Atheism: Epistemological Bankruptcy

Here is an exchange I had with an atheist I might on twitter.  Thought some of you might like to take a look at the conversation (my responses are in red):

 

Speaking with @AdamRobles over the last few days we have been unable to resolve an argument that for me started with the statement from Adam:-

Atheism is built upon unjustified and often unexamined presuppositions/assumptions about the universe and its intelligibility.

I have seen this presuppositional argument before. The crux of the argument, and I invite Adam to correct me if I am wrong here is that...

In order for the scientific method or any kind of logic or inference to be valid the universe needs to be intelligible. Since the scientific method is predicated on the assumption that the universe is intelligible you can't use the scientific method to verify that the universe is in fact intelligible. The atheist therefore is unable to verify the foundation of any of their inferences which according to the theist amounts to blind faith in the intelligibility of the universe. Moreover the theist contends that a naturalistic world view should inevitably lead to an unintelligible universe because the theist also claims that a god is the only possible reason that the universe could be intelligible and as such the atheist lives inconsistently with their world view by using tools like logic and the scientific method.

What this argument does quite well is hide its premises so that it is hard to spot the logical fallacies and it quite cleverly puts the conclusion at the start of the argument so that when an attempt to deconstruct it is made using logic the theist will attempt to dismiss the argument by claiming that he has already shown that the atheist use of logic has been undermined.

Lets examine the hidden premises then.

Premise 1. The universe was caused.

Premise 2. A universe that is intelligible must be caused by a mind.

Premise 3. A universe not caused by a mind must necessarily be unintelligible.

Premise 4. It is possible for there to be an unintelligible universe.

Premise 5. The proposition of an intelligible universe is somehow faith based and cannot be inferred from observation.

　

Chris,

To make the point of my initial tweet I have no need for premises 1-4. In order for a secular person to hold the intelligibility of the universe, which almost all of them do, they must basically appeal to intuition or experience: "It just appears to be intelligible, our methods just work, so we go with them. Why does it work? It works just because it works!" This is blind faith. This is not a rational conclusion to reach as a secularist. It is a faith position. I know faith is the "F" word to secularists. But epistemologically your faith is clearly exposed.

　

Some secularists would say, "Look we don’t know why it works, but we await further evidence to find out." This statement radically fails to see the problem for what it is. It also exposes how futile non-Christian thought has become. This person is awaiting evidence based on the assumption of intelligibility, by which it hopes to explain intelligibility. Assume intelligibility to explain intelligibility. Presto! For the secularist, the whole enterprise science and knowledge is based upon blind faith. Not an enviable position for the reason crowd. But unfortunately epistemology goes unexamined for the vast majority of atheist. (The essence of the original tweet)

The choices we have are (1) the Christian solution to this colossal epistemology problem OR (2) you simply must ignore the problem and pretend like it wasn’t there. These are the only choices available.

Even though I do not need to respond to the other premises, since I assume none of them to make my argument that secularists are essentially men of strong blind faith that would make even the most committed Mormon blush, I will.

　

Question 1. Can you demonstrate that the universe was caused?

There are various ways to do this. But instead of going into it, lets pretend that the universe was uncaused. If that were true, then we have an even worse epistemological crisis. If the universe itself can break the law of causality, why would we have any reason to trust this central law in any of the physical sciences? Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face. Are you really willing to jump of this kind of epistemological cliff? I am certainly not.

Question 2. What evidence or experience would lead you to believe that an intelligible universe must be caused by a mind?

The only alternative to this conclusion is a blind faith position; that the non-rational somehow begets the rational. Intellectually, I cannot accept an epistemology based on blind faith. Therefore I am forced into accepting the idea of a rational cause begetting a rational effect. This is not only intellectually satisfying, but it gives me a foundation for future knowledge-seeking efforts.

Question 3. Why do you believe that an uncaused or undesigned universe must be unintelligible?

Because to believe otherwise would be a blind faith position. An uncaused universe is an accidental universe. It would have purely accidental origins and, by inference, purely accidental features. There is no reason to believe that purely accidental features would have any understandable relation to each other OR any understandable relation to our minds. Any apparent relations we could point to (though I am not aware of any in secular thought) would themselves be accidental and thus called into question. For the secularist, skepticism is the only intellectually consistent position. This is again, an epistemological cliff I am unwilling to jump from.

Question 4. Why would you even consider that it is possible for a universe to be unintelligible, which unintelligible universes have you witnessed?

I wouldn’t. I would argue that it is not possible for a universe to be unintelligible. I would argue that that intelligibility of the universe reflects its rational origin.

　

Basically, there is nothing inconsistent between assuming the universe is intelligible and having a naturalistic world view and it very much seems that by posing the problem of intelligibility vs unintelligibility the theist has created from nothing a problem, that probably doesn't exist, that they believe can only be solved by adding a god.

I agree the problem doesn’t exist if you are willing to make the assumption that your are making on blind faith. But as you are acutely aware, blind faith is not a good way to decide what to believe. Ignoring the obvious defeater of your foundational beliefs is roughly workable day to day, but intellectually, and dare I say spiritually, you are in a dangerous predicament. You are lying to yourself at every point.

　

I am reminded of the words of Paul in his letter to the Romans: (Chapter 1, starting at verse 18.)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world

in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Ethiopia Post: Pure and Undefiled Religion

It has been a few days since I touched down at Bole International Airport in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.  Over the past 48 hours or so it has been become very clear to me that somehow I am going to be connected to this country for the rest of my life.  There are things in this country and the people that live in it, that are greater and more beautiful than anything else I have experienced in the world.  At the same time, there are things in this country that are darker and more sinister than anything I ever thought could happen in real life.

I have heard some of the difficult stories before, but they never lose their power.  I have heard of the countless fathers who have abandoned their families to a life on the street, because of their spineless desire to look out for number one.  I have heard of the tribes in the less developed country who kill babies they deem “cursed” because through an accident of nature their teeth didn’t grow the right way.  I have heard of countless preventable illness and conditions that are a death sentence here, while easily treatable in the United States.  I have even heard the absolutely enraging tale of a project director for a group for orphaned children, claiming the name of Christ while at the same time pocketing donation money, sexually abusing the children, and making them put on happy faces for donor visits under threat of physical abuse.

These are not easy things to hear about.   But not hearing about them would not make them any less true.

More real though than the stories I have heard, are the children I have seen.  Literally thousands of children wander the streets of Addis or the countryside, utterly alone.  I have met hundreds of these children also at various orphanages and care centers.  Obviously because of the communication barrier it is hard to really connect with every one of them, but on some level it’s fairly simple to communicate with a smile, or holding hands, or my favorite, a laugh.  The easiest way is to ask them what their name is in Amharic.   Once they tell me, I point to my head and tell them, “My name is, Malata”, which sends them into hysterical laughter every single time.  Malata means “bald” in Amharic. 

In the middle of all these visits and children I came across one of One Child Campaign’s projects in Shone, about a seven hour drive out of the city.  There in the middle of endless farmland, mud huts, and wandering children is a small compound with a church building made of sticks and mud, attached to a two room cement structure.  Next to this stands a shell of new construction, about a third of the way done with 5 rooms.   Right now it’s just cement walls and a roof, but the vision is an orphanage for abandoned children in the area.  It is not uncommon for infants to be found abandoned in the bush, and at the moment there is nowhere for these children to go anywhere close by.

There is a difference between this orphanage, and some of the others I have visited.  This orphanage is modeled on others started by the same church here in Addis Ababa.  They are purposely kept small to focus on the children as much as possible.  The idea is that the children will feel like they have a home at the orphanage, rather than like they interned there because no one else wants them at the moment.  The woman who runs these projects puts a heavy emphasis on making the children feel loved, like they really matter in the here and now, even though the point is to place them into loving and qualified homes as soon as possible.   She told me that in Shone, she will make an exception to her ordinary rule of 10 children at a time.  (5 boys, 5 girls)  She says she will not turn away any infants, but will take them in and try to get them a home somewhere else before they get older if she already has 10.  This is because, again in Shone there is literally nowhere else for abandoned infants, so to turn them away would be a death sentence.

Here’s where things get interesting.  As I am standing in this construction site listening to the vision for the orphanage, a number pops into my head.  10,000 to be precise.  I get the idea somehow that I am going to give this women $10,000 to help with this project.  Earlier she had told us that in order to complete the building they will need about $21,000, the number I had in mind would get them about half way.  So I start to calculate in my head how long it would take me to be able to give $10,000 out of my own pocket.  4 months?  Maybe if I change some of my personal budget around maybe 3?

As I am doing this quick math another thought pops into my head.  There is nothing in me that believes this thought could have come from me, because it goes against all my sensibilities and desires, firmly removing me from my comfort zone.  The thought is essentially that even though I am going to get $10,000 dollars together for this project, I am only personally responsible for $5,000.  The other $5,000 I will have to raise in a different way somehow.

This may not seem like a big deal to you.  And thinking about it more, it probably isn’t.  But this is the kind of thing that scares me a little.  In fact, I fought with myself about telling anyone about this.  What if I fail in the second part?  I mean I can get $10,000 together myself, no one would have to know about the challenge to raise the money outside of myself.  But in the end I really believe that if I am trustworthy with this little amount, God will be trustworthy with his end.  Maybe I can even learn something in the process.  I really have no idea how to raise this money, so this blog post is a first attempt.  By putting this out there it’s like I just leaned back passed the point of no return for that “trust fall” ice-breaker thing.

If you are one of my atheist readers judging from what I have seen on Twitter, I know you guys have big hearts for the poor of Africa, and for children who have been inexplicably dealt impossible hands in life.  Believe me when I tell you the vision for this orphanage in Shone, Ethiopia is amazing and is desperately needed in the area.   Please consider donating to the Shone project.  You can contribute at www.onechildcampaign.com.  All of the money goes to the project if you designate it “For Shone Building Project” in the notes.

For my Christian brothers and sisters I will tell you that when atheists argue that religion can sometimes be very corrupt they are quite correct.  I think of slick speaking, sharp dressing, mega church pastors or the extreme opulence of the Vatican.   But I think that those same atheists would agree with James 1:27.  James, the brother of Jesus teaches in this verse what God considers to be pure and undefiled religion:  “to visit orphans and widows in their affliction”.  I cannot think of a better goal to prayerfully consider helping accomplish.  This is what religion is supposed to be: helping those who are helpless, standing with those who are afflicted.  Some think that the fact that these suffer proves that there is no God.  I don’t agree with that view at all.  Even so I think we can all agree that the cause for the orphans in Ethiopia is a good one.  It is one worth supporting.  It is one that all human beings should know about, that we might help if we can.

Please consider giving any amount to help build this orphanage for the children of Shone.  www.onechildcampaign.com  Designate the donation “For Shone Building Project” and they will get the money to Ethiopia immediately.

Answering Atheist Arguments: Nothing Fails Like Prayer

I was interacting with an outspoken atheist on Twitter the other day when he made a claim I wasn’t expecting.  He said, “God might exist.  I am totally open to the possibility.”

“Really?”, I said. “I find this weird considering you just spent 50 tweets or so telling me God definitely did not exist.”

He responded, “Oh God could exist.  But I know for a fact the God of the Bible does not.  He is demonstrably false.”  At this point I am really intrigued to hear what he has to say because most atheists are too cowardly to go this far with a claim against God.  I asked him to give me his strongest piece of evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.   Here is his tweet verbatim, “The failure of prayer would be one.  Its been properly tested, it never works.  YHWHs existence is predicated on the Bible being true.”

In his own words this is the best evidence that he can think of for the Bible not being true, and thus, God not existing.  Immediately looking at this tweet there is a huge problem.  What is the criteria that can be used to know if a prayer fails or succeeds?   You see, Christians believe that God is sovereign.  In other words, we believe that what God wants to do, He will do.  This is why we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.”  So I asked him, “When you say it never works, what do you mean by ‘works’.  In order to know if a prayer ‘worked’ or not, wouldn’t you have to know the will of God?”

He responded, “If God’s will determines the outcome of prayer it definitely doesn’t work. He would do it anyway!  The Bible says it works. It doesn’t.  John 14:14 says it all.”

John 14:14 records Jesus as saying the following: If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

The meaning of this verse hinges on the phrase, “in my name”.  Are these just magic words that Jesus is claiming will get you whatever you ask for?  I pray for a million dollars, in Jesus name I pray.  Ala-Kazaam!  That’s one way to look at it.  But that would mean Jesus is advocating sorcery.

No.  “In my name”, is not a magic phrase.   To pray “in Jesus’ name”, means that you are praying according to his will, or praying for the things that He would pray for.  How do I know this?  Because Jesus says other things about prayer.  For example, the prayer I quoted above about “thy will be done,” is actually something else Jesus said when he was teaching the disciples, and us, how we are to pray. (Matthew 6, The Lord’s Prayer)  There is no scripture that obligates God to answer prayer according to our will.  That is bad theology.  God is only obligated to answer prayer according to His own will.  We are required to pray that his will be done.  Jesus gave us another example of this while praying in Gethsemane, desiring to not have to go to the cross, but desiring even more that God’s perfect will be done:

My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will. – Matthew 26:39

God does not give us everything that we ask for in prayer.  As far as I am concerned, praise God that he does not.  I think of some of my prayers back when I was in junior high school...even some now.  If I would’ve got what I asked for...lets just say it would not have been the best thing for me.  Remember friends, when it comes to people, God is not primarily interested in their temporary personal comfort here on earth.   He is primarily interested in the eternal condition of their souls.

So what then is point of prayer?  Prayer is an act of worship.  Talking with God is a way of showing reverence to the One who had the idea to create you.  It is an absolutely necessary way for us to cultivate the only relationship that has the power to sustain through eternity.

God is not a vending machine.  Prayer is not equivalent to shoving a few quarters in to make your selection.  God’s will, will be done on Earth as surely as the sun rises in the east. Still, the Bible makes it clear that God wants you to talk with him.  

We get to talk to the God who created the entire Universe.  We get to participate in His plan through prayer.  Can you think of a more special thing than that? 

Theology Matters: God Probably Will Give You More Than You Can Handle

Theology Matters is a new series.  Theology is the study of God and what he is like.  It is important to understand correct theology because when we have false ideas about God, we will have false expectations about our own lives.  When we have false expectations about our lives, and things don’t happen the way we falsely expect them to, we have a crisis.  When we have a crisis, we either start doubting God’s truthfulness, or doubting that God even exists at all.  I hope that this series will help you identify bad theology; ultimately to help you get to know what the God who is there is really like.

We have all had something bad happen to us.  Some of us have had terrible things happen in our lives, others not so terrible, but we all have experienced some kind of crisis at some point in our lives.  When we encounter a crisis often times people who mean well will tell us, “It’s going to be okay, because no matter how bad it may seem, God will never give you more than you can handle.”  Is this really true?

I really don’t think this is true at all.  Throughout the Bible I see stories of people needing to be saved, because the predicament they found themselves in was WAY too much for them to handle.  So where does this incorrect cliché come from?  The closest thing I could find in the Bible about this is 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13:

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Clearly this verse has to do with temptation to sin, and not with difficult circumstances in life. 

You say – What’s the big deal?  So it’s not in the Bible, it can be a helpful truth to learn.  It can still be a comfort to people who are in pain.

The big deal is that it is not true, and it teaches the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible teaches.  The Bible’s message from beginning to end is that people are absolutely and utterly helpless in terms of living a successful life.  Especially if you consider a successful life in the same way that the Bible does.

Have you ever considered the famous Bible line, “The Lord is my shepherd…”?  If the Lord is our shepherd, that makes us sheep.  I don’t know if you have ever met a sheep but here are some of their attributes: Sheep are helpless.  Sheep are not very smart.  Sheep require protection.  Sheep get eaten.  This is not a flattering description of how “self-sufficient” God considers us to be and it doesn’t pretend to be.  It is a realistic one.

Also, seriously take some time to think about people who are in intense suffering.  Do you really think telling them, “God will never give you more than you can handle.” is helpful at all?   It isn’t true.  People are overcome by circumstances all the time.  Why would lying to someone provide comfort?  On the contrary, when you use such poor theology when trying to comfort someone it is damaging.   What if things don’t get better?  What if I am completely overwhelmed?  What then? 

God DOES promise that he will be with you through any kind of trouble: no matter how bleak, no matter how hopeless things seem.  He promises that he is still in control of what happens to you.  He also GUARANTEES that you will have trouble:

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” -John 16:33

Notice who has overcome the world:  He, not you.  Notice how he tells us to have peace:  in Him, not in ourselves.  Friends, the bottom line is that if you rely on yourself and if you think that you can get through the difficult things on your own, and that you will overcome…no matter how many times you do, in the end, you will be disappointed.  Any theology that has you rely on yourself rather than God is harmful and quite incorrect.

Another famous section of scripture is, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”  That’s true enough.  But don’t forget the verse that comes right before it, where it describes the kinds of things he means; both the good, and the bad, “I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.”  (Philippians 4:12-13)

God will allow you to face things in this life that you cannot handle.  But he will never allow you to face things that He cannot handle.  This might seem like I am splitting hairs, but I ask you to meditate on this idea.  It makes all the difference in the world.

Proof That You Need to Read the Bible More Carefully

Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.  –Matthew 24:40-42 ESV

What is this famous section of Scripture about?  The rapture right?  This describes the end times when God will remove the Christians from the world and bring them to heaven.  I’ve heard this taught many times.  No doubt you have too.  What I am about to say may shock you, because it certainly shocked me when I heard it.  This verse is absolutely NOT about the rapture.

Greg Koukl, the founder of the Stand to Reason apologetics ministry has a rule that I think we should all follow: “Never read a Bible verse.”  What he means is that unless you read a section of verses in context you run the risk of seriously misinterpreting a passage.  That is what is going on here.  Lets read the larger context.  Here are the verses right before the section I quoted above.

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. –Matthew 24:37-39 ESV

So who is taken and swept away?  The wicked right?  That doesn’t sound like the rapture I know about.

Check this out, another parable of Jesus from Matthew. 

He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.  And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn –Matthew 13:24-30 ESV

This parable is about the end times.  (Not my interpretation, Jesus says that it is)  What is gathered first?  The weeds.  What are the weeds?  Jesus explains later in the chapter that the weeds are the “sons of the evil one”.  That sure doesn’t sound like the rapture of the church to me.

Let me make it clear that I absolutely believe in the rapture.  But the verse I quoted in the beginning of this post has nothing to do with it.  So why did I used to think it did?  Why have we so often heard this verse preached, like it did?  There's a good chance that this realization bothers you, because I know for a fact it bothered me.  Why did I not notice this before?  It is right there, perfectly clear.

I am not trying to cause you to be suspicious of your pastor.  I am trying to cause you to recognize the need to study the Word of God for yourself.  When I was shown all this a few weeks back, it really convicted me.  How much about what I know of the Bible is something I just believe because I was told?  Lets all commit to study the Bible for ourselves.  If we do not, how will we know true teaching versus false teaching?  Lets not be spiritually lazy anymore.  It is not only your pastor’s job to make sure you know the truth about God.  It’s also your job.  Lets be like the Bereans who didn’t even take Paul’s word for it.  Is your pastor more trustworthy than Paul?

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. –Acts 17:11 NIV

Answering Atheist Arguments: Interpretation = Excuses

“If it were God’s word it can, and should be taken literally right?  Interpretation = Excuses”

I’ve seen this statement uttered a number of times recently, by a variety of characters.  I’ve seen atheists use this when trying to promote their interpretation of a seemingly embarrassing section of scripture.  I’ve also seen self-identified believers say this to promote faulty theology using the so-called, “plain meaning” of a text.   Is it really true that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, as the atheist claims?

I actually would like to answer this question by sympathizing with the atheist skepticism here.  There are a great deal of difficult passages in the Bible that Christians are far too quick to dismiss as not being literal.  This can lead to suspicion on the part of the skeptic.   If the Bible can’t be taken literally, then can’t it literally mean whatever you want it to mean?  If so, then it is literally meaningless.

I think the correct view to take here is in agreement with the atheist.  The Bible should be taken literally in what it teaches.  However, this does not mean that we must ignore obvious figurative language that is contained in the scriptures.  Not every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but every teaching is.  The Bible is written in various types of a literary styles and this effects what a “literal teaching” of the Bible means.  Here are some examples:

In Psalms 94:1, the psalmist writes of God that, “under his wings you will find refuge.” Taken literally this implies that God has “wings” and we will find refuge under them.  But clearly the Psalms are poems.  Poems by definition are full of figurative language.  God does not have wings.  Yet there is absolutely a literal truth here.  There is something about God and our relationship with him, that is like a bird who covers her chicks with her wings for protection.  Our job is to interpret what literal truth this figurative language tries to convey. 

How about something a little more difficult?  In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist speaking of Jesus says,

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

I have heard people teach that the “fire” John says Jesus will baptize with is figurative for some kind of cleansing power that his baptism will have, and it may be so.  But do we have good reason to believe this?

As it happens, the word “fire” is used in both the preceding and following verses, both times referring to literal fire as part of a larger figure of speech.

10“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

It seems to me that the “fire” in verse 11 is possibly a figure.  But the idea that it represents some kind of “cleansing power” of the baptism is foreign to the text, and I think is an inappropriate attempt to soften what John is saying.  The “fire” in both verse 10 and 12 is referring to a destruction of something undesirable; fruitless trees in verse 10, and chaff in verse 12.  We have every reason to believe that the “fire” that Jesus will baptize with according to verse 11 is a similar kind of destruction of something undesirable.   Verse 11 talks about Jesus coming to the world to baptize.  Some will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.  (Believers) Others will be baptized with fire that may very well be literal. (Un-believers)

As you can see, coming to this conclusion did require a degree of interpretation.  This is called hermeneutics.  But does this process of interpretation mean that you do not assume a literal meaning?  No.  We should assume a literal meaning unless there is good reason not to.  As someone who reads the Bible, whether a believer or skeptic, you should have a hermeneutical approach that is careful not to read into a text that which is not there.  This may mean that you will have think carefully about how things are worded.  This is part of what it is to read an ancient text.  It takes a certain amount of work, but if literal meaning is to be ascertained, it is necessary.

Atheists tend to read all kinds of meaning into the Bible that really isn’t there.  Especially when it comes to the Old Testament.  The best approach to take when encountering this objection, is to just agree: 

Yes the Bible should be taken literally in what it teaches.  But we have to interpret what it teaches through careful examination.  This interpretation cannot be arbitrary and often times take work.  Interpretation is not “excuses”.   It is just an honest approach to understanding.  Sound interpretation is a critical element of any kind of real knowledge be it scientific, historical or spiritual.

Atheism: Irrational, Unknowable and Futile

I recently had an interesting exchange online and I thought I would share.

I was talking to a very active and intelligent Twitter atheist, and he went on a long rant about all the neuroscience that he says proves God is a delusion.  I listened to his complex arguments for a few minutes and when he was done I asked a very simple question:

“What kind of evidence or criteria would you accept to show that God was not a delusion?”

He said, “Easy….I want Jesus to show up at the UN and tell mankind something they couldn’t possibly know.  See I say the UN, because I know enough science to know that I can't trust my own brain, if I saw Jesus and talked to him it wouldn’t convince me.”

First, notice that he is asking for a straight up miracle.  He is not asking for historical evidence or anything like that.  He is asking for a personalized miracle.  There is literally nothing that I can say or show him evidentially that will convince this guy.  Only a blind miracle preformed by Jesus himself, specifically for him, will do.  All his prior requests for evidence or rational arguments have been disingenuous.  At this point, my work as a Christian is to simply pray for this man.  As irrational as I think he is being, I cannot personally do anything for him.  All I can do is pray that Jesus do a miracle in his life.  God may have mercy on him.  Or he might not.  That is not my call.

But notice something else about what he has just said.  Without knowing it, he has just conceded the entire case to me.  In one short statement he has reminded us why atheism/naturalism is ultimately futile.  “I know enough science to know that I cant trust my own brain, if I saw Jesus and talked to him it wouldn’t convince me.”  If he cannot trust his own brain on something as straight forward and simple as being able to know what he plainly observes, why in the world does he trust it to evaluate complex neuroscience claims properly?    Why should I trust his conclusion if he cannot even trust it?

Atheism is self-defeating.  This man’s argument destroys itself.  Ultimately, if you don’t have any way to ground the legitimacy of reason, or logic, or science – and atheists don’t – you have no way to know anything at all.  For all the atheist chatter about how much we know from science, we actually have no way of even knowing whether or not the scientific method is even legitimate.  Think about it.  How do we know that science and reason works?  Now, I believe they do work and that we can ground rationality/science in God’s existence.  But as an atheist you can’t possibly know whether or not these things are real.  You’ll end up like my friend here, admitting that as an atheist he can’t really “know” even that which he plainly sees.  

But we can “know” things for sure.  I know this, you know this, and the atheist knows this.  The only way we can legitimately “know” things, is if we can somehow ground what we know in a standard that exists outside of ourselves.  The theist has a solution to this problem.  The atheist does not.  The fact that we can “know” things and that rationality is legitimate, is actually a strong piece of evidence that points to the existence of God.

Check out this book on the subject.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”  -Proverbs 1:7