c l a s s i c a l
James S. Spiegel, in his book The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief, suggests that because atheists are cognitively handicapped,1 in that they cannot rationally conceive of God, ethics, or certain aspects of human nature properly,2 due to the corrupting influence of sin, they do not understand how "one's personal conduct impacts one's scholarly projects."3 While believing themselves to having pure and objective motives for their scientific methods and analyses,4 all that is truly accomplished is a brash result intent on substantiating their preconceived notions.
Naturalism, and hence atheism, is a self-defeating worldview, as will be carefully demonstrated below. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Rom. 1:19 NRSV). "How?" you ask. "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20 NRSV).
Those who deny the reality of God are labeled as fools (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). The Hebrew word for fool, nabal, refers to one being senseless, especially of the person who "has no perception of ethical and religious claims," and also with the resultant idea of one being ignoble or even disgraceful. (link) Consider this issue from God's perspective: He created all that can be witnessed, making creation painfully obvious due to the reality of design, and yet there remain people -- people whom He created in His own image -- who refuse to acknowledge His existence, power, and creation.
James Spiegel underscores the fact that if Darwinism is true then every aspect "of human brain physiology and psychology was entirely fixed by its survival value," given the system's survival of the fittest motif. He writes:
But do not think, friends, that God will not grace the atheist to trust in His Son Christ Jesus and thus be gloriously saved! God still saves, and He saves those who believe in Christ (1 Cor. 1:21). My hope is that all skeptics, agnostics, and atheists who read this post will consider the claims, and by the grace of God trust in Jesus Christ for their eternal salvation.
__________
1 James S. Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), 57. For an example of such cognitive distortions, consider that naturalists and other atheists believe that life emerged from non-living matter. Spiegel notes the calculation of "the odds of life emerging from non-living matter to be one in 1040,000. To put this enormous figure in perspective, consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is 1080 -- a paltry sum by comparison." (48) How cognitively impaired would one have to be in order to hold to such an impossible statistic such as 1040,000 in order to substantiate one's view? Spiegel notes Fred Hoyle's confession that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" before higher forms of life emerge from non-living matter. Hoyle adds that he was "at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious" -- that is that "the infinitesimal chances of life emerging from inert matter show that it simply didn't happen." (48)
2 Ibid., 53, 54.
3 Ibid., 72. He states that "immoral behavior undermines one's ability to think straight. . . ." (54) Hence the astounding irony of atheistic projects such as Sam Harris' Project Reason, which is "devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." The atheist perpetuates faulty reasoning capabilities, and possesses absolutely no basis for "secular values in society," since naturalism can grant no confidence that those "secular values" bear any resemblance to being true or helpful "in society."
4 Ibid., The research of Thomas Kuhn into the history of science, from his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, writes Spiegel, revealed that "not only is this popular view of science specious, but the notion that scientists are routinely objective in their research is quite mistaken. Using dozens of historical cases, Kuhn showed that researchers are often far from neutral when it comes to testing and evaluating results. Rather, they tend to hold tenaciously to their theories, even in spite of contradictory data." (92-93)
5 Ibid., 58.
6 Ibid., 59.
7 Ibid. Spiegel quotes G.K. Chesterton: "Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself." (60)
8 Ibid., 60.
9 Ibid.
Naturalism, and hence atheism, is a self-defeating worldview, as will be carefully demonstrated below. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Rom. 1:19 NRSV). "How?" you ask. "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20 NRSV).
Those who deny the reality of God are labeled as fools (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). The Hebrew word for fool, nabal, refers to one being senseless, especially of the person who "has no perception of ethical and religious claims," and also with the resultant idea of one being ignoble or even disgraceful. (link) Consider this issue from God's perspective: He created all that can be witnessed, making creation painfully obvious due to the reality of design, and yet there remain people -- people whom He created in His own image -- who refuse to acknowledge His existence, power, and creation.
James Spiegel underscores the fact that if Darwinism is true then every aspect "of human brain physiology and psychology was entirely fixed by its survival value," given the system's survival of the fittest motif. He writes:
This means that nowhere along the human evolutionary path did a concern for truth necessarily come into play. So long as an organism's cognitive apparatus enables it to stay alive, its beliefs need not be true or even reasonable. There is no necessary connection between the survival potential of a cognitive system and the truth of the beliefs it produces.5Therefore attaining truth, and especially any alleged truth of Darwinism or natural selection, is not only an impossibility but is not even a component of our alleged evolutionary existence. Spiegel concludes by emphasizing evolutionary theory's only possible concession: "the practicality of a belief does not imply its truth. Nor does the practicality of an entire cognitive system guarantee that it is aimed at forming true beliefs."6 He continues:
This means that if naturalism is true, then we have no reason to be confident that any of our beliefs are actually true, and this includes our belief in the truth of naturalism. In other words, if naturalism is true, then we have no reason to believe it is true. If ever there was a self-defeating worldview, this is it.7Spiegel rightly concludes: "What could be more futile than a worldview that undermines itself? Atheism is a sort of suicide of the mind."8 No one is suggesting that atheists or naturalists do not believe in truth, or the attainment of truth, though some may, indeed, insist that truth is relative. What we are suggesting is that truth claims cannot be derived from evolutionary advancement. "Only theism can justify our belief in the truth of our beliefs."9
But do not think, friends, that God will not grace the atheist to trust in His Son Christ Jesus and thus be gloriously saved! God still saves, and He saves those who believe in Christ (1 Cor. 1:21). My hope is that all skeptics, agnostics, and atheists who read this post will consider the claims, and by the grace of God trust in Jesus Christ for their eternal salvation.
__________
1 James S. Spiegel, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010), 57. For an example of such cognitive distortions, consider that naturalists and other atheists believe that life emerged from non-living matter. Spiegel notes the calculation of "the odds of life emerging from non-living matter to be one in 1040,000. To put this enormous figure in perspective, consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is 1080 -- a paltry sum by comparison." (48) How cognitively impaired would one have to be in order to hold to such an impossible statistic such as 1040,000 in order to substantiate one's view? Spiegel notes Fred Hoyle's confession that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" before higher forms of life emerge from non-living matter. Hoyle adds that he was "at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious" -- that is that "the infinitesimal chances of life emerging from inert matter show that it simply didn't happen." (48)
2 Ibid., 53, 54.
3 Ibid., 72. He states that "immoral behavior undermines one's ability to think straight. . . ." (54) Hence the astounding irony of atheistic projects such as Sam Harris' Project Reason, which is "devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." The atheist perpetuates faulty reasoning capabilities, and possesses absolutely no basis for "secular values in society," since naturalism can grant no confidence that those "secular values" bear any resemblance to being true or helpful "in society."
4 Ibid., The research of Thomas Kuhn into the history of science, from his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, writes Spiegel, revealed that "not only is this popular view of science specious, but the notion that scientists are routinely objective in their research is quite mistaken. Using dozens of historical cases, Kuhn showed that researchers are often far from neutral when it comes to testing and evaluating results. Rather, they tend to hold tenaciously to their theories, even in spite of contradictory data." (92-93)
5 Ibid., 58.
6 Ibid., 59.
7 Ibid. Spiegel quotes G.K. Chesterton: "Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself." (60)
8 Ibid., 60.
9 Ibid.
