Sunday, November 04, 2007

Atheism's Appeal

If darwinian evolution is true, there is no ultimate purpose to existence. There is no right and wrong -- so we can each do as we please without having to worry about any ultimate consequences. There is no final accountability, and no ultimate justice. The universe is, ultimately, one vast, unfeeling, uncaring material wasteland where life was never intended, just happened to pop into existence, and then just happened to evolve into incredibly complex organisms that bear the (false) evidence of progression and design.

Darwinians can hold their newborn baby in their arms and say, "you are unintended and uncreated, your life is without ultimate value or purpose, and you have no more ultimate value than a slug. I love you, but that is because of a trick of unfeeling evolutionary forces that produce this illusionary emotion from purely chemical reactions within my brain. Welcome to the planet!".

For the life of me, I can't understand the enthusiasm that humans have for darwinian evolution -- you would think that it's apparent truth would sadden people rather than make them gleeful, especially when you consider how it cheapens human life and makes it inconsequential -- unlike Christianity, which testifies that humans are the apex of God's creation, made in His image, and can be restored to fellowship with Him through Jesus Christ.

You would think that rational beings would at least say, concerning Christianity, "gee, wouldn't it be great if it were true. I would really like it to be true, but, it just can't be".

Instead, darwinians and atheists regularly gloat and mock Christians who bear witness to a loving and all-powerful Creator, from whom we are estranged by sin, but restored through Jesus Christ.

Maybe it's because they like sin and prefer it to the pursuit of righteousness which follows belief in God.

Which just happens to be the Bible's witness concerning mankind.

Sounds like atheists and darwians are by their actions bearing witness to the truth of the Bible.

Now that's an interesting proposition.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

De oorsprong van het leven heeft niets te maken met welke conclusies mensen trekken wanneer ze hun omgeving waarnemen. Er is goed en slecht ondanks waar leven vandaan komt, bijvoorbeeld, slaverij, canibalisme, vrouwen vernederen door mannen, kinderen rot-slaan, etc.etc. Het humanisme en het aannemen dat mensen rechten hebben als mens and dat ze verantwoordelijkheden en verplichtingen hebben aan het samen leven heeft niets te maken met de oorsprong van leven, met evolutie of met het geloof in God, en met de verschillende geloven die er op de wereld bestaan. Deze rubriek begint met een foute basis en komt dus op foute conclusies. Jammer.

Anonymous said...

The origin of life and whether there is evolution or not has nothing to do with the conclusions people form when they look at their environment and the society in which they live. Good and evil exist regardless of the origin of life and evolution. One does not need a God to know that slavery, canibalism, suppression of women by men and beating children to a pulp are wrong. Humanism teaches that all people start with having the right to equal rights and equal obligations as persons under the laws of their community. This column starts off on the wrong vasis and thus comes to wrongconclusions. Pity. BTW this column totally ignores agnostics.

RkBall said...

Anonymous: I agree with much of what you have said.

Point One: "The origin of life and whether there is evolution or not has nothing to do with the conclusions people form when they look at their environment and the society in which they live."

This is unfortunately often true -- but it is because there is a logical disconnect between their beliefs about God/evolution and their moral sense. It results from logical inconsistency, because, without God, moral sense is absurd. The irony is, it exists among those who exalt reason over "faith".

Point Two: "One does not need a God to know that slavery, canibalism, suppression of women by men and beating children to a pulp are wrong."

I agree with half of this statement. It is true that one does not need a belief or faith in God in order to have a moral sense or even to live a somewhat decent life. Even depraved murderers or cannibals who complain about their "ill-treatment" in jail have a moral sense.

Where I disagree is this: It does take God to make sense out of our ingrained moral sense and to validate it. If there is no God, and no Creator, then whatever ingrained moral sense we might have is nothing more than a product of mindless, amoral, uncaring, unfeeling evolution -- and evolved sentient human beings, recognizing this, should have no compulsion to over-ride this trick of evolution.

Friend, I don't think you have fully thought through the moral darkness that logically comes with atheism. Is it wrong to smash a rock? No? Then why would it be wrong to smash a baby's head in? Both the rock and the baby are uncreated, undesigned, unintended and ultimately equal in the sense that they are nothing more molecules arranged by chance. The undesigned, unintended universe is equally indifferent to both acts.

Is it wrong (i.e., immoral or evil) for a wolf to eat a human? Is it wrong for a human to eat a wolf? (Only if you are a vegetarian -- but even for a vegetarian this belief must be based on the undergirding belief that living things have value, and, remember, in an uncreated universe neither humans nor animals have any more value than a rock.

But if it is not wrong for a wolf to eat a human, or a human to eat a wolf, why would it be wrong for a human to eat another human? This offends our moral sense, but, remember, our moral sense is just a cruel trick of evolution.

Point Three: "Humanism teaches that all people start with having the right to equal rights.". It is true that humanism teaches this, but my point is it is an illogical and untenable position -- it only makes sense if this is a created universe and the Creator has a moral sense which he has passed on to his creature. Otherwise, a human has no more intrinsic rights than a rock or pond scum, and it is just delusion, or wishful thinking, or conceit to think otherwise.

I thank you for your thoughtful post.

If you happen to be an agnostic, I would hope that the illogic and necessary moral darkness of the atheistic position would drive you into at least the deist if not the theist camp. From there it is a short reach for the inquiring soul to cry out to the Creator and hear his whisper saying, "Come unto Me...".

Brian in Calgary said...

You would think that rational beings would at least say, concerning Christianity, "gee, wouldn't it be great if it were true. I would really like it to be true, but, it just can't be".

That was apparently the attitude taken by the late Charles Templeton, according to an interview he gave to athiest/skeptic turned Christian Lee Strobel.

RkBall said...

Brian from Calgary,

Good point.

As you know, Charles Templeton had been an evangelical Christian who lost his faith and turned from Christ. He stumbled over "the problem of evil".

In the final analysis, it's a matter of the heart and not the head, because to the sincere seeker God infuses the heart with certainty through his holy Spirit.

Charles Templeton should have spent more time contemplating the "problem of evil" in his own heart -- and how it turned away from Christ.

Just as the Bible attests.

itsboopchile said...

Where does the humanist think good and evil truths come from. They didn't start yesterday. They have been with us from the beginning of time.
The problem comes when humans accept what they want and eventually it is not from God in their minds.
So, they believe they are just naturally good.
They are soooo wrong.
Betty G

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