by all means be happy! Ravi Zacharias once was responding to questions and said how Hitler's actions were justifiable by atheism. That was to the first questioner, the second person came to the microphone and said:
Atheist: "Well, I can just tell you, I've heard all of this said before ... I'm not miserable."
R.Z.: "I never said you were."
Atheist: "No, but you are trying to make me. It isn't working." (5)
So, a motive I can't respect is when someone does want evil to not exist. First-rate philosopher of the mind Thomas Nagel expressed this view quite well: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
"My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind." (6)
People are out there who will deny God just so that they can sleep with whoever they want. What a price to pay when the conclusion is denying the objective human rights for their own mother.
When I started reading about arguments for my Christian faith, I came across two principles: atheism denies objective morality, and you shouldn't accept with your heart what you can't with your head. To deny feelings as a basis for belief is called being tough-minded -- convinced on the weight of objective evidence rather than subjective desires. As a matter of fact, that's why I call atheists who hold their position because they think they intellectually have to are so tough. I was taught that first I needed to satisfy my head before I rejoiced about Jesus in my heart. After cultivating my mind through a couple of years and many books, that's now the way I work, the way I role.
All this had made me pause in my reading to think: I wanted Christianity to be true. I wanted Jesus to be real because I see no strong intellectual grounds in other theistic views and need God to legislate morality to make it beyond opinion. Otherwise, I would have abandoned belief in good and evil.
If I ever went atheist, I would be a narcissist. The reason being because nobody really loves me, there's no ethical way I should live, my being determined means I'm not responsible for anything I do, and I like myself!
There is no love because the mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire -- every feeling anyone ever had for me and anything they did for me were caused by a heartless process of just atoms rearranging in someone's brain. They didn't have any other option. So I would probably act like I really cared for those around me, only because that's the way you get social benefits. Inside I would feel very sly, what with putting on such a masquerade.
Who knows what would happen to me if I was that way. I'm free to steal anything I want, and probably will if I can get away with it. If I ever climb a social ladder a selfish, cold, calculating man will be in a position of power. It's survival of the fittest, my underlings. I'm fit, you're not, and I only experience my feelings. So, tough, you losers.
(I'm not trying to look threatening by saying all this. If I were to convert from Christianity to atheism, it would have to be after months or maybe even years of study. I'm not giving up such a moral position without a fight. So make any argument you wish.)
I would be doing my best to avoid something Ravi Zacharias wrote: "Can man live without God? Of course he can, in a physical sense. Can he live without God in a reasonable way? The answer to that is No! because such a person is compelled to deny a moral law, to abandon hope, to forfeit meaning, and to risk no recovery if he is wrong." (7)
There is a moral issue regarding indoctrinating students with Darwinism. Ideas have consequences (Hitler's led to the Holocaust). Intelligent Design proponent Douglas Axe complains why he found it worthwhile to pursue a scientific view open to God:
"University of Washington psychology professor David Barash brings the sanctioned message to two hundred under-graduates every year in his course on animal behavior. With professorial authority, he declares to his young captive audience, 'The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.' His agenda, clearly, is to treat human behavior as just another example of animal behavior, all of which he thinks is ultimately explained by evolution." (8)
(For some reason I all of a sudden feel an urge to refute David Barash's New York Times article coming on. I think I will call it something like "David Barash Makes Me Mad: Hear Me Roar.")
It has been said: the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. The philosophy in the classroom will be the philosophy of the government. It is not okay to teach kids that they don't need God and are really just very fit animals from an evolutionary heritage.
People who believe in God aren't the only ones who have caused trouble throughout the years. David Berlinski, a Ph. D secular Jew agnostic with atheist leanings, wrote in his book The Devil's Delusion: "What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe ... was that God was watching what they were doing." (9) Christians sure have done some awful things throughout the centuries, but that doesn't mean their actions match with Biblical teachings nor does it disprove their religion.
So what about those who do choose to believe in atheism because they think to do otherwise would be to commit intellectual suicide? Well, that's why I have this blog. That's why I cite leading intellectuals of their side regarding Jesus's resurrection, consciousness and rationality, and God's design in the universe, among making other arguments.
Christianity isn't a curse on humanity. Au contraire, Jesus was the biggest blessing Who ever came to meet us. He saved me from narcissism and a hopeless, ultimately meaningless life, where I couldn't enjoy sunshine and friendship.
It is only with Jesus that love can exist.
Citations:
1. For a cognitively complex argument on the subject, see Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2000), 207-236.
2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 4th printing (London: Hurst & Blackett, 1939), 239-40, 242.
3. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: 2004), 190. They cite Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122-123; quoted in Scott Klusendorf, "Death with a Happy Face: Peter Singer's Bold Defense of Infanticide," Christian Research Journal 23, no. 1 (2001): 25. See also Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, Should the Baby Live? (Ashgate: Brookfield, Vt. 1994), 194-197.
4. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: 2004), 191. They cite Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. 2001) and Quoted in Nancy Pearcey, "Darwin's Dirty Secret," World magazine, March 25, 2000.
5. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1994), 186.
6. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 130-31.
7. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1994), 61.
8. Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life is Designed (HarperOne: 2016), 55. He cites David P. Barash, "God, Darwin, and My College Biology Class," New York Times, September 27, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html?_r=0
9. David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (Crown Forum: New York, 2008), 26.
I haven't heard that argument in a long time, but have quite a bit to say about the subject.
If you are an atheist, I must warn you that this post contains very provocative material for someone who denies God has anything to do with the human race. I mention rape, murder, and the Holocaust. But if you do continue reading, please don't stop at some displeasing subject and judge me. Read the whole thing. I'm not trying to be mean, not at all. I take evasive maneuvers to make sure of that (like right now).
Comparing Christianity (Jesus-God) with Darwinism (no God)
(Note: I know such a belief as "theistic evolution" exists. My argument here is just with the only prevailing scientific view I know of that attempts to explain human existence without Divine intervention.)On Genocide
Once upon a time in a history class I took in college, a fellow student asked a question about writing a paper with an "absurd" thesis (I'm paraphrasing everything): "What if I said that what Hitler did wasn't evil?"What really bothers me today is that there is a classroom philosophy which does justify Hitler's Holocaust: "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
"But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." (2)
Now my history professor reminded me that Hitler's presented justification is arguably just a smokescreen because he knew what he was doing was evil. But whether or not he really did believe evolutionary theory encompasses all aspects of the human race is technically irrelevant. For starters, his logic makes perfect sense: since this is the way the world is, he has good reason to kill the weak. Second, an evolutionary story of creation without God leads straight to determinism. And when one considers that, it becomes painfully clear that, if true, all the crimes people have committed -- even in the name of God -- were caused by evolution, not religion. Richard Dawkins put it this way: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
I have made a much more detailed and formidable argument that atheism denies the existence of morality, see here. Part of that is the lack of free will, which I presented elsewhere. In both places I cite Dawkins. So, Hitler's presented reasoning doesn't make him morally right because it's the way the world is, it just means what he did makes sense and wasn't morally wrong.
But Jesus was a Jew. His Disciples were Jews. The great missionary Paul was a Jew. Jesus said in John 4:22, "Salvation is from the Jews," because the Old Testament has been prophesying Him ever since the beginning. John 3:16 has Jesus dying for the eternal salvation of all mankind: "For God so loved the world He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life". Romans 1:16 defines the Gospel as "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."
On Murder
Christian apologists Frank Turek and the recently late Norman Geisler have written an incredible chapter about morality: "Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer has used Darwinism to assert that 'the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.' Yes, you read that correctly."What are the consequences of Singer's outrageous Darwinian ideas? He believes that parents should be able to kill their newborn infants until they are 28 days of age! These beliefs are perfectly consistent with Darwinism. If we all came from slime, then we have no grounds to say that humans are morally any better than any other species. The only question is, why limit infanticide at 28 days, or, for that matter, 28 months or 28 years? If there is no Moral Law Giver, then there's nothing wrong with murder at any age! Of course, Darwinists such as Singer might reject this conclusion, but they have no objective grounds for disagreeing unless they can appeal to a standard beyond themselves -- a Moral Law Giver." (3)
Jeremiah 1:4-5 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Psalm 139:13-16 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
Jesus died on the cross to save every human being from their sins before they were even a twinkle in their mother's eye.
On Rape
"Two other Darwinists recently wrote a book asserting that rape is a natural consequence of evolution. According to authors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, rape is 'a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,' just like 'the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck.'"Shocking as they are, these Darwinian conclusions about murder and rape should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the moral implications of Darwinism. Why? Because according to Darwinists, all behaviors are genetically determined. While some Darwinists might disagree with the implication that murder and rape are not wrong (precisely because the Moral Law speaks to them through their consciences), those conclusions are the inexorable result of their worldview. For if only material things exist, then murder and rape are nothing more than the results of chemical reactions in a criminal's brain brought about by natural selection. Moreoever, murder and rape can't be objectively wrong (i.e., against the Moral Law) because there are no laws if only chemicals exist. Objective moral laws require a transcendent Law-Giver ... consistent Darwinists can only consider murder and rape as personal dislikes, not real moral wrongs." (4)
Remember how Richard Dawkins put it: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." Why condemn men who forcibly sexually penetrate a women? Raping someone isn't bad, those men are just doing what their programming has told them to do for the good of fulfilling the essential purpose of propagating their species. Rapers just dance to their DNA. So dance along!
What a sick idea. The Feminist movement would have a fit with this conclusion, yet is Feminism necessarily associated with theism? I know very little about political issues but I know enough to suspect the answer is no. Jesus, however, thought much better of women than just beings with a potential to be rape-ragdolls. Besides dying to save them from their sins, He treated them with great respect. I will write an entire blog post about that sometime soon.
The Belief You Live With Matters
It's kind of funny, because in my history class we learned about Social Darwinism and the Social Gospel. Social Darwinism is that survival of the fittest should apply to government circles, and the government shouldn't give money from the rich to the poor because the rich are currently more fit. The Social Gospel, in contrast, was a Christian movement that established missions and relief programs in urban areas that attempted to alleviate poverty, combat child labor, and encourage the construction of a better working class.Such conclusions of Darwinists are the logical outworks of atheism, not Christianity. Evolutionary ethics logically validate genocide, rape, and murder. The logical outworks of Christianity, in deep contrast, are love and hope for a perfect afterlife. I don't mean by this that all atheists are approving of evil deeds. I'm not trying to demonize Darwinists. I'm not trying to make them look like bad guys. Atheists are usually very moral people -- sometimes even more moral than Christians! I know a handful of atheists, and enjoy their company. My history professor, who may or may not be a theist but doesn't take such a stance in class, is obviously anti-racist and anti-genocide (as shown by calling what Hitler did bad and condemning slavery without grounding morality). But if they do believe that objective morality exists, that does not mean they can justify their claim.
Some years ago, I talked to an atheist volunteering at a library who said that right and wrong weren't really real, they were just opinions. I wouldn't call that volunteer a bad person. Actually, I think atheists who are in their worldview and can admit their ethical implications because they are convinced there is no other reasonable way, are very tough (especially if they also can live a life of optimism and selflessness). Think about it. Who do you know that doesn't want it to be evil if someone robs them blind? If those atheists are willing to admit that conclusion, it is not because they want it to be that way.
Yes, contrary to a stereotype you might know, I don't believe that all Darwinists are going to be depressed. Some may, and that is a perfectly logical response, but with no objective way to live, by all means be happy! Ravi Zacharias once was responding to questions and said how Hitler's actions were justifiable by atheism. That was to the first questioner, the second person came to the microphone and said:
Atheist: "Well, I can just tell you, I've heard all of this said before ... I'm not miserable."
R.Z.: "I never said you were."
Atheist: "No, but you are trying to make me. It isn't working." (5)
So, a motive I can't respect is when someone does want evil to not exist. First-rate philosopher of the mind Thomas Nagel expressed this view quite well: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
"My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind." (6)
People are out there who will deny God just so that they can sleep with whoever they want. What a price to pay when the conclusion is denying the objective human rights for their own mother.
When I started reading about arguments for my Christian faith, I came across two principles: atheism denies objective morality, and you shouldn't accept with your heart what you can't with your head. To deny feelings as a basis for belief is called being tough-minded -- convinced on the weight of objective evidence rather than subjective desires. As a matter of fact, that's why I call atheists who hold their position because they think they intellectually have to are so tough. I was taught that first I needed to satisfy my head before I rejoiced about Jesus in my heart. After cultivating my mind through a couple of years and many books, that's now the way I work, the way I role.
All this had made me pause in my reading to think: I wanted Christianity to be true. I wanted Jesus to be real because I see no strong intellectual grounds in other theistic views and need God to legislate morality to make it beyond opinion. Otherwise, I would have abandoned belief in good and evil.
If I ever went atheist, I would be a narcissist. The reason being because nobody really loves me, there's no ethical way I should live, my being determined means I'm not responsible for anything I do, and I like myself!
There is no love because the mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire -- every feeling anyone ever had for me and anything they did for me were caused by a heartless process of just atoms rearranging in someone's brain. They didn't have any other option. So I would probably act like I really cared for those around me, only because that's the way you get social benefits. Inside I would feel very sly, what with putting on such a masquerade.
Who knows what would happen to me if I was that way. I'm free to steal anything I want, and probably will if I can get away with it. If I ever climb a social ladder a selfish, cold, calculating man will be in a position of power. It's survival of the fittest, my underlings. I'm fit, you're not, and I only experience my feelings. So, tough, you losers.
(I'm not trying to look threatening by saying all this. If I were to convert from Christianity to atheism, it would have to be after months or maybe even years of study. I'm not giving up such a moral position without a fight. So make any argument you wish.)
I would be doing my best to avoid something Ravi Zacharias wrote: "Can man live without God? Of course he can, in a physical sense. Can he live without God in a reasonable way? The answer to that is No! because such a person is compelled to deny a moral law, to abandon hope, to forfeit meaning, and to risk no recovery if he is wrong." (7)
There is a moral issue regarding indoctrinating students with Darwinism. Ideas have consequences (Hitler's led to the Holocaust). Intelligent Design proponent Douglas Axe complains why he found it worthwhile to pursue a scientific view open to God:
"University of Washington psychology professor David Barash brings the sanctioned message to two hundred under-graduates every year in his course on animal behavior. With professorial authority, he declares to his young captive audience, 'The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.' His agenda, clearly, is to treat human behavior as just another example of animal behavior, all of which he thinks is ultimately explained by evolution." (8)
(For some reason I all of a sudden feel an urge to refute David Barash's New York Times article coming on. I think I will call it something like "David Barash Makes Me Mad: Hear Me Roar.")
It has been said: the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. The philosophy in the classroom will be the philosophy of the government. It is not okay to teach kids that they don't need God and are really just very fit animals from an evolutionary heritage.
Conclusion about the Morally Correct Way to Live
Nothing in this blog post proves or disproves any worldview. Morals are not self-verifying and can only be proven through the word of God. I do not seek to do that in this post. My goal here is to shed light on the uncomfortable (to say the least) conclusions of Darwinism and defend Christianity as not being immoral.People who believe in God aren't the only ones who have caused trouble throughout the years. David Berlinski, a Ph. D secular Jew agnostic with atheist leanings, wrote in his book The Devil's Delusion: "What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe ... was that God was watching what they were doing." (9) Christians sure have done some awful things throughout the centuries, but that doesn't mean their actions match with Biblical teachings nor does it disprove their religion.
So what about those who do choose to believe in atheism because they think to do otherwise would be to commit intellectual suicide? Well, that's why I have this blog. That's why I cite leading intellectuals of their side regarding Jesus's resurrection, consciousness and rationality, and God's design in the universe, among making other arguments.
Christianity isn't a curse on humanity. Au contraire, Jesus was the biggest blessing Who ever came to meet us. He saved me from narcissism and a hopeless, ultimately meaningless life, where I couldn't enjoy sunshine and friendship.
It is only with Jesus that love can exist.
Citations:
1. For a cognitively complex argument on the subject, see Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2000), 207-236.
2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 4th printing (London: Hurst & Blackett, 1939), 239-40, 242.
3. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: 2004), 190. They cite Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122-123; quoted in Scott Klusendorf, "Death with a Happy Face: Peter Singer's Bold Defense of Infanticide," Christian Research Journal 23, no. 1 (2001): 25. See also Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, Should the Baby Live? (Ashgate: Brookfield, Vt. 1994), 194-197.
4. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: 2004), 191. They cite Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. 2001) and Quoted in Nancy Pearcey, "Darwin's Dirty Secret," World magazine, March 25, 2000.
5. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1994), 186.
6. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997), 130-31.
7. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 1994), 61.
8. Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life is Designed (HarperOne: 2016), 55. He cites David P. Barash, "God, Darwin, and My College Biology Class," New York Times, September 27, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html?_r=0
9. David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (Crown Forum: New York, 2008), 26.
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.