Monday, April 23, 2007

Planting Doubts about Dawkins (part 2)

For an atheist, much of life necessarily entails deep delusion, either unconscious or wilful, because the logical implications of atheism are unbearable.

Why do I say this?

Because atheists recognize that there are laws, such as the laws of physics. But they deny a Law-giver.

They believe that life on earth has the appearance of design, but no Designer.

They believe in consciousness, and conscience, and rational thought, but deny the existence of anything beyond the material universe.

They believe in logic; but deny an intelligence behind the universe to make logic logical. Without God, it is illogical for logic to exist, let alone to be universally reliable. Simply put, an atheist's appeal to logic is illogical. If an atheist cedes the objective existence of logic, then they forfeit the right to state that the universe is purely material -- because logic is immaterial.

They believe that their brains are reliable processors of information and abstract thought, but they also believe that these brains are undesigned. How much confidence would you put in a computer that had been randomly thrown together from scrap electronics components?

They believe in humans' capacity for creativity, for design, for wilful behaviour, but deny the possibility that the universe itself is likewise the product of creativity, design, and wilful behaviour.

On a practical level, they believe in abstract, immaterial notions such as morals, love, and justice and honor. But, without God, these cannot exist in any real or absolute sense. Since atheists are materialists, these deeply held concepts can be nothing more than chemical reactions in the human brain creating illusions.

Atheists talk about human rights; but deny the Giver of Life who is the foundation of all human worth and value and all legitimate human rights. Without God, humans are no more valuable than a frog, killing a human being no greater an offence than smashing a rock, and the ideas of intrinsic human dignity and worth, fundamental human rights, and morals, are nothing more than polite fictions we use to think more highly of ourselves than we ought and to provide some social cohesion.

Of course, no atheist can live with these worth-negating ideas. When an atheist holds his newborn, it is unlikely that he looks in his newborn's eyes and rehearses the atheist's mantra: "you are the product of blind chance, without ultimate purpose or value. We have brought you into a world that has no design or purpose to live a life that will be ultimately meaningless. The beauty I see in you and the love that I feel for you are merely chemical reactions in my brain concocted by blind and unfeeling evolutionary forces to increase your odds of survival. If someone were to kill you, I would feel badly, but my feelings have no ultimate authenticity or meaning, and you are, ultimately, no more important than a rock".

As Ravi Zacharias has pointed out, the logical implications of atheism are simply unbearable. But, many atheists would rather stick to their gloomy worldview than admit the bright existence of a God who not only gave us physical laws, but also moral laws. A God before whom we are both subordinate and accountable (why be a subordinate when you can be "a god", why be subject to a Law-giver, when you can be your own lawmaker - it seems we really haven't advanced beyond Genesis chapter 3!).

Tragically, atheists deny themselves not just a God who is a just moral agent, but also a God who is merciful and gracious, full of loving-kindness. A God, in fact, who is the Love behind love.

If God exists, Love exists; if God does not exist, love is an illusion.

Take your pick. I'll opt for Love.

And that's the way this created (and loved) Ball bounces.

No comments:

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"