Menu

186 Sermon Illustrations on Atheism

186 illustrations Page 2 of 4

Atheism, the denial of God's existence, challenges Christian faith by raising questions about belief and evidence. Christian preaching often contrasts atheism's reliance on unseen faith with the biblical call to trust in the living God (Hebrews 11:6), using illustrations that reveal atheism as a form of faith itself. These pictures highlight the spiritual void and the human need for divine truth (Romans 1:18-20).

Living Without Christ

Who would want to live in any city if you took the Christians out

of it? Some infidels founded a town in Minnesota a few years ago, in

order to have a town in which the name of God or Christ should never

be mentioned except in terms of profanity and vulgarity. They hung

Jesus Christ in the streets in effigy, and the place was full of

blasphemy. I had to stay there all night some years ago in passing

through that region, and I trembled for my life while I stayed in the

best hotel in the place. The town was destroyed by fire, and they

tried to build it up again. Then came an Indian massacre, with an

awful retribution of bloodshed, and they tried to build it up again.

It was again partially destroyed by fire; and at last, after there had

been a lot and bloodshed and anything but purity and peace for years,

the citizens of that town sent to the American Home Missionary Society

and said, "Can you send us a minister of Jesus Christ?" And if you

were to go there today you would not know that community with its

church spires pointing heavenward, and its children going to

Sunday-school and learning about Christ. It is almost as orderly there

today as in any town in the land, because of the influence of the

church. -- B. F. M.

By J. Wilbur Chapan, "Present Day Parables."

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database atheism

The Failure of Unbelief

I want something better than the best disbeliever in Jesus Christ ever possessed. God forbid that I should ever say an untrue or unkind word about any of the sons of men -- least of all that I should seem to tear aside with ruthless hand the veil that hides the secret place of sorrow!

But the occurrence to which I am about to refer was not done in a corner, and I only bring to your mind what you all know when I mention the time when Colonel Ingersoll endeavored to fulfill the promise made to his brother, who was also his boyhood's playmate, and pronounced his funeral address. It was in June 1879. This brother had died in Washington, and Colonel Ingersoll stood by the coffin and tried to read his address. His voice became agitated, his form trembled, and his emotion overcame him. Finally, he put down the paper, and, bowing himself upon the coffin, he gave vent to uncontrollable grief.

When at last he was able to proceed he raised himself up, and among other words he said these: “Whether in mid-ocean or 'mid the breakers of the farther shore, a wreck must mark at last the end of each and all; and every life, no matter if its every hour be filled with love and every moment jeweled with a joy, will at the last become a tragedy as sad and dark and deep as can be woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death ... Life is a dark and barren vale between the cold and ice-clad peaks of two eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We lift our wailing voices in the silence of the night, and hear no answer but the bitter echo of our cry.”

Could ever words more sadly hopeless have been uttered at a time like that? And then he added what to me were the most pathetic words of all -- something about “hope trying to see a star, and listening for the rustle of the angel's wings.”

Mrs. Browning most truly writes:

“There is no God,” the foolish saith,

But none, “There is no sorrow.”

And nature oft in bitter need

The cry of faith will borrow.

Eyes which the preacher could not school,

By wayside graves are raised;

And lips cry, “God be pitiful!”

Which ne'er said, “God be praised!”

I think I should like greater comfort and a better hope than that.

Dwight Moody had a brother, and after his own conversion he earnestly pleaded with him, until the brother also yielded himself to Christ and became such an earnest worker that he was the means of leading a number of his friends at his home into the kingdom. And then this brother died and was buried.

A few years ago, as I spent a day in Northfield and was driven through its beautiful streets by one of the old residents, I said, “I wish you would tell me something about Mr. Moody that may not be generally known.” And as we passed the old white church he said, “I remember his brother's funeral.”

He said that there were a number of ministers in the pulpit, and that after they had finished the usual services and the coffin-lid was about to be put in its place, Mr. Moody arose, and, stepping forward from the seat where he had been sitting, with a shining face, he laid one hand upon the coffin, and then lifting the other he poured out such a stream of thanksgiving unto God for the life that was gone, and for the wonderful comfort and joy and hope that came to him in Jesus Christ, that it was said by this onlooker that it almost seemed as if the heavens were opened and they could see the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

At last he ceased, the coffin-lid was placed in its position, and the body was carried out and laid in the grave. On one side of the sepulcher stood fifty young men, many of them led to Christ through the influence of this one who was gone, and they held in their hands beautiful white flowers, which they cast down upon the coffin in token of the glorious resurrection.

And on the other side of the grave stood Mr. Moody; and he said that as he stood there and thought of his brother, being dead, was yet speaking, he felt that if he were silent the very stones would cry out, and he cried with a loud voice, “Glory to God! Glory be to God! O, death, where is thy sting? O, grave, where is thy victory?” -- B. F. M.

________

By J. Wilbur Chapan, “Present Day Parables.”

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database death

Story

Paul Flowers of Memphis, Tennessee once had the opportunity to

talk with Gherman Titov, the Russian Cosmonaut. The conversation

went something like this, "So you did not see God in outer space?

Since you did not see God you conclude that there is no God ... rather, you believe in man, his strength, his possibilities,

his reason. Could it be, Comrade Titov, that you looked in the

wrong place to find God? Could it be that you were going too

far, too fast? Could it be that your own nearsightedness,

imposed on you by your teachers, has blinded you to Reality?"

- Robert G. Lee, SERMONIC LIBRARY, p. 47.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

Atheism is rationally ridiculous. The most anyone can claim

about the non-existence of God is agnosticism - to say you don't

know. But as soon as one takes the atheist's viewpoint, he/she

opens him/herself and his/her philosophical system to a dilemma. No

finite being can say there is no God, for outside the limits

of his knowledge God may exist. To be an atheist one must claim

to know everything. Of course this is one of the attributes that

only God processes. Therefore, the only way one can prove God

doesn't exist is to be God which is rationally ridiculous.

- Bill Gordon

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Joke

Did you hear about the atheist who was complaining about dial-

a-prayer. He finally got the telephone company to give him equal

time. Now they've got dial-a-prayer for atheist. You call a

number and nobody answers.

- Unknown

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database prayer

A False Reasoner Is Converted

Peter Cartwright, the famous circuit rider and Lincoln's opponent for election to Congress, once stayed overnight with a skeptical physician who claimed that the only reality was what the senses discerned. The physician said to him, "Did you ever see religion?" "No." "Did you ever hear religion?" "No." "Did you ever smell religion?" "No." "Did you ever taste religion?" "No." "Did you ever feel religion?" "Yes." "Now then," said the doctor with apparent triumph, "I have proved beyond a doubt by four respectable witnesses that religion is not seen heard smelled or tasted; and but one lone solitary witness, namely feeling, has testified that it is an experimental fact. The weight of evidence is overpowering, sir, and you must give it up."

Cartwright then said to the doctor: "In pretending to relieve pain in the human system, you have been playing the hypocrite and practicing a most wretched fraud on the gullibility of the people." To the doctor's indignant protest, Cartwright said, "Well sir, did you ever see a pain?" "No sir." "Did you ever hear a pain?" "No sir." Did you ever smell a pain?" "No sir." "Did you ever taste a pain?" "No sir." "Did you ever feel a pain?" "Certainly I did, sir." "Then, said Cartwright, "four respectable witnesses have testified that there is no such thing as pain in a human system."

Taking advantage of the doctor's discomfiture, Cartwright fell on his knees and commenced to pray. In a short time, the great deeps of the man's heart were broken up, and after a brief period of anxiety and spiritual agony, he found the Lord with a shout of triumph. His slaves, he sent at his own expense to Liberia; and he himself became a preacher of the gospel with many seals to his ministry. --McCartney

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Agnostics Contradict Their Name

A keen student of human nature gives this definition of an agnostic: "An agnostic is a man who loudly declares that he knows nothing, and gets mad and abuses you if you tell him that you believe him. He says that he doesn't know anything, but really believes he knows everything."

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

An Atheist Who Was Slain By God

A notorious infidel had a considerable following in a certain town. He was one of the braggart stamp, and seemed to revel in his outpourings of blasphemy against God. One day, in the height of his folly, he challenged God, if such a Being existed, to fight him in a certain wood. The day came, and he went defiantly to the wood, stayed a certain time, and returned home again apparently all right, and no doubt jubilant of his seeming success. But when in the wood there had alighted on his eyelid a tiny midge, which he brushed away, paying no attention to it. At night it swelled up, and blood poisoning setting in, he died. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” God sent one of His tiniest insects, and the boasting braggart fell before it. -- Faithful Words

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

An Empty Place In His Soul

Looking at a picture of the great scholar Bertrand Russell in his

later years made me feel sad. Although his face reflected courage, it

was grim and showed no sign of joy or hope. He was born into a

Christian home and taught to believe in God, but he rejected his

training and became an outspoken atheist. His daughter, Katherine

Tait, said of him, "Somewhere at the bottom of his heart, in the

depths of his soul, there was an empty space that once had been filled

by God, and he never found anything else to put in it."

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Atheism Proven False By A Meatchopper

Some time ago there appeared in the American Magazine an article by a manufacturer, with the following paragraph: "It takes a girl in our factory about two days to learn to put the seventeen parts of a meat chopper together. It may be that these millions of worlds, all balanced so wonderfully in space just happened; it may be by a billion years of tumbling about they finally arranged themselves. I don't know. I am merely a plain manufacturer of cutlery. But this I do know: that you can shake the seventeen parts of a meat chopper around in a washtub for the next seventeen billion years and you'll never make a meat chopper!"

________

"Choice Illus." W.W. Clay pg. 87-88

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Atheism Proven False By Creation

Sir Isaac Newton had among his acquaintances a philosopher who was an atheist. It is well known that the illustrious man, who takes the first rank as a mathematician, natural philosopher, and astronomer, was at the same time a Christian. He had in his study a celestial globe, on which was an excellent representation of the constellations and the stars which compose them. His atheist friend, having come to visit him one day, was struck with the beauty of the globe. He approached it, examined it, and, admiring the work, he turned to Newton and said to him, “Who made it?”

“No one!” replied the celebrated philosopher. The atheist understood, and was silent.

________

Christian Age

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Atheists Only At Night

St. Cyril speaks of a certain people that chose to worship the sun because he was a day god; for, believing that he was quenched every night in the sea or that he had no influence upon them that light up candles and lived by the light of fire, they were confident they might be atheists all night and live as they desired.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements · Jeremy Taylor via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

How Moody Preached To the Atheists

In East London during the visit of Moody and Sankey a hall in the dense working population of that city had been reserved one evening for an address to atheists skeptics and freethinkers. Bradlaugh, champion of atheism, hearing of this meeting ordered all clubs he had formed to take possession of the hall. They obeyed and one thousand men marched in from all directions. The atheists laughed when Moody asked the men to choose their favorite hymns, for atheists do not sing hymns. Mr. Moody spoke from: “Their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.” He poured in a broad side of telling incidents from his own experience of the deathbeds of Christians and atheists, and let the men be the judges as to who had the best foundation to rest their faith upon. He attacked them in their most vulnerable points their hearts of unbelief.

The sermon ended. Mr. Moody announced a hymn and gave opportunity for all to leave who did not want to stay for the inquiry meeting. Moody was astonished when not one man vacated his seat. After a few words Mr. Moody asked all who would receive Christ to say “I will.” One person, the leading club man, shouted “I won’t.”

Moody said: “Men you have your champion here in the middle of the hall who said ‘I won’t.’ I ask every man here who believes that man is right to rise and say, ‘I won’t.’” None arose. “Thank God” said Moody. “Now who’ll say ‘I will?’” The Holy Spirit seemed to have broken loose upon that great crowd and five hundred men sprang to their feet saying, “I will, I will,” till the whole atmosphere was changed and the battle was won. -- Alliance Weekly

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Ingersoll Angered and Silenced

Shortly after Ingersoll, the noted infidel, was defeated in his race for governorship of Illinois, he was one day proclaiming his infidelity on board a railroad train between Chicago and Peoria. After being for some time offensively voluble, he turned to a gentleman near him, and defiantly demanded, “Tell me one great result that Christianity has ever accomplished.”

The gentleman, not wishing to open an argument with the boaster, hesitated to answer. The train had stopped and all was silent in the car. Just then, an old lady of eighty who sat just behind the infidel touched his arm with trembling hand, and said, “Sir, I do not know who you are, but I think I can tell you of one great and glorious thing which Christianity has done.” “What is it, Madam?” asked Ingersoll. “It has kept Robert G. Ingersoll from being Governor of the State of Illinois.”

If a stroke of lightning had flashed through the car the effect could not have been more marked. Ingersoll turned literally pale with rage, and remained silent.

________

Sunday School Times

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

It Cost Ingersoll More Than That!

Nineteenth-century atheist Robert Ingersoll was famous for his public attacks on religion. He was also politically active, being appointed attorney general of Illinois. Ingersoll became a serious contender for the Democratic nomination for governor, but his determination to trumpet his anti-religious views scuttled his political hopes. Once asked by a reporter how much his extensive library had cost him, Ingersoll looked at the rows of shelves and replied, “These books cost me the governorship of Illinois, and maybe the presidency of the United States as well.”

Clearly, Robert Ingersoll's insistence on taking the wrong spiritual path also cost him dearly in other areas of life.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Emptiness of Atheism

An Illinois thief stole five hundred dollars worth of shoes, the entire stock of a store, (What year might that have been?) and in addition played a trick on the dealer by leaving all the empty boxes, putting them back just where they belonged. One after another the customers arrived the next day, and the dealer pulled out box after box, only to find that each was empty.

That was a unique theft, but something much like it takes place all the time in the spiritual world. For there are many thieves of faith, writers and speakers who make it their business to destroy belief in God, in Christ, in the Church, in religion. But they always leave the boxes. They always leave the shell of what they have taken, in order to fool people into thinking that they have taken nothing at all. But pull out the boxes, try to get any comfort and strength out of what they have left, and you will see that the theft has been complete.

________

Christian Endeavor World

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Infidel Was An Hypocrite

An infidel lecturer addressed an audience with great earnestness,

denying God and immortality and uttering the most horrid blasphemies.

When he was done, a man of middle age arose and said: "My friends I

have a word to speak to you tonight. I am not about to refute any of

the arguments of the orator. I shall not criticize his style. I shall

say nothing of what I believe to be the blasphemies he has uttered,

but I shall simply relate to you a fact and after I have done that you

shall draw your own conclusions.

Yesterday I walked by the side of yonder river. I saw on its floods

a young man in a boat. The boat was unmanageable; it was going fast

toward the rapids. He could not use the oars and I saw that he was not

capable of bringing the boat to the shore. I saw that young man wring

his hands in agony. By and by he gave up the attempt to save his life,

kneeled down and cried with desperate earnestness, 'O God, save my

soul. If my body can not be saved, save my soul!' I heard him confess

he had been a blasphemer. I heard him vow that if his life were spared

he would never be such again. I heard him implore the mercy of heaven

for Jesus Christ's sake, and earnestly plead that he might be washed

in his blood. These arms saved that young man from the flood. I

plunged in, brought the boat to shore, and saved his life. That same

young man has just now addressed you, and cursed his Maker. What say

you to this, sirs?"

The speaker sat down. A shudder ran through the young man himself,

and the audience saw that while it was a fine thing to act the bravado

against almighty God on dry land, when danger was distant, it was not

the same near the edge of the grave. --Foster's Cyclopedia

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Science of My Faith Is Bankrupt

Writers H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were brilliant men, yet they rejected the message of Scripture. They placed their trust in their own systems of belief, which were based on human reason. Yet they could not find lasting inner peace, and they slowly lost confidence in what they believed.

Wells' final literary work, for example, has been aptly called "a scream of despair." And shortly before Shaw died in 1950, he wrote, "The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which should have established the millennium, have led directly to the suicide of Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of millions. And now they look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith."

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Voltaire's Vain Boasting and Error

Daniel 12:4

One day Voltaire said to a friend, "It took twelve ignorant fishermen to establish Christianity; I will show the world how one Frenchman can destroy it."

Setting to his task, he openly ridiculed Sir Isaac Newton. One day Newton made a prophecy based on Daniel 12:4 and Nahum 2:4 when he said, "Man will some day be able to travel at the tremendous speed of 40 miles an hour."

Voltaire replied with, "See what a fool Christianity makes of an otherwise brilliant man, such as Sir Isaac Newton! Doesn't he know that if man traveled 40 miles an hour, he would suffocate and his heart would stop?"

Twenty-five years after Voltaire died, his home was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and became a Bible storage building, and his printing press was used to print an entire edition of the Bible.

______________

Sunday School Times

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

We Are Hard-Wired For Faith

Ecclesiastes 3:11

Are humans hard-wired for religious faith?

Atheists from Karl Marx to Sigmund Freud to Richard Dawkins have claimed that religion is a manmade opiate of the masses, a cultural virus that infects the human mind.

Christian scholar Paul Copan, however, challenges those who question the existence of God and the human soul. While biology and psychology may play a role in religious faith, it does not prove the non-existence of God, nor does it diminish the existence or role of the human soul. “God has placed eternity in our hearts, so it makes sense that we would be hard-wired with God-ward inclinations,” Copan said, referring to Ecclesiastes 3:11. “That natural processes contribute to religious belief doesn’t disprove the existence of God.”

Supporters of research in what is called “cognitive science of religion” seek to transform religious belief into a psychological or biological process, Copan said. The argument that religion is a virus can be turned on its head, he argued.

“If God has designed us in such a way that these sorts of processes enable us to come to know God personally, we’re actually at our cognitive best when our faculties direct us to a true belief in God,” Copan said.

He added: “Despite religious superstition and extremism, natural processes partly contributing to the formation of religious belief are not at odds with God’s existence; indeed such processes may indicate that our minds are properly functioning -- according to the way they’ve been designed.”

The existence of God is a better explanation for the creation of the universe than the atheist view that the universe came to existence without cause, Copan said. “The better unifying explanation is a supremely valuable, supremely aware, reasoning, truthful, powerful, intelligent, beautiful being,” he contended.

Copan also took issue with those who deny the existence of the human soul. Christians have long believed that humans are comprised of the physical body and the soul, in which human identity continues even after the physical body dies. Cognitive science of religion, however, links personhood to the physical. Acceptance of that view packs dangerous consequences, Copan noted.

When the existence of God is rejected, “the existence of the soul is also at stake and the suggestion that our choices, behavior, reasoning and beliefs are physically determined is hard to escape,” Copan said. “The clear result [of rejecting the soul’s existence] is undermining of robust freedom of the will, moral responsibility and the human ability to reason and seek truth.”

The atheist argument that theology is “a useful fiction” -- or worse, a harmful delusion -- falls short of explaining why the religious impulse is so deeply imbedded, Copan said.

“The reasons humans persist in looking beyond the finite realm in search of the source of coherence, order, morality, meaning and guidance for life is because this realm doesn’t contain it,” Copan said. “Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings with the capacity for self-transcendence upon our world and our condition; that, in turn, enables us to search for a world-transcending God.”

________

Paul F. South is a writer for New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Paul Copan holds the Pleger Family Chair in Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Florida.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5641]

Homecoming

Luke 15:17

Fyodor Dostoyevsky once observed: When God is dead anything is possible. That is a potent statement but sadly, history confirms its truth. When God is dead, the fences of morality are easily plowed over... and we have freely plowed.

I am reminded of a book written about the Holocaust and the men who carried out its murderous plan. Hauntingly titled Ordinary Men, the book conveys that these men were not the psychologically crazed brutes we would like to imagine, but men — ordinary men. Ordinary men who committed murder for Hitler. You see, when God is dead, anything is possible.

A man in his middle years once approached Ravi Zacharias after he had finished speaking and said, “If I told you all the horrible things I have done in my life you wouldn’t even want to be seen standing next to me. There is almost nothing I haven’t done. I am not sure even God can forgive me.” Dr. Zacharias said at the time he had to wonder what all was couched beneath those words. Still, the verse which came to mind were words spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “Seek the Lord while He may be found; call on Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon.” (Isaiah 55:6-7)

When God is dead, the possibilities are unfathomable. This man's life had been guided by the whims of that certainty. Dostoyevsky, too, saw the devastating reality of that truth lived out. But it was the reverse of this truth that changed his life forever. You see, if anything is possible when God is dead, what then is possible if God is alive?

In prison and facing death, Dostoyevsky discovered the parable of the prodigal son. In that story of homecoming, God was resurrected in his mind. The parable of the prodigal son transformed Dostoyevsky's life. Having this story read to him was the last request on his deathbed, and it was the story that touched every story that brilliant author ever wrote.

C.S. Lewis was another who saw the beauty of the prodigal son worked out in his life. Describing his own quite reluctant conversion, he exclaims, “Who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape? The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”[1]

Dearest friend, when God is alive, nothing is impossible! Absolutely nothing can separate you from God's love, not even God's seeming “death.” Have you killed God in your mind? He is still alive and His love for you is unchanged. The Father is fully with you, waiting for you to come home.

____________

1. C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955, p. 237.

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12832

Hope on A Hike

An Atheist and a Christian were hiking up a mountain; they came upon a large rock and decided to rest. While there, they talked about their jobs, families, and how good it was to enjoy nature... their conversation then drifted toward the supernatural. "I do not believe in God because there is no proof of his existence," said the Atheist. The Christian did not immediately respond, but instead gazed upon the tall pines and blue sky above him. "No," said the Christian, "we cannot actually see, hear, or touch God, but we can know that God exists since we can see the results of His work." The Christian continued, "Think of all the magnificent things we saw today... grand mountains, hundred of varieties of trees, flowers, insects, birds... and even you and I! There is beauty in all these things; they are good." The Atheist replied, "Yes, nature is definitely awesome, but I believe this all came about by chance." Again, the Christian peered at the billowy clouds above him, then asked, "We cannot see air, can we? We know that it exists because we see the effects of air. We see the trees sway and leaves rustle, but we do not actually see air nor wind. The effects of God are all around. We just have to take the time to look." Without another word, the Atheist and Christian continued their long journey up the mountain.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Atheism Is Irrational

I remember an incident back during my Watergate days that illustrates how utterly irrational atheism is. I had approached one of my colleagues to offer spiritual help. He was on his way to prison. "No thanks," was his reply. "I'm a rationalist." He'd decided that God was merely the figment of a pious imagination. For a time his "rationalism" seemed to work. After his prison term, he went on to a successful business career. He seemed to have it all together-without God. But years later rumors reached me that my former colleague was reading Christian literature, seeking deeper answers to life. "I can no longer be an atheist," he wrote to me, "for I cannot get by the question of how life began. The scientific rationales are themselves simply irrational." But, of course, my friend came to realize what some of our best scientific minds are telling us: that it is irrational to believe that the universe came into existence through purely natural causes. In his book Origins, Robert Shapiro describes a set of calculations performed by Yale University physicist Harold Morowitz. Morowitz calculated the probability of generating a single bacterium by chance as 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power: that's the number 10 followed by 100 billion zeros. Shapiro concludes that "the improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness." In other words, belief in the random generation of life requires a Herculean leap of faith. It's no wonder that British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle dismissed the idea of the random origin of life. It is "as ridiculous and improbable as the proposition that a tornado blowing through a junkyard may assemble a Boeing 747." Well put. In fact, the on us is on the nonbeliever to provide a credible explanation as to how life could have come into being without God. Some quite imaginative ideas have been proposed. Francis Crick, the scientist who discovered the double helix structure of DNA, realized the impossibility of such complexity arising on Earth by chance. Crick's solution? He theorized that DNA had somehow been transported to our planet from elsewhere in the universe. That, of course, absurd as it is, just moves the problem back a step. The real question is how something as complex as DNA could have developed by chance anywhere in the universe A worldview predicated on the existence of a Creator-far from being irrational sentiment-is actually the only intellectually defensible position. Historian Paul Johnson writes that there has been "an orgy of scientific God-questing ... books by eminent scientists" disillusioned with the failures of current theories. So don't be intimidated by worn-out charges that faith in God is blind and irrational. It's quite the contrary. Why don't you share this entire special series with your neighbors? Atheists can't be too careful. Like my Watergate pal, when they subject their atheism to rigorous scrutiny-they soon realize that their flight from God is no more rational than a tornado-designed 747.

(c) 1998 Prison Fellowship Ministries

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Humanist's Prayer

Our brothers who are on earth, hallowed be our name. Our kingdom come, our will be done on earth, for there is no heaven. We must get this day our daily bread; we neither forgive nor are forgiven. We fear not temptation, for we deliver ourselves from evil. For ours is the kingdom and the power, and there is no glory and no forever. Amen.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Dawkins' Atheistic Arguments Are Weak, Oxford Professor Says

The latest book by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, “THE GOD DELUSION,” is an attempt to shore up the faith of atheists, Oxford theologian Alister McGrath said at a meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

“I believe Dawkins’ book was really written to persuade atheists that their faith is still valid,” McGrath, professor of historical theology and senior research fellow at Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College, said Feb. 23, 2007.

Dawkins, whose other well-known writings include “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker,” promotes an evolutionary view of nature that excludes any notion of God. McGrath said Dawkins’ work has become increasingly crusading and anti-religious.

McGrath read a portion of THE GOD DELUSION in which Dawkins says he hopes “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

“Dawkins’ assertion that science disproves God is not right. The evidence isn’t there and his argument is weak,” said McGrath, who holds doctorates in molecular biophysics and Christian theology.

A former atheist, McGrath has written extensively on the subjects of theology and science and on atheism grounded in the natural sciences. McGrath’s response to Dawkins, titled “The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine,” soon will be released in the United States.

McGrath said Dawkins attempts to build a case on five points: belief in God is irrational; science disproves God; faith can be explained on scientific grounds; religion gives an impoverished view of the universe; and belief in God leads to violence.

Dawkins dismisses belief in God as infantile and akin to believing in the tooth fairy, but McGrath noted that people do not begin believing in the tooth fairy in adulthood whereas many people have come to faith in God as adults.

Atheism and theism are both faiths and neither can prove their position with 100 percent certainty through the natural sciences, McGrath said. Science does not necessitate atheism or theism, and the question of God’s existence must be resolved through other means, he said.

McGrath cited the late C.S. Lewis, a renowned apologist who pondered which worldview makes the most sense of what can be observed and experienced in the world.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else,” Lewis wrote in “The Weight of Glory.”

Dawkins’ claim that science proves there is no God is implausible in light of the significant number of Christian scientists, McGrath said, adding that even Dawkins admits Darwinian evolution is subject to revision as new facts come to light. This shows the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, McGrath said.

“If the sciences are inferential in their methodology and hence provisional in their conclusions, how can Dawkins present atheism as the certain outcome of the scientific project?” McGrath asked.

To Dawkins, belief in God is a projection of human longings and a type of wish-fulfillment, McGrath said. Such an argument works against atheism as well, he added, since an atheist wishes there is no God and therefore believes there is no God.

Dawkins concludes that belief in God is caused by “a virus of the mind,” McGrath said. With no observational evidence for mind viruses, McGrath countered that atheism also could be attributed to a virus of the mind.

“Dawkins ends up making the totally subjective, unscientific argument that his own beliefs are not viruses, but those he dislikes are,” McGrath said.

Rather than the puny, medieval universe Dawkins claims Christians embrace, McGrath said Christians see a majestic creation pointing to a majestic Creator. Christians can appreciate both the beauty of the earth and the mathematical models that describe it, McGrath said.

As a native of Northern Ireland, McGrath acknowledged the violence carried out in God’s name but also pointed to the crimes against humanity committed by the atheist Joseph Stalin. Violence is not a religious issue but a human nature issue and shows the need for redemption and transformation, McGrath said.

“As Christians, we can respond with confidence to THE GOD DELUSION that Dawkins’ arguments are weak, unsupported by evidence, and tell us more about the condition of present-day atheism than about faith in God,” McGrath said.

*

[Original illustration at this number was moved to HolwickID #26625]

Horses and Disbelief

Truth is stranger than fiction. Or so it is said. Reality is more ironic than fiction. Or so I say. Consider an anecdote told by Edward Skidelsky in Book Reviews:

As he was leaving his lodgings in Turin on January 3 1889, the

philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche caught sight of a cabby beating

his horse. Forgetting his former invectives against pity, he ran

across the street, and weeping, threw his arms around the

animal's neck in an act eerily reminiscent of a scene from

Dostoevsky's “Crime and Punishment.” He then lost consciousness

and had to be carried back to his room. When he awoke he was no

longer himself.

Nietzsche had gone mad. Sadly, one of the most fiery minds of

the 19th century had burned itself up.

And so Nietzsche went insane unknown and unread, but by the 1960s his influence had grown to such a degree that Time magazine devoted an issue to the fierce debates that Nietzsche's work had incited. Time even put his most famous line on the cover, “God is dead.” By this Nietzsche was not saying that an omnipotent being had once lived and now was dead. He was saying that the incredible idea of God had infused the West with life for centuries, and now the idea's vitality was all spent. The idea of God was dead.

As the herald of the death of God, Nietzsche also heralded the death of Christian morality. The only real Christian, he believed, had died on the cross, and the rest of us were just slavish imitators. So the whole lot of Christian ethics, he believed, ought to be destroyed. But as the above anecdote relates, he did not fall far from the tree. The irony is two-fold: one, his fit of pity for the horse is just the sort of moral sentiment that his philosophical writings impugned. So he went crazy violating his own principles. The second and richer irony, is the similarity between this scene and a pivotal scene in Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment." In it, the main character Raskolnikov, a man attempting to live by an ethic similar to Nietzsche's, protests weepingly when he sees a horse beaten.

Neither Raskolnikov in fiction, nor Nietzsche in reality, could escape the demands of morality. Goodness and evil so deeply infuse reality that even their antagonists cannot elude them.

Even if you deny the reality of goodness and evil with your philosophy, you cannot deny them with your life. You see, Nietzsche was wrong. God is not dead.

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6243]

Can We Be Good Without God? - Why Godless Morality Always Fails

Mark 10:18

“Why CAN’T we be good without God?” J. Budziszewski, professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, says that his students ask this question frequently. They’re okay with rules like “Thou shalt not steal,” but they’re uncomfortable with rules like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” They want to be good by their own power and according to their own definitions of goodness — not by God’s grace or according to His definition of goodness.

Needless to say, students aren’t the only people who think this way. The attitude is deeply ingrained in almost all of our society’s opinion-forming institutions — universities, the media, courts, and the professions. In his fascinating new book, WHAT WE CAN’T NOT KNOW, J. Budziszewski explains why we cannot be good without God — why godless morality always fails.

One reason is that the first thing a person sees in the moral law is how far short he falls. We can’t escape the awareness of a debt we owe that exceeds anything we can pay. Now Christians know that on the cross, the debt has been paid. But in a secular worldview, there is no divine payment of the debt. What’s the result? People try not to think about their debt. And to avoid thinking about it, they refuse to look at the moral law; instead they make up their own, less demanding standards. It is called self-rationalization, something I know all about from my life before my conversion.

Godless morality is futile for another reason: Have you ever heard the saying, “Do the right thing, and let God take care of the consequences”? Christians can say this because we know that God is sovereign. But without faith in God, the saying makes no sense. Without God, we try to make up for adverse consequences ourselves, and we will end up, more often than not, “doing evil, so that good will result.” This is the root from which the utilitarianism of Peter Singer and others springs.

Yet another reason morality needs God is that apart from Him, morality itself loses meaning. In yesterday’s BreakPoint I explained that we can learn about how to live from the way that God designed us. But without God, we can’t think of ourselves as designed at all. In fact, the evolutionist says that “man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have us in mind.” If this process had gone a bit differently, we would have had a different nature. With that nature, perhaps instead of caring for our children, we might be disposed to eat them the way guppies do. Why not? If morality is an accident of evolution, who can say that this would be wrong? Without God, we have no reason to take any morality seriously.

So the answer is, NO. We can’t be good without God. Oh, sure, you can do good things, but not consistently. The fact is that we cannot even define what goodness is without God.

FOR FURTHER READING:

George Gaylord Simpson, THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION, rev. ed. (Yale University Press, 1967), 344-45.

J. Budziszewski, WHAT WE CAN’T NOT KNOW: A GUIDE (Spence, 2003).

J. Budziszewski, “‘LITTLE PLATOONS’: GOD’S DESIGN FOR OUR RELATIONSHIPS,” BREAKPOINT WORLDVIEW magazine, March 2003.

Read DR. BUDZISZEWSKI’S COLUMNS at BOUNDLESS.

Marcia Segelstein, “TOLERATING OBEDIENCE: DOING RIGHT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, April 10, 2003.

Roberto Rivera, “LEVITY: HOLY WEEK REFLECTIONS ON FORGIVENESS AND GRACE,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, April 16, 2003.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030424, “IT’S ALL IN THE DESIGN: THE CREATIONAL PATTERN FOR HUMAN LIFE.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 021001, “‘IN THE BEGINNING WERE THE PARTICLES’: THE UNACKNOWLEDGED CREATION STORY.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020401, “FAITH SEEKS TO UNDERSTAND: THEOLOGY AND WORLDVIEW.”

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #17945]

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database morality

Blowing Away Smoke Screens: the Scholarship of J. Budziszewski

Acts 17:18

Two decades ago, J. Budziszewski, fresh out of grad school, stood before the faculty at the University of Texas. He was applying for a position in the Department of Government. As part of his application, he gave a lecture that outlined what he believed to be true about ethics and politics.

He told the faculty that the distinction between good and evil was merely a human invention, and that humans are not morally responsible for their actions. He then described what a politics and ethics curriculum, derived from such a worldview, would look like.

Budziszewski got the position, but the Texas faculty didn't get what they bargained for. As Budziszewski recalls in his book, "The Revenge of Conscience," the man who applied for the position was both a nihilist and a "practical atheist." He denied the existence of binding moral codes. And, while he conceded that God might possibly exist, he considered God irrelevant to human affairs.

Over time his views changed, and Budziszewski began to feel a sense of horror about himself. God was at work, giving him a "true intuition" about his spiritual condition. Eventually the horror and intuition swept away the rationalizations and "smoke screens" the young professor had used to keep Christ at bay.

He describes the period following his conversion as a time when he recovered "whole new ways of understanding" -- ways he had blocked out while trying to ignore Jesus Christ.

God redeemed Budziszewki's folly, as he often does, and used it for his purposes. Today the man for whom "smoke screens" and self-deception were standard operating procedure now helps rescue both students and faculty trapped by those same devices.

Budziszewki's classes don't teach that good and evil are human inventions. Instead, students learn why this kind of thinking is little more than a denial of what we know to be true.

Those not enrolled in Budziszewki's classes can still benefit from his work. Through his book How to Stay Christian in College, he is helping young Christians to keep higher education from becoming a wasteland. He tells them how "college can be a means of God's blessing instead of a snare," and he refutes the arguments against Christian faith that they're likely to encounter.

How to Stay Christian isn't Budziszewki's only ministry to college students. He is a featured columnist for "Boundless" web-magazine as well. There, he addresses the moral issues college students face. He also maintains an active correspondence with young people seeking his counsel.

In another book, entitled The Revenge of Conscience, Budziszewski says we're not ignorant about what's right and wrong concerning abortion, sexuality, and other social issues. The truth about these matters is written on our hearts. The problem is that we suppress and deny what we know to be true, choosing, instead, to hide behind arguments that can't withstand scrutiny -- what he calls "smoke screens."

Professor Budziszewski is one of a new breed of young and articulate Christian intellectuals giving relativists on college campuses fits. He'll also be at our upcoming conference in Chicago.

You can take heart. God's army of Christian thinkers is on the move. And as Budziszewski's life illustrates, when Christian faith is informed and engaged, it always leads to "whole new ways of understanding." And that's truth you can share with your neighbors.

======================

For further reference:

Budziszewki, J. How to Stay Christian in College. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1999.

------ . Written on the Heart. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

------ . The Revenge of Conscience. Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing Co, 2000.

_____________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

No Proof of Ownership

At one time Frederick the Great held a banquet at which Voltaire, the French philosopher and skeptic, was present. When dinner was served, the noted unbeliever began to ridicule the Christians who were there. Finally he said, “Why, I would sell my seat in heaven for a Prussian dollar!”

There was a pause. Then one of the guests quietly rose from his chair and said, “Sir, you are in Prussia, where we have a law which requires that one who wishes to sell anything must first prove ownership. Are you prepared to establish the fact that you have a seat in heaven?” Surprised and embarrassed, Voltaire, the normally quick-witted scoffer, had nothing more to say for the rest of the evening.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database atheism

Answer to the Infidels

In a heated public discussion some infidels challenged the audience

for a reply. A plain woman arose and told how she had prayed for her

unsaved and unkind husband. In time he was saved and happiness

prevailed in the home. She said, "So much has my religion done for

me. Will you kindly state now what your religion has done for you?"

- {Notes and Quotes for Church Speakers}

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

God has clearly revealed His existence to men. Suppose a student

were to write on a physics exam that he did not believe in atoms

because he could not see them. Would not the professor be justified

in failing him? The existence of atoms is clearly undeniable on the

basis of their recognized effects. Everyone familiar with Hiroshima

knows that atoms exist; they are known from their effect. Likewise,

men are responsible to acknowledge God and His eternal power by the

effects that are clearly revealed in the Creation.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

"If I thought there was an omnipotent God who looked down on

battles and deaths and all the waste and horror of this war - able to

prevent these things - doing them to amuse Himself, I would spit in

His empty face."

H. G. Wells, {Mr. Britling Sees It Through 1916}, (Salem, NM:

Merrimack Pub. Cir., 1985 reprint),

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

". . . atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe

has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning:

Just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no

creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. 'Dark' would

be without meaning."

C. S. Lewis, {Mere Christianity,} (New York: Macmillan, 1986),

46

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

An atheist wrote on a blackboard, "God is nowhere." A little later

when he returned to the room, a little child with one stroke of a

brush made it read, "God is now here."

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

A quarrelsome atheist was filling the train compartment with his

profane language. "God! God!" he shouted. "There isn't any such

being as a God!"

"That's curious," observed a quiet man in the compartment. "I

happen to know Him." After a pause he added, to the atheist, "More

curious still, you happen to hate Him!"

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

A God-fearing astronomer once made a small planetarium, then

invited an atheist friend to see it. The little machine represented

the various planets of the solar system in their orbits. The atheist

who had made a study of astronomy in his leisure was delighted over

the precision with which the planets and their satellites were

represented. After the first look at the mechanism, he exclaimed,

"Who made it?"

The God-fearing astronomer dryly replied, "Oh, it made itself. I

had bits of metal here in my laboratory, pieces of leather there on

the shelf, other odd parts of apparatus on the floor. The wind blew

through the window one afternoon. At the same time there was

considerable vibration in the building because of passing cars.

Gradually these pieceds arranged themselves in their present form."

The athiest was amused by the answer. "What nonsense," he

exclaimed. "Suppose the parts did come together by accident. Their

correspondence to the planets in their orbits must have been worked

out by some competent mathematician, someone with intelligence,

someone who could think."

"Oh, well," said the God-fearing asttronomer. "There was a kind of

blind purpose init all. The various parts seemed to want to come

together without realizing what they were doing. The wind was blowing

very hard that day and that helped it along."

Blind purpose seemed a very laughable suggestion to the visitor.

Finally, a little impatient, he turned to the astronomer, "I really

should like to know who is the author of this device. Please answer

my question intelligently."

The astronomer then made his point with the atheist. "If this

little miniature solar system could not come to be by itself by

chance, how could the universe, after which it is patterned, which

runs like clockwork with never a split-second deviation, ever come

into existence without an intelligent maker?"

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

(untitled)

Atheists and agnostics continue to flounder in their theories of the

origin of life and substance, while those of the Christian faith rest

in the assurance that God is responsible for it all.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

An Atheist's Will

An atheist if Finland bequesthed his farm to the devil. The land was

left untouched and soon reverted to a wilderness. A life left to run

wild and unattended is soon taken over by the devil.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

A Slip of the Tongue

An orator in Hyde Park of London was speaking out against religion.

He said, "My hatred of religion is honestly come by; my grandfather

was an athiest; my father was an atheist; and, thank God, I'm an

atheist, too."

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Who Is the Failure?

On December 19, 1891 the Evening Telegram, a New York newspaper, published a “Christmas Sermon” by Robert Ingersoll [see HolwickID #24049]. The noted atheist called Christmas a pagan observance and said, “Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition thereafter.”

Ingersoll appealed to people to abandon the psychotic dogma of religion and called Christianity a total failure. “As a torchbearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has billed the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal peritentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.”

The Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good”

Not only did Ingersoll and his followers try to destroy Christmas and the Christian hope; they never organized to do good - like build hospitals or colleges. They just tore down. It's been almost a hundred years since Ingersoll published his “sermon” denouncing Christianity as a failure. Few people even remember his name. But Christianity is still proclaimed around the world.

Who is the failure?

________

Jack Gulledge, "Ideas and Illustrations for Inspirational Talks" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986), 9

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database religionchristmas

(untitled)

"Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat," wrote Julian Huxley. He also wrote, "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief that comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous."

Julian Huxley, {Religion Without Revelation} (Westport, Conn., Greenwood, 1979)

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

A Vigorous Skeptic of Everything but Fact

These are some of the things that Paul Kurtz, chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and publisher of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, does not believe in: parapsychology, holistic cures for animal illnesses, the universal effectiveness of chiropractic, extraterrestrial beings, alternative medicine, Bigfoot and organized religion.

For 35 years Mr. Kurtz has kept up a drumbeat of opposition to all kinds of this nonsense, as he calls it. And now he is turning his attention to the proliferation of the paranormal in movies and on television. Although movies are obviously fiction, Mr. Kurtz said, their power and influence are enormous. Meanwhile some television shows are presenting extraterrestrial conversations as a real thing.

“The television networks are selling communication with the dead with abandon,” Mr. Kurtz complained as he sat in the headquarters of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, N.Y., near Buffalo, the secular humanist organization that is the umbrella group for all his interests. Mr. Kurtz pointed to John Edward’s show, “Crossing Over,” and to James Van Praagh and George Anderson, mediums who also appear regularly on television claiming to talk to the dead.

Then “there are the increasing number of scenes in soap operas that are set in heaven,” Mr. Kurtz said, adding that movies are also gross offenders. For instance, on Aug. 2, Touchstone is scheduled to release “Signs,” starring Mel Gibson, about the mysterious appearance of crop circles on a family farm. Another example is “The Mothman Prophecies” with Richard Gere, released in January, in which the characters are terrified by an otherworldly creature in the form of a giant moth.

To monitor these trends his investigating committee, which its members call Csicop (pronounced SY-cop), has opened a National Media Center on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. And tomorrow Mr. Kurtz and some 400 other skeptics from around the world are to convene in Los Angeles at the World Skeptics Congress at the Hilton Burbank Airport and Convention Center to discuss these and other concerns.

“We are all concerned with this media distortion,” he said. “We consider this area of pseudoscience to be critical.”

“We are the heroic defenders of science and reason,” said Mr. Kurtz, 76, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo and author or editor of 35 books, including the “Secular Humanist Manifesto II.” And he is not above a touch of humor in his crusade.

The March-April issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, for instance, gave a special “Foot in Mouth Disease Award” to the Rev. Jerry Falwell for holding pagans, abortionists and feminists partly responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And to another minister, Jack Brock, and the Christ Community Church of Alamogordo, N.M., the magazine gave a Pagan Pride Award for sponsoring “a Harry Potter book burning.”

“Our kind of saints are magicians and comedians,” Mr. Kurtz said. “They show by sleight of hand how you can deceive.” Magicians often perform at his group’s conventions.

Mr. Kurtz’s operations have an annual budget of $11 million. The center has small branches in Los Angeles and Montclair, N.J., and has about 40 employees overall. There are affiliated groups in Russia, France, Peru, Germany, Africa and other locations.

In an effort to dispel the notion that paranormal powers exist and to debunk its other targets, like organized religion, Mr. Kurtz publishes magazines and newsletters, including The Skeptical Inquirer, which Mr. Kurtz said had a circulation of about 50,000. Other magazines include Free Inquiry, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and a few others. Mr. Kurtz also operates a publishing house, Prometheus Books, which brings out about 100 books a year. In addition the center sponsors a student organization, the Campus Freethought Alliance, and S.O.S. (for Save Ourselves), a secular alternative to Alcoholics Anonymous. “You don’t need a higher spiritual power to get rid of alcohol addiction,” he said.

The struggle against organized religion is lonely. Religion exerts a tyranny over society, he said, and for an American politician “the worst crime is to be an agnostic.” In France, François Mitterrand and former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin reported they were agnostics. “They could not get away with that here.”

He added: “Years ago you never met anyone who believed in Satan. Now it’s common.” By his count there are “1,350 cults and sects in the United States, from the Church of Scientology to Hasidic Judaism,” he said, speaking of offshoots of mainstream religions.

Still Mr. Kurtz insists he is not anti-religion. “Some of my best friends are Christians,” he said with a twinkle in his eye.

Not only does mainstream religion constitute a tyranny, but beliefs like “Astrology and U.F.O.-ology have become major religions of our day,” he said.

“Among our strongest supporters are astronomers, because they are confused with astrologers and U.F.O.-ologists and Scientologists.” The International Astronomical Union, which names newly discovered bodies in the skies, have named asteroid No. 6,629 Kurtz for him.

The bland, modernist headquarters of the center is a virtual temple to reason. In the main reading room is a bust of Mr. Kurtz’s great hero, Charles Darwin, whose theories of natural selection as the basis of evolution run counter to some conservative Christians’ belief system. Every Feb. 12 the center celebrates his birthday with lectures, films and a birthday cake.

On the walls are paintings to illustrate some of the center’s precepts. One, called “The Ascent of Reason,” shows the figures of Hypatia, Democritus, Aristotle, Socrates, Epicurus and Protagoras, who said, “Man is the measure of all things.” Another, “Prometheus Bound,” is a homage to Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods and bequeathed it to humankind and taught humans arts and sciences. There is also a strange painting based on “The Last Supper,” with Susan B. Anthony, Sidney Hook, Charles Darwin, Leonardo da Vinci, Bertrand Russell, Voltaire and other atheists and humanists seated around the table instead of the apostles.

In addition there is a picture of Mr. Kurtz’s friend the comedian Steve Allen. Over the years Prometheus published 15 of Mr. Allen’s books, including “Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion and Morality.”

Another room at the center is the Academy of Humanism, with busts of Aristotle, Socrates and great humanists. The basement holds the center’s collection of some 35,000 books and pamphlets relating to evolution, secular humanism, atheism and skepticism.

Mr. Kurtz, who was born in Newark, the son of a businessman, was left-wing in his youth, he said. But serving in the Army in World War II taught him the dangers of ideology. He entered the Dachau and Buchenwald camps after they were liberated. He also became disillusioned with Communism when he encountered Russian slave laborers who had been taken to Germany forcibly and refused to return to the Soviet Union at the end of the war.

As an undergraduate at New York University in the 1940’s Mr. Kurtz came under the influence of the philosopher Sidney Hook and pragmatism. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis at Columbia University on value theory, on whether there can be a science of ethics. He is married to Claudine Vial, a retired French teacher. They have four children, including Jonathan, 33, a vice president of Prometheus Books.

Mr. Kurtz founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal when he was teaching at Buffalo in the 1970’s. He said he had noticed that students were suddenly saying that they believed in astrology, U.F.O.’s and other mystical systems. In 1973 he published “The Humanist Manifesto II.” It set forth his philosophy of pragmatic skepticism, which he saw as a continuation of John Dewey’s philosophy of pragmatism.

Today one of Mr. Kurtz’s biggest challenges, in addition to the proliferation of people talking to the dead in movies and on television, is Islam. “Islam is a great religion, a great culture,” he said. “It contributed to the preservation of science in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries.” But there is a need for a scientific analysis of Islam’s claims, such as the belief of some Muslims that religious martyrs are greeted by 72 virgins in Paradise.

“There is a rich tradition of inquiry into Islam dating back to the 19th-century French and German scholarly critiques,” Mr. Kurtz said. “There are many versions of the Koran. We don’t know if we have the authentic one. Muhammad never wrote anything down. Some of it was written 150 years later.” As in the Bible, the prophet’s words in the Koran and the Hadith, his collected sayings, were recorded by followers.

“Islam desperately needs a Protestant-like Reformation,” he continued. The Islamic system is the product of “a nomadic, agrarian society, pre-modern and pre-urban, which they are trying to apply to the contemporary world.”

Mr. Kurtz is well aware of the dangers of criticizing Islam. “Anything critical of Islam, you can get a fatwa,” he said. But no matter, he said. “My main interest is defending humanism as an alternative morality, of happiness here and now, of autonomy and individual freedom and dignity, and of the value of the exuberance of this life.”

He concluded, “Islam and Judaism and Christianity are false.”

________

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

from New York Times · Dinitia Smith via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database persecutionunbelief

America's Pledge

The recently censored "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is far tamer language than that of the Declaration of Independence, which includes phrases like "of nature's God" and "endowed by their Creator."

Indeed, the entire moral inheritance of our Founding Fathers is predicated on the repeated idea that something beyond the power and wisdom of mere mortals is necessary for the survival of the United States.

The word "God" is everywhere in our national heritage - from the Mayflower Compact's "In the name of God, Amen," to Patrick Henry's incendiary "Give me liberty or give me death" speech - "Forbid it, Almighty God." (Even the wild-eyed Tom Paine invoked "the Word of God" in his "Common Sense.")

We read not only "In God We Trust" on our money, but also (on the dollar bill) "Annuit coeptis" ("Providence has smiled on our beginnings") and "Novus Ordo Seclorum" ("A New Order of the Ages"). Those are from Virgil's famous lines in his "Aeneid" and so-called messianic "Fourth Eclogue" - a poem selected by our Founders because of its traditional associations with the birth of Christ and the idea of a divinely created new nation.

Both Athens and Jerusalem are woven into our American fabric, since the architects of this country realized that neither Reason nor Faith alone could establish a powerful and humane country. The entire notion of the West is one that derives from Hellenism (whose Socrates believed that a divinity inspired his rationalism), combined with a Christianity that preached prior Platonic forgiveness and kindness were not merely logical, but spiritual and God-given as well.

From that unique balance springs the great ideas of the nation. No one could accuse Abraham Lincoln of being a fundamentalist. Yet he realized that his own acumen was not enough to guide the Union in its hour of peril. So he promised in the Gettysburg Address that we "resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, Under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

Those words would perhaps now earn the Great Emancipator a lawsuit in San Francisco.

Lincoln's most famous allusion to God appears in the Second Inaugural Address: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." (No doubt our bureaucrats, with firmness from jurists, can now substitute, "as We ourselves see the right.")

The ruling outlawing the language of the Pledge of Allegiance is an outrage for a variety of reasons. At its most basic, such censure is hubristic: Two federal judges in their great scholarship profess to know what Jefferson and Lincoln did not.

It is the worst form of modernist condescension - that suddenly, in the year 2002, a few jurists have just discovered that the age-old tradition of invoking God in our civil speech is technically improper.

It is also elitist - the idea that legalese in a blink can overturn what thousands of local, state and national elected bodies insist on. It's arrogant - judges dictating from on high that the theoretical welfare of a few discontents outweighs what 300 million choose to see as stirring and inspirational in their schools, military ceremonies, state funerals and government meetings.

The people know that in a nation without an official religion or unifying race - unlike, say, China or Saudi Arabia - ideals are all that bind us. Values alone trump our more natural affinities of skin color, accent and religion.

Such allegiance to principles like liberty and justice - and God - must be reiterated and renewed as the very lifeblood that nourishes our national flesh. Those in their robes and chambers have not a clue about all that.

Finally, the decision is dangerous for the message it sends to our enemies at a time of war. The terrorists are intolerant and so insist on theocracy. In turn, they charge us with the exact opposite sin of extremism: godless individualism, personal license and crass faith in man, money and materialism.

They claim that our creed is as intolerant of religion as theirs is of reason. They say that they believe in something, we in nothing.

Yet we Americans are neither like them nor like their caricature of us. Instead, our mottos, protocols, songs, currency - and pledges - have always reflected that we are uniquely balanced: committed both to wisdom and to the idea that such reason is divinely inspired.

Socrates once knew that. So did Washington and Lincoln. We apparently now do not.

=============================================

From Baptist Press, 6/27/02

Comment by President Bush on Pledge controversy:

"(The) Declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights. As a matter of fact, it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."

from Nypost.com · Victor Davis Hanson, Military Historian via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database atheism

Questions of Life and Death: the Activist and the Professor

Luke 7:22

How would you characterize someone who denies that you, and people like you, were persons when you were born, and says that your mother should have been free to kill you for being who you are?

This was the question facing Harriet McBryde Johnson, a prominent disabilities rights activist, when she was invited to debate Princeton ethicist Peter Singer. Singer believes in infanticide and that it is okay under certain circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with physical impairments so severe they are no longer “persons.”

Ms. Johnson is a leading member of NOT DEAD YET, an organization of disabled Americans opposed to physician-assisted suicide and other “disability-based killing.” If NOT DEAD YET has a public enemy number one, it is Peter Singer.

Johnson is seriously impaired, unable to function on her own -- just the kind of person Singer regards as an “avoidable mistake.” But with some trepidation, she traveled to Princeton for the exchange with Singer before one of his classes, and later before the entire university -- an exchange she described in a brilliantly written Sunday NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE piece.

Johnson wrote poignantly of her emotions when meeting the man whom she expected to be a “monster” and the “ultimate evil.” Instead Singer surprised her by his graciousness. She described him as “easy to talk to and good company.” Of course, the issue is not whether Singer is a monster -- the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. The issue is where his ideas, beginning with his premises, lead.

And this is where Johnson ran into her problems. She repeatedly reminds readers that she is an atheist. In fact, she approves Singer's desire to ground ethics on “fact and reason” as opposed to religious beliefs. She referred to this as a “grand, heroic undertaking.”

But the problem for people like Johnson is that, historically speaking, the alternative to what they dismiss as just a religious belief is the kind of utilitarianism that provides the foundation for Singer's ideas -- that is, the goal is to maximize happiness in the world, by doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

People like Johnson, who require substantial resources to maintain what Singer regards as an inferior quality of life, would, by Singer's logic, be eliminated as early as possible.

No wonder Ms. Johnson, obviously an able advocate, wrote that she doubted whether she had bested Singer in the exchange. The reason is that, as an atheist, she is in a moral dead end; she has no moral basis to refute Singer's deadly logic so long as she embraces his premises about the origins of life.

Only the Christian ideal, that all life is sacred because it is created in the image of God, provides an unassailable answer to Singer's reasoning. It's the only sure basis for protecting people like Harriet McBryde Johnson from a moral calculus that reduces them to non-persons.

Ms. Johnson writes movingly, and the reader can feel her anguish over her difficult encounter with Singer. Though not the author's intent, the article in the NEW YORK TIMES -- of all places -- makes a powerful case for the Christian understanding of life.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION

Harriet McBryde Johnson, “Unspeakable Conversations,” NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, 16 February 2003 (free registration required). http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16DISABLED.html?ex=1049860800&en=f38544e68895205b&ei=5070

Learn more about Not Dead Yet. http://www.notdeadyet.org

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030227, “'A Short Philosophical Hop, Skip, and Jump': The Threat of Embryonic Research.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/A+Short+Philosophical+Hop+Skip+and+Jump.htm

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020313, “Superman and Utilitarianism: Kindly Ignoring the Argument.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Superman+and+Utilitarianism.htm

Gilbert Meilaender, BIOETHICS: A PRIMER FOR CHRISTIANS (Eerdmans, 1996).

“Debate of the Century: What Does It Mean to Be Human?” -- On June 7, 2002, Wilberforce Forum Dean Nigel Cameron debated Peter Singer of Princeton University on the topic: “What Does It Mean to Be Human?” Dr. Cameron argued the Christian worldview perspective: All human life is sacred, created in God's image. Dr. Singer, known for condoning infanticide, presented the extreme opposite view.

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13096]

The Atheist's Crutch

The debate over God's existence is not new. Attempts to understand ultimate reality date back to ancient Greece. Twenty-five centuries later, the debate continues.

Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher, and Jay Budziszewski, a Christian philosopher, recently added a new chapter in the debate. Nagel, in his book The Last Word, offered a revealing insight into his personal motivations for his atheistic beliefs.

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.” [1]

Budziszewski responded to Nagel's comments in the journal First Things. There he said that if Nagel's motivations are true of most atheists then, “those who say that theism is a crutch have got it backwards...it is atheism that serves as a crutch.” [2]

But how could atheism be a crutch? Atheists often charge that theism is a crutch because people are motivated to believe in God because that belief gives meaning, hope, and order to their world. So how is it that not believing in God could possibly be a crutch? Could possibly provide help in this, at times, bewildering world? The answer is, that if taken seriously, the idea of an all-knowing and all-seeing God taking account of our lives is terrifying. I believe that many atheists keenly sense this. They understand that if God exists, facile belief in Him is not enough. If God exists, they know that they must submit themselves to God, and not just partially, but entirely.

We do well to learn from the atheist's fear of the existence of God. It is easy for believers in God to become very comfortable with the idea of God's existence and then lose the great potency of this reality. The atheist's fears remind us of this potency. Remind us that God is not a powerless idea — a mute name only to be uttered before meals. God is the most powerful reality that we must earnestly be confronted by.

Our days are not our own. Our thoughts are not just for our ears. Our will is not king. These tremendous truths confront us when we are confronted by the reality of God. May we do so earnestly so that our faith will not be a crutch.

____________

1. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word as quoted by J. Budziszewski in First Things, June/July 2002, No. 124, pg. 28.)

2. J. Budziszewski, First Things, June/July 2002, No. 124, pg. 28.)

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13125]

Practical Atheism: the Privatizing of Religion

Across America these days, governmental bodies are legislating what one philosopher calls "practical atheism." And in all the rhetoric about Christians forcing their morality on other people, the truth is that secularists are forcing their brand of morality on us.

Exhibit 1 is right here in Washington. Last month the District of Columbia City Council passed a bill requiring all employers in the city to pay for contraceptives in their health plans. The council refused to provide an opt-out clause for employers who objected on religious grounds.

The bill outraged Catholic leaders. It would have forced employers -- like Catholic University in Georgetown -- to pay for contraceptives, including those that are, in effect, early abortifacients.

That didn't faze the councilmen, some of whom could not resist a little in-your-face anti-Catholic rhetoric. Councilman Jim Graham said that he had "no intention of deferring to Rome." The message of the council was clear: "How dare Christians attempt to inject their religious beliefs into the political process?"

Well, mercifully, DC Mayor Anthony Williams shot the bill down. But this is more than a tempest of religious bigotry in a legislative teapot. It's part of a widespread effort to mandate atheism.

At a recent conference sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Jean Bethke Elshtain said that, for centuries religion and civic standing were tethered together: You could not be a citizen in good standing unless you were a communicant in good standing.

But in the seventeenth century, philosopher John Locke began to unravel this connection. He demanded the severing of religion and government as a way of avoiding sectarian strife. But in the process, Elshtain explains, Locke sowed the seeds of the privatization of religion -- seeds that are germinating powerfully in our own time.

Many people believe that Locke's views shaped American views. But, in fact, our Founders rejected Locke's notion that citizens had to park their religious beliefs at the gate to the public square. And no less than Alexis de Tocqueville insisted that democracy could not survive without religion to shape and mediate human passions.

But Tocqueville's warnings go unheeded today by those who want to strip society of all public markers of religion, Elshtain says. Their view contains "a built-in animus" against Christians who want to set up "their own network of schools, welfare provision [and] political advocacy." If they had their way, Elshtain says, secularists would have the state go on a rampage and gobble up society so that all of it would be thoroughly secularized.

This would result in radical secularists disenfranchising Christians from the democratic process, as we saw them attempt to do with the DC City Council. To them, religion is always strictly private.

But this is precisely what the devout cannot do, Elshtain says: "Civil society involves ... associations and relationships that [go] beyond the purview of the state." If the logic of church-state separation is carried into these realms, our society will be damaged and our religious freedoms destroyed.

This is an age in which we see the resurgence of faith-based programs. We are also going to see a continuing rise in radical secularism. That's why it is so important to take the arguments by Elshtain seriously, understand them, and be able to articulate a prudent argument for Christian involvement in public life. If we don't do this, the bureaucrats may continue to cram "practical atheism" down our throats.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database atheismgovernment

Meaning and Morality Without God: Atheists Know Better Than They Think

Nature documentaries like the BBC’s “Planet Earth,” “Blue Planet,” and most recently, “A Perfect Planet,” are amazing masterpieces of modern videography, displaying creation in detail and majesty. Every creature soaring through the sky, or streaking through the deep, or thundering over the savannah exhibits power, beauty, and unmistakable purpose. David Attenborough’s grandfatherly narration and Hans Zimmer’s moving musical scores only add to the childlike awe these films induce.

All of which makes it even more odd when Attenborough declares that all of this glory lacks purpose, or that it arose by chance and natural selection, and that none of it bears witness to any meaning or Mind beyond itself.

A recent article on atheism, also from across the pond, reminded me of this contradiction. In The Guardian, Harriet Sherwood described a new project from the University of Kent that seeks to discover whether disbelieving in God makes people less spiritual overall. According to the project’s authors, atheism “doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena.” Nor do unbelievers lack for a sense of purpose, despite “lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to [in] the universe,”

In the article, Sherwood profiled several unbelievers, from an agnostic to a “free thinker” to Positivist pastor and Satanic priest (who makes it clear he doesn’t believe in a literal Satan). All of them insist that life can be deeply meaningful and even moral without God.

“We can determine for ourselves what is meaningful,” said one. “The meaning of life,” suggested one woman, “is to make it the best experience you can, to spread love to those around you.” “Beauty and tradition are at the core of my philosophy,” said another. One self-identified atheistic Jew explained, “Being part of a religious community offers music, spirituality and relationships ... it reminds me I’m on a journey to understand myself better and motivates me to help others.”

Hearing outspoken unbelievers proclaim that meaning and morality aren’t accidents is about as jarring as hearing David Attenborough proclaim that the world’s most amazing creatures are accidents. There is an inability of atheists to let go of the transcendent.

In his book, “Miracles,” C.S. Lewis wrote about the passionate moral activism of a famous atheist of his day, H.G. Wells. Moments after men like Wells admit that good and evil are illusions, Lewis said, “you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, to revolutionise, liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race.”

But how do unbelievers, “naturalists” as Lewis calls them, account for such ideas? Certainly, nature is no help. If thoughts of meaning and morality find their origin in arrangements of atoms in our brains, then they can no more be called “true,” Lewis observed, than can “a vomit or a yawn.”

Lewis concludes that when Wells and other unbelievers say we “ought to make a better world,” they have simply forgotten about their atheism. “That is their glory,” he concludes. “Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice, they throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men and like men of genius. They know far better than they think they know.”

I’d love to ask the people behind masterpieces like “Planet Earth,” or the unbelievers profiled in The Guardian, about this contradiction. Years ago, I had a similar conversation with a woman I was seated beside on an airplane. She had very strong moral opinions about all kinds of things, but scoffed at me, “How can you believe in God!” I gently asked her why she believed in right and wrong. It was a fun conversation, and it made me realize that it is possible to affirm the human gut-level intuition about beauty and wonder and morality, while questioning where all of those things come from.

And if you haven’t read Lewis’ masterful book “Miracles,” add it to the list. If it’s been a while, it’s worth revisiting. Fair warning: unbelievers should beware. As Lewis himself said, “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”

RESOURCES

“A Perfect Planet – BBC,” YouTube, December 19, 2020

“‘I only know one god – and that’s me’: non-believers on the meaning of life,” by Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian, January 23, 2021.

“Miracles,” by C.S. Lewis

________

Copyright (c) 2021 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Moral Values Point To A God Who Created Them

Romans 2

The existence of objective moral values is evidence for God’s existence, Paul Copan, a philosopher and Christian apologist, said at a meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

“There are certain moral truths that we all know,” Copan, associate professor of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, said Feb. 24, 2007. “If objective moral values exist, then it is extremely likely that a Creator exists.”

Copan, whose books defending the Christian faith include “True for You, But Not for Me” and “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong,” said morality begins with certain self-evident principles upon which atheists and theists can agree.

Citing atheistic philosophers David Brink and Kai Nielsen, Copan said atheists also appeal to objective ethics and human moral awareness. Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins also contends that people can be good without being policed by God, Copan said.

In light of Romans 2, Christians should not be surprised when atheists live good, moral lives, Copan said. He quoted Daniel Dennett, a professing atheist from Tufts University, who wrote, “People can be caring without a belief in immortality.... A scientific materialist may be concerned about justice, beauty, and even religious freedom.”

By virtue of being made in God’s image, atheists are connected to God the Creator, whose character is the source and metaphysical foundation for morality, human worth and dignity, Copan said.

“Anyone can know that humans have certain moral rights, but a far more fundamental question is, ‘How did they come to be that way?’” Copan said.

Naturalists have confused “knowing” and “being” -- epistemology and ontology -- by acknowledging certain truths but failing to explain why those truths exist, Copan said.

“Can the valueless, mindless, cause-and-effect physical processes of naturalism produce conscious humans with value and worth,” he asked.

Copan cited naturalist’s Colin McGinn’s admission that, “We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding of how this can be so.”

Theism offers a more natural and plausible explanation for why humans are “valuable, truth-seeking, morally responsible beings in a finely tuned, beautiful universe,” Copan said. Humans have worth because they are the image-bearers of a good and personal God.

Although naturalists may live moral lives, naturalism itself undermines objective ethics and undercuts a motivation for morality, Copan said. He quoted Dennett again, saying that while moral norms “contribute to social cohesion,” they are “illusory rule-worship.”

Copan referred to naturalist Michael Ruse who said moral values are “an illusion of our genes to get us to cooperate with each other.” Seeing moral impulses the same as other impulses -- such as the impulse to eat or scratch -- doesn’t inspire the pursuit of virtue, Copan said.

Evolutionary ethics produce skepticism about a human’s ability to know truth, Copan said, adding that Charles Darwin said, “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals are of any value or are even trustworthy.”

Ethical foundations, then, are undermined by “an evolutionary process that is interested in fitness and survival but not true beliefs,” Copan said.

Theism offers a more plausible context for affirming human dignity than naturalism that puts moral objectivity and rational thought in question.

Copan cited the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to show that humans have an intrinsic understanding of human rights, regardless of religious convictions. He quoted French philosopher Jacques Maritain, one of the document’s drafters, who said, “God and objective morality cannot be plausibly separated since God is the Creator of valuable, morally responsible human beings and is the very source of value.”

Copan concluded by saying that a moral argument alone doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God but can be supplemented with other arguments for God.

“The moral argument points us to a supreme, personal, moral being who is worthy of worship and who made us with dignity and worth,” Copan said. “He is a being to whom we are accountable and who could reasonably be called God.”

*

[Origional illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20475]

Just Be Good For Goodness' Sake?

Mark 10:18

“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” proclaims a new holiday ad from the American Humanist Association. Already appearing in the New York Times and Washington Post, the message will soon be blazoned on the sides, taillights, and interiors of over 200 Washington, D.C. Metro buses.

It’s the first ad campaign of its kind in the United States, and the American Humanist Association predicts it will raise public awareness of humanism as well as controversy over humanist ideas.

“Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “So that’s the point we’re making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.”

This information from the humanist website is one more in a recent spate of atheistic claims that religion and theism are not only wrong, but unnecessary and probably even evil. But can they demonstrate they are correct? I don’t think so.

First of all, the humanist experiment to sustain a good (moral) society without appeal to a supernatural lawgiver and a revealed set of rights and wrongs is sitting on the foundation of a culture that was created from the belief in a Creator who has granted to His human creatures certain “inalienable” rights. The ethics and values that Americans have long embraced such as freedom, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, honoring parents, compassion for the needy, etc. as well as “empathy” and “fairness” are all grounded in the understanding that God made us and expects us to behave in these moral ways. We have lived, written laws, and behaved on the basis of these bedrock beliefs.

Are we to expect that all these ethical principles and practices will likewise flow from the belief that there is no God, no created order that makes man’s existence purposeful and special, no absolute set of rights and wrongs, and no eternal consequences for the way we live? We do have some recent examples of societies that do not believe in God nor recognize a mandated divine value on human beings. They are associated with names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein. Devoid of any sense of God or godliness, they created a social order of mayhem and evil that destroyed millions of lives. So much for the morality of godlessness.

Secondly, in this non-theistic paradigm, who is going to decide what “being good” is? We have traditionally asserted that being faithful to your marriage partner is “good.” But now there are those who not only want to redefine marriage but also those who insist that marriage itself is a bad thing. For centuries, our people have valued sexual chastity, making it almost synonymous with the concept of “purity.” Now, young people who value such an ideal are routinely called foolish and mentally and socially deficient. Is being good respecting others’ property or may I take what I can get away with as long as it “doesn’t hurt anybody”? Dare we broach the human-life topics of abortion and euthanasia? Are cheating, lying, and carousing on the “good” list or the “bad” list, or is it simply optional? How are you going to be good if no one agrees on what “good” is?

Thirdly, without a divine touchstone, why is it I am supposed to care what someone else (or everyone else) thinks is good behavior? If human beings are only biological phenomena who populate a random universe for a brief span of years before disappearing into nothingness, what motivates us “to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity” (the stated goal of humanism)? Is it completely utilitarian, i.e., “I scratch your back and you scratch mine”? Is the motivation to good behavior the approbation of our fellows which stokes our self esteem? Or do we hope to sustain kindness and mercy and brotherly love on the flimsy platform of some ill-defined and irrational altruistic impulse?

The more likely outcome of godless, autonomous ethics is what we see played out among us every day. Human beings grounded only in their self-interest pursue any avenue which appears to gratify, satisfy, stupefy, or mollify. Love means merely self indulgence. Other human beings become mainly a means to an end. Use them. Abuse them. Discard them. Ignore them. When the humanists protest that this is not good, the reply will be, “We will decide what is good for us!”

The history of man’s inhumanity to man only gets worse the more “enlightened” we become. Remember, the 20th century brought us not only the Humanist Manifesto but the worst human rights record in history. Against this backdrop, the humanist expectation of god-less ethical living is more implausible than Santa Claus.

What humanism (and all varieties of dishonest atheism) refuses to see is that the worldview they posit not only detaches human life from God but also from purpose, meaning, value, joy, love, and hope. I do not know how a person can ignore the innate sense within themselves that tells them there has got to be more to a person than 75 years and a box in the ground. There’s too much plot in the universe for it to be just a colossal accident. I would challenge anyone who has fallen under the demonic spell of atheism to recognize that even the moral ought-ness in your own soul that causes you to ask questions about “goodness” and “badness” is a homing signal from your Creator. And, if you are still unconvinced of God, take a long, hard look at where atheism has left you -- alone in the dark, going through the motions, unloved and unlovely, where your most tender and most cherished human experiences are mocked by the insanity and pretense of it all.

God meant something better for us. He loves humanity. So He created, He blessed, He taught. And when we ran away, when we goofed it up, when we did not get it, He came Himself -- human to human -- to set the world and us straight. “Long lay the world in sin and error pining, till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.” This is the reason to rejoice. This is the reason to be good.

________

David Hankins is executive director of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Words Don't Make Us Godlike

It's not the sudden ejection of God from our Pledge of Allegiance that is the real problem this morning. It is the slow, steady, been-going-on-quietly-for-years ejection of God from our lives.

Reinserting the words "under God" is an easy public-relations fix that will get done. We are, after all, God-fearing people. We will shout this out. And shout down the people who object.

But actually live our lives "under God"? Change our lives so that they reflect God's love for us and for one another?

Only when hijacked planes fly into our buildings do we come even close.

For our relationship with God is adolescent. We're like teenagers with a parent. We want God on our side, but we don't want God telling us what to do. We're OK on our own. Most days we think we can get by without God.

And yet, the second trouble comes knocking, there we are on our knees begging for help. We go to God with our troubles and when our troubles are gone we hardly go to God at all.

But threaten to take something public away from God, threaten the national idea of God as guardian and protector and look how we rush to his defense. Thank you for always being there. Without you we are nothing. Under God. In God we trust. God bless America. We cherish the words.

But as our parents used to say, "Actions speak louder than words."

"If you really love me, you'll be home when you say you're coming home and not have me lying in bed worrying about you," parents say to teens who are testing their wings.

"If you really love me, you'll worry less about the words and more about how you live your lives," the God we occasionally believe in might say to us today.

Get along. Be kind. Be tolerant. Don't turn everything into a fight. Get rid of "either-or." For "either-or" is a divider. Either we're under God or we're not under God. Either we're Christian or we're not Christian. American or not American. Rich or poor. A smoker or a non-smoker. Either. Or.

And people take sides.

I talk to a 16-year-old who doesn't believe in God, who says God doesn't put food on the table. Her parents do. That's who she believes in, her parents, not God.

Her parents don't believe in God either. Look at all the wars that have been fought in the name of God. Look at the wars still being fought. God is the trouble with the world, not the solution, they say.

And yet they pause to point out to their children lightning over a mountain and a full moon on a clear summer night. It's like the story of the atheist who is served a delicious meal and is then asked if he believes there is a cook. Of course there is.

But we've made God into a fall guy, responsible for all the ills of the world, and even all the goings-on within churches. And we've made God into an "either-or." Either you believe this and you will be saved or you believe that and you won't.

We laugh at polytheism in these days of intellectualism, at the idea of praying to a god of this and a goddess of that. Of golden calves and sacrifices. But how different is now from then, with all of our religions and rules, as if God belongs to one sect and not to us all.

That's the conceit. That man has it all figured out. That if we worship in a certain way and follow prescribed rules and say in public "one nation, under God," our maker will meet us with open arms.

Words are easy. Actions are hard. We can say "one nation, under God" and sing "God Bless America" until our throats are dry. But that won't make us one nation. Only our actions will do this.

*

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate