c l a s s i c a l
The word of God -- who is Creator of all things, both seen and unseen -- states emphatically, "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 14:1 NRSV; cf. Ps. 53:1); "In the pride of their countenance the wicked say, 'God will not seek it out'; all their thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 10:4). Such statements do not shake the confidence of the atheist since he or she does not believe in the existence of God nor in the reliability or authority of the Bible.
Though God Himself has "put eternity in the hearts" of all people (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11), people who suppress such truth in their unrighteousness (cf. Rom. 1:18) continue to deny the truth of the existence of God. What can be known about the reality of His existence has been shown to all people (cf. Rom. 1:19): "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen though the things he has made. So they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20 NRSV). Even so, some refuse to acknowledge God or give Him thanks. As a result, their foolish hearts are "darkened."
The irony, at least for me, is the complaint of some atheists and agnostics to the effect that God will judge them for not believing in Him. "What a wicked, sadistic god you have, there. If we don't believe in Him He will send us to hell for eternity." What kind of crooked and corrupt thinking is this? Do people expect this "god" to merely overlook the fact that they have denied His very existence, scorned His power and love and goodness and mercy, rejected the holy and willing sacrifice of His Son on their behalf, and continue to dupe others by spreading their atheistic lies? Where is the justice in that? Where is the logic in that kind of thinking? Of course He will judge and condemn them! What else would one expect?
This kind of distorted, irrational thinking, however, is a demonstration of how "their foolish hearts were darkened." The Greek word for "darkened," skotizó, refers to the obscuring of revelation, an action which God Himself causes (link). "Claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:22). One would not detect that atheists and agnostics are foolish or unwise, given their confident bravado and rhetoric. They have fancied themselves as the intelligentsia. From their perspective, what is foolish or rubbish is belief in a Creator-God, especially of the Judeo-Christian variety.
What some have called the New Atheism is not really new. Atheism is merely lack of belief in God (or any notion of any god or the metaphysical). What is new about the New Atheism is its modern, aggressive nature (note Dan Savage's comments for an apt example).
For instance, infamous atheist Richard Dawkins, according to USA Today, encourages unbelievers to "ridicule and show contempt" for the doctrines and sacraments of Christians (link). Again, according to USA Today, Reason Rally organizer David Silverman admonishes marine-atheists to "storm the faith barricades" and "bring 'unpopular but necessary' lawsuits" (link). The New Atheists remind me of the antiquated Inquisitions of a corrupt ethos.
Discovery Channel's host of Mythbusters, Adam Savage -- no stranger to mocking religion and religious persons (link) -- is not just an atheist but is another outspoken and aggressive atheist, a new kind of atheist. He remains a sought-after spokesman for the New Atheism agenda because of his comedic mannerism and Geek-coolness so welcomed among high school and college-aged kids. (Winsomely dupe a culture of how awesome it is and how silly is the notion of "God" and "sin" and anyone can become famous and highly sought-after overnight.)
At a Reason Rally, Savage praises scientists and then claims, "Testable, provable phenomena, and the predictions they allow -- big and small -- brought me here in front of you today" (link // 2:38 mark). Herein is the modernist worldview of the late nineteenth, early twentieth century revisited and regurgitated. We thought postmodernity would move us beyond modernity but we were wrong. Post-postmodernity is modernity in a new dress; and its rhetoric seems especially convincing to dupees who are enamored with British accents or savvy, comedic sarcasm.
If "testable, provable phenomena" is the standard by which we can with certainty maintain knowledge, then how, for instance, as Dr. William Lane Craig asks, do we account for logical or mathematical truths (which are presupposed), metaphysical minds and knowledge or even perception of reality, ethics, aesthetics (beauty, value, etc.), and, of course, science itself: none of which can be scientifically proven (they are not testable). Are we to take a leap of faith in such matters, according to modernity's scientists, atheists and agnostics?
I suppose we should expect some harsh criticism from atheists (i.e., calling belief in God silly, ludicrous, ridiculous) given God's criticism of non-believers (calling such fools). From God's perspective, I think we could be a bit more understanding, though. From His perspective, confessing that He does not exist when He not only created all that can be seen, but even sustains the very heartbeat of all unbelievers demonstrates unfathomable restraint on His part.
Moreover, those who adamantly confess that God does not exist but believe in and rely upon methods of science cannot, with any consistency, prove that God does not exist. At least the agnostic claims that such knowledge cannot be attained. But atheists blindly (no pun intended) state their insistence that God, emphatically, does not exist, and such a notion to the contrary is entirely unwarranted. Science cannot even explain, test, prove or predict human emotions. But atheists are certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist! There is an underlying cause for such certainty, which will be the subject of the following post.
What we have here is known as scientism. This is the religion (a misfit term derided by Bill Maher//link) of the New Atheism: scientism -- a philosophical faith and attitudinal worldview that "the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry" (link//emphasis added). Scientism is the new religion of American, Canadian and European universities; it is, naturally, spiritually, morally and ethically bankrupt, and no more scientific than it is intelligent.
So terrified and threatened are New Atheism proponents that they must seek to ban religious thought and speech altogether: There was a call to ban the Ten Commandments "to the dustbin of history" at a Reason Rally, for example (link). One would imagine that at least some of the Ten Commandments are reasonable for the good of any society (not murdering, not stealing, etc.). But perhaps we're asking too much from those at a Reason rally to think reasonably.
Scientism holds its victims in the grip of its palm, refusing to give in to what it perceives to be silly, religious superstition. Gratuitously sure of itself, its cocky disposition suits its post-postmodern audience -- a culture the longing of which is complete and abandoned freedom (especially freedom from a God who will hold each one responsible for his or her beliefs and actions and will judge them one day).
This new pseudo-religion comforts its devotees with its arrogance and unsubstantiated "proven methods," assuring them that there is no God and they will not be judged for their actions; and it is a lie.
Discovery Channel's host of Mythbusters, Adam Savage -- no stranger to mocking religion and religious persons (link) -- is not just an atheist but is another outspoken and aggressive atheist, a new kind of atheist. He remains a sought-after spokesman for the New Atheism agenda because of his comedic mannerism and Geek-coolness so welcomed among high school and college-aged kids. (Winsomely dupe a culture of how awesome it is and how silly is the notion of "God" and "sin" and anyone can become famous and highly sought-after overnight.)
At a Reason Rally, Savage praises scientists and then claims, "Testable, provable phenomena, and the predictions they allow -- big and small -- brought me here in front of you today" (link // 2:38 mark). Herein is the modernist worldview of the late nineteenth, early twentieth century revisited and regurgitated. We thought postmodernity would move us beyond modernity but we were wrong. Post-postmodernity is modernity in a new dress; and its rhetoric seems especially convincing to dupees who are enamored with British accents or savvy, comedic sarcasm.
If "testable, provable phenomena" is the standard by which we can with certainty maintain knowledge, then how, for instance, as Dr. William Lane Craig asks, do we account for logical or mathematical truths (which are presupposed), metaphysical minds and knowledge or even perception of reality, ethics, aesthetics (beauty, value, etc.), and, of course, science itself: none of which can be scientifically proven (they are not testable). Are we to take a leap of faith in such matters, according to modernity's scientists, atheists and agnostics?
I suppose we should expect some harsh criticism from atheists (i.e., calling belief in God silly, ludicrous, ridiculous) given God's criticism of non-believers (calling such fools). From God's perspective, I think we could be a bit more understanding, though. From His perspective, confessing that He does not exist when He not only created all that can be seen, but even sustains the very heartbeat of all unbelievers demonstrates unfathomable restraint on His part.
Moreover, those who adamantly confess that God does not exist but believe in and rely upon methods of science cannot, with any consistency, prove that God does not exist. At least the agnostic claims that such knowledge cannot be attained. But atheists blindly (no pun intended) state their insistence that God, emphatically, does not exist, and such a notion to the contrary is entirely unwarranted. Science cannot even explain, test, prove or predict human emotions. But atheists are certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist! There is an underlying cause for such certainty, which will be the subject of the following post.
What we have here is known as scientism. This is the religion (a misfit term derided by Bill Maher//link) of the New Atheism: scientism -- a philosophical faith and attitudinal worldview that "the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry" (link//emphasis added). Scientism is the new religion of American, Canadian and European universities; it is, naturally, spiritually, morally and ethically bankrupt, and no more scientific than it is intelligent.
So terrified and threatened are New Atheism proponents that they must seek to ban religious thought and speech altogether: There was a call to ban the Ten Commandments "to the dustbin of history" at a Reason Rally, for example (link). One would imagine that at least some of the Ten Commandments are reasonable for the good of any society (not murdering, not stealing, etc.). But perhaps we're asking too much from those at a Reason rally to think reasonably.
Scientism holds its victims in the grip of its palm, refusing to give in to what it perceives to be silly, religious superstition. Gratuitously sure of itself, its cocky disposition suits its post-postmodern audience -- a culture the longing of which is complete and abandoned freedom (especially freedom from a God who will hold each one responsible for his or her beliefs and actions and will judge them one day).
This new pseudo-religion comforts its devotees with its arrogance and unsubstantiated "proven methods," assuring them that there is no God and they will not be judged for their actions; and it is a lie.
If indeed there is a god and if only his existence can be surmised but that god cannot be known personally then his existence is irrelevant and inconsequential to human beings. He then becomes no more important than a discussion as to how the New York Yankees will fare this year. In fact, if this is true than religious adherents are only outdistanced in foolishness by those who spend time chastening them.
ReplyDeleteThere is an element of mystery to be sure in Christianity, and the element of faith is at its core. And the process of spiritual enlightenment seems to be the core factor in the experience of conversion which the Scriptures clearly assign to the Spirit. Yes I believe a sinner can search, but in the end it will be the ministry of the Spirit which will not only draw him to Christ but illuminate his heart/mind to redemptive truth, but will empower him to believe that which is otherwise preposterous.
But in the end the experience of being born again is so real and so permeates our beings that we cannot deny what has happened. Our study of the Word only confirms our experience and we begin to understand things that only days and months ago would have been superstition and even an affront to our intellects. Presented with all the evidence there are still some who suggest man never really visited the Moon. But even though he is well versed in the evidence, Neal Armstrong’s knowledge of the event is overwhelmingly subjective.
He walked on the Moon himself. And although I have studied apologetics and my oldest son has three Masters along those lines, I cling to one subjective experience as my immoveable rock. I once was blind but now I see. And in my forty years of being a believer I have seen some dark days in which I could be tempted to succumb to doubt, depression, and even unbelief. No amount of apologetics would have helped me during those days of darkness. Only a remembrance of my conversion experience comforted me and allowed me to return to spiritual health. It is a kind of Descartes mutation. I know God therefore I am saved regardless of my present expression of that fact.
I once was blind but now I see. Here I stand, may God have mercy on my soul.
Heb.10: 32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
ReplyDelete33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
Pastor Rick,
DeleteOur philosopher professor at Southeastern reminded us of the very same truths you have written here: we followers of Christ have an experiential hermeneutic of which unbelievers cannot share. Because of our regeneration, we have an experiential knowledge that puts us at an advantage in the arena of the reality of knowing God.
There are "nice atheists" who do tell us, the American Church, what we can do better:
Delete1. I SOLD MY SOUL ON EBAY - Mehta
2. JIM & CASPER GO TO CHURCH - Henderson and Casper
2. Penn Teller who vlogged about being given a Bible "How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w&feature=player_embedded
When atheists so eloquently give us advice, I listen...
Dale,
DeleteI read I Sold My Soul on Ebay and was very pleased, mostly, with many of his critiques. I've also seen Teller's video, and was moved. I've never heard of Jim & Caspar -- thanks for that.