Would you ever expect to find the complete works of Shakespeare printed, collated, and bound by an accidental explosion?
But this is exactly what we have. An explosion that not only gave us the complete works of Shakespeare, but a bunch of bipedal units to act things out, crowds to weep and moan, and an industry of Shakespeare criticism that spans centuries. But the explosion didn’t stop there. It also gave us Kafka, Russian architecture, solar panels, Jeffersonian democracy, Christianity, and ivory poaching.
We are bits of the flying flotsam, spinning away from the eye of the Great Disaster. Anything we do is attributable to Chaos, for we are its children, carbon-based shrapnel with sensitive nerve endings, a problem with self-importance, and a taste for pizza.
I see your painting. It’s by Pollock. But where is your story? What is the plot? Who are the characters. What are the rules?
In this story, the Darwinian device that moves action is called (hail, the conquering hero) natural selection. But it has no purpose, no goal at all. Survival is the result for some and death for others, but there is nothing in this story to show that one is actually to be preferred over the other. Survival as good is just one of the axioms that’s been adopted by the faithful. The characters? What do you mean? There is only a strange impersonal trinity—Time, Chance, and Matter. Matter exists, and it is shaped by chemical reactions as Time and Chance act upon it. You have no soul. You are simply a combination of chemicals. What you call “death” is nothing more than a transition out of one combination and the beginning of another. Welcome to the leaf pile—you as mulch is no better or worse than you as man. When you begin and end is a pointless question…
The truth is that very few atheists will try to maintain that atheism is pleasant. It has been pitched as a hard truth, and those squinty-eyed atheists are the brave ones (the “brights,” according to Richard Dawkins), the ones willing to peer into the burning bosom of reality, see absolutely nothing, and write best-selling books about their experiences (and to convince us of our own soullessness). They preach this hard, chemically fatalistic doctrine like a bunch of Victorian Calvinists unable to understand why the populace won’t simply bow their heads and come along quietly.
Because it is nonsense. (And you can keep your tenure. I’d rather have a ping-pong table.)
― N. D. Wilson,
Notes From The Tilt-A-Whirl
Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
― C. S. Lewis
If everything is reducible to physics and chemistry, then so is your mind. And then, why would you trust your mind? In other words, atheism taken to its logical conclusion, undermines the very rationality you need to trust to do science. And I’m not in for accepting a worldview that undermines the foundations of any kind of argument or discussion whatsoever. So I think that, in the 21 century, we can push back on that very naive notion that God’s out, we do science now. Science actually brings God back in.
– John Lennox
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
– G. K. Chesterton
In the atheist’s paradigm, only mutability or inconsistency exists. Anything that is immutable or consistent, such as a fixed point of reference, is incoherent in such a template… Since there is no opportunity for the existence of the attribute of immutability in an atheistic world, it then follows that that which is immutable by nature… cannot exist in the atheistic model…
Math, like God, has the attribute of immutability. It is unchanging. Therefore, it can be relied upon. It is the means by which proper thinking, science, and economics (amongst many other disciplines) may be accomplished. However, by virtue of its complete absence of immutability, atheism by default renders its view of reality and math as mutually exclusive. In other words, just as atheism and God are mutually exclusive, the atheistic paradigm and math also both cannot occur at the same time due to the essence of their opposite natures.
The Bible teaches us that there are no atheists. Every person knows that God exists (Romans 1:18-32) because every person is an image bearer of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Not only does the “atheist” know that God exists, but the “atheist” also knows that math exists. The “atheist,” true to his/her chaotic and incoherent worldview, attempts to have the mutually exclusive coexist. The “atheist” attempts to embrace math while denying its attribute of immutability.
Decline of Christianity is seriously hurting society
November 4, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Only a few years ago, the aggressive “New Atheist” movement was on the march, with rhetorical brawlers like Christopher Hitchens and renowned biologists like Richard Dawkins leading the charge against religion and the last vestiges of Christian faith in the West. Religion, Hitchens famously stated, “poisons everything,” and could only be considered, at best, humanity’s “first and worst” attempt to solve existential questions. If these cobwebbed superstitions could be blasted away by the refreshing winds of reason and the Enlightenment, a fundamentally better society would rise from the ashes—or so the thinking went.
But as Christianity fades further and further into our civilization’s rear-view mirror, many intelligent atheists are beginning to realize that the Enlightenment may have only achieved success because it wielded influence on a Christian culture. In a truly secular society, in which men and women live their lives beneath empty heavens and expect to be recycled rather than resurrected, there is no solid moral foundation for good and evil. Anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens mocked and reviled the idea that mankind needed God to know right from wrong, but scarcely two generations into our Great Secularization and we no longer even know male from female.
It would be interesting to know how the late Hitchens would have responded to the insanities that have proliferated since his passing, and whether he would have come to realize, as some of his similarly godless friends have, that one does not need to find Christianity believable to realize that it is necessary. Douglas Murray, who has taken to occasionally calling himself a “Christian atheist,” has publicly argued with Hitchens’ fellow “Horseman of the Apocalypse” Sam Harris over whether a society based on Enlightenment values is even possible without Christianity. Harris holds out hope that such a society is possible. Murray is sympathetic, but skeptical.
To read the rest of this article, go to: