Christianity vs. Secularism

Introduction


Today I want to examine Christianity vs. Atheism/Secularism/Naturalism. I want to look at what the Bible has to say about this Earth and then what the world does. For my atheist fans, I will be using Science--not just Bible verses. I will be using Logic--not just Bible verses. I will be using Common Sense--not just Bible verses. By the end, hopefully you will see the Truth about our world.


Before we dive in, however, I want to make two points. First, a point about credibility. I am going to be quoting many Christian scientists and many non-Christian scientists. Here's the punchline: just because someone is a Christian, doesn't mean they are automatically "biased." If you are so childish as to disregard legitimate science because someone doesn't agree with you on the conclusion of the evidence, don't bother reading on because you're obviously not interested in knowing the facts. A Christian is biased to see evidence that agrees with his side (Creationism) yes--but an atheist is biased to see things that disprove religion. The argument goes both ways. If I see flaws in a Christian scientist's reasoning--I will point it out. If I see flaws in an atheist scientist's argument--I will point it out. Both sides will get their fair share. My point is don't discredit information just because the Ph.D is a Christian. That's a logical fallacy (genetic fallacy) as well as bad for your side of the debate because I could say the same about atheist scientists.


Second, a point about "truth." A true atheist does not believe in absolute truth. Therefore, I don't believe this post will do much for you if you do not accept that there is at least some form of absolute truth. Instead of arguing about it with a ton of subjective examples, let me give you the best answer I have ever heard on the subject. If there are no absolutes in life--then there are. Why? There is an absolute of no absolutes. Either way, absolutes do exist. Truth as a category must exist because of the existence of fact. For example, the earth is where it is in the universe physically. That hasn't changed. No subjective statements will change the position of the earth mathematically and physically. Therefore truth as an absolute must exist by empirical example.


With that said, the reader is invited to embark on a journey.



First things first...does GOD exist?


Obviously I do not have time to go into every possible argument about the existence of God, but I will cover some of the heavily-debated ones. One warning: if you are a new Christian, or struggle with doubt, you might not want to read on. I know that the first time I read these, they shook my faith--made me doubt. It would be counterproductive if you are not well read on the subject. If you are, read on.


Science/Physicality


Let's start with an argument from an atheist. Victor J. Stenger is an outspoken atheist and has a BA in Electrical Engineering, a Masters in Science, and Ph.D in Science. He has a book entitled "God: The Failed Hypothesis - How Science Shows God Doesn't Exist".


His book outlines a 5-step process by which you can ascertain if there is a God. It runs as follows:

1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.

2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide object evidence for His existence.

3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.

4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.

5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

I would completely agree with this analysis. How can we know if there is a God if He provides no proof of Himself? If there is no proof then either God doesn't exist or He is some secretive character that can never be known (also known as Agnosticism).


Tell this to a preacher and they would no doubt respond with Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" This verse means that God claims He has one magnificent proof of His existence: the universe and all the things in it. Instead of talking about evolution, let's talk about a little-known proof of Creationism: Cause and Effect.


The Institute for Creation Research gets the credit for this argument. What are the credentials of CRI?


"The central core of ICR's mission is scientific research, which formed the basis of our founding in 1970 by Dr. Henry M. Morris [a Ph.D]. A respected scientist in his own field of hydrology [the study of water--esp. its movement in relation to land], which led to the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961, Dr. Morris saw clearly that good science—the proper handling and interpretation of scientific evidence—would demonstrate the veracity of the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood. For 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science, as well as in ancient biblical studies and graduate science education."




Dr. Henry M. Morris would respond with the following:

"There are two other "Universal Laws" that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us.

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.

The First Law tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.

In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it produces—and will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause.

When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause."

Now for the atheist that says "every Creationist says that!", he does temper his statements. He notes early in the same article:


"This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything)." He admits that another explanation is plausible given what he states.


Now I would add my own interjection. If the former statement of the two is true (that the universe is an infinite chain of nonprimary causes), you come to a problem: you're saying the universe is infinite. Find me a scientist that believes that. Scientists admit the universe has to end (see Einstein--he showed the universe will someday stop expanding, meaning the universe has an end date). If it ends it must begin. Why? Think about other things in nature. Stars are born, then will die out eventually. Plants come to life, then eventually die. Humans are born, then die. Everything else in nature has a beginning, so why not the universe itself? 

Further, if there is an end, that means the effects of this universe get so small that there aren't any more causes left--they got too small. If that's true, you must trace back to an eventual first cause, because without it the universe doesn't make sense. It had an infinite beginning, but a timed ending? That is a contradiction in terms--if something has an ending it by definition has a beginning.

William Lane Craig (Ph.D in Philosophy and Ph.D in Theology) concluded the same in a debate versus a naturalist (the debate can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf9-vwnzqOo). A naturalist is someone who believes that what exists now is all that has or ever will exist. In a debate with a naturalist, William Lane Craig explained a problem with believing that the universe is a chain of infinite causes: he showed that in our universe, infinities are actually impossible. Why? They lead to contradictions. Dr. Craig provided the following example: "If I have an infinity of baseball cards, and I take every odd-numbered card, how many cards do I have left?" Actual infinities don't exist in the universe. Therefore, as he concluded, it's impossible for the universe to a be a string of infinite causes.


Philosophy


Now a Philosophy-based, atheistic argument along the same lines. God doesn't exist because He is or isn't Infinite. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KxHD6o259I).


The argument goes like this: If God is infinite then He doesn't exist because real infinities don't exist in our universe (as explained above--which also shows atheists believe the same thing about actual infinities not existing). If He isn't infinite He has by definition a beginning. If He has a beginning, He is limited and therefore it assumes there was something before God. If there was something before God and He is limited, He is by definition not God. Since it's not possible for God to be infinite and He's not God without being infinite, God doesn't exist.


I totally agree with the statements concerning God being non-infinite. That is an essential characteristic for God to be God. If He is not infinite, He can't be God.


How would a Christian respond? Consider the logic of St. Anselm of Canteberry (you may have to read it a few times to understand it):


"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists."


Anselm is saying that it's not logical to say God doesn't exist because we can conceive Him! And anything in conception must exist because nothing can exist if it cannot be conceived. A brilliant analogy comes from C.S. Lewis (a previous atheist mind you). He said it's like asking a blind person if they see darkness. "What's darkness?" they respond. You say "well...it's the absence of light." only to hear them reply just as lost: "What's light?" How can a blind person know the absence of light without first knowing light? It follows then that if we argue about the absence of God, it assumes He exists or at the very least existed--otherwise we would have never asked the question to begin with.


"But that didn't answer his argument," you say. "He said God isn't infinite therefore He can't be God. Since you're claiming He is infinite, you lose because real infinities don't exist--as you said!" I agree. Real infinities don't exist--in our universe. In order for that argument to be true, you have to assume God exists within our universe, which is incorrect. God (by a definition we both agree on) can only exist in one place then: outside of the universe.


Now I'm sure you're reminded of the video where the author claims that doesn't answer the problem because nothing can exist outside of the universe. This response may be legitimate, but it ignores one of the characteristics of God: God the Creator. A creator is by definition separate from his creation. Consider a watchmaker. If he makes a watch, is he therefore part of the watch? Of course not. God created this universe, so He must be outside of it because of the fact He is Creator.


For now, we're going to move on to other topics.


Okay, if God exists, what proof is there besides Creationism vs. Infinite Causes? That debate is slippery. Prove to me God exists without that evidence.


First, what would an atheist say? "There isn't any proof! Science has shown there can't be a God. For example, evolution shows that man doesn't have to have been created. Or take 'God' Himself. He is invisible and untouchable. There is no visible proof of His existence--meaning there is no proof of God's working in this world or proof of His presence." That's a legitimate point. How is God revealed to mankind other than just the obvious argument of "we had to come from somewhere!"?


A Christian would respond like Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias.


When asked a very similar question (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI), Ravi responded by saying that you can know God exists by three things:


Purpose


Ravi explains that if you divide the universe into its smallest unit, that unit in and of itself cannot explain it's own existence. There is no reason for that part to exist. Therefore the explanation for its existence must come from outside of itself--something that transcends it.


Intelligibility


Ravi provided a great analogy: if you were to go to another planet and find letters laying around and a McDonald's hamburger wrapper, you assume intelligibility. Information assumes intelligence, and intelligence assumes a Mind. Since the universe has intelligibility (and random chance as an explanation has odds literally out of this world), it has to have a Mind that created it.


Morality


Lastly, Ravi argues that history and all of human experience shows that there is obviously some kind of Moral Law. Some code that shows how man ought to act. Since humans die and are replaced by future generations--but yet this moral code still survives--shows that this Moral Law is objective and universal. The Law by virtue of the fact humans don't create or maintain it shows that something else must (again) transcend humans and lay down the Moral Law.


Ravi concludes by saying there are four basic questions about life:


1. Origin
2. Meaning
3. Morality
4. Destiny


He says if you take those four questions and put them with the three explanations above what results is the existence of a Trasncendent Being that establishes the purpose of the universe, has an intelligent mind, and creates and maintains morality--God.


Let's assume for the moment that God exists. If He does, what proof is there for the Christian God as opposed to any other God?


Now we get the crux of this post. Not just evidence for God--but evidence for Yahovah God: The Christian God.


Since the argument against the existence of the Christian God is based on what Christians have to say about Him, I will start with the Christian's reasoning.


William Lane Craig again receives the credit for formalizing this argument. He argued in a debate on Resurrection of Jesus (which can be found here: http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/craig-borg-debate.mp3) that the Christian God (Jesus Christ) exists for one reason that has four sub-points. That one reason is that Jesus rose bodily from the dead as an affirmation of His radical claims to deity. The sub-points are as follows:


1. The majority of historians/scholars agree that Jesus was crucified, killed, and buried.
2. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty by a group of His women followers.
3. Hundreds of people had experiences of a Risen Christ after His body disappeared.
4. Jesus' disciples suddenly and powerfully came to believe so strongly that Jesus had rose bodily from the dead despite having every possible disposition to the contrary.


Dr. Craig asserts that the majority of historians believe these facts, therefore the Christian God must exist. Craig particularly stresses the fourth sub-point. He explains that there is no possible explanation for the disciples sudden belief in Jesus' bodily Resurrection unless it had actually occurred. Why? He shows that in the environment in which the disciples were found, it would be contrary to every disposition and common sense idea to continue to believe and stand for the fact that Jesus had risen. All that affirmed Jesus had risen were exucted. The disiciples themselves were viewed as people who advocated a criminal that was killed in the most horrible fashion possible. Further, He was killed in a way regarded especially by the Jews as cursed. Jewish Law taught in Deuteronomy 21:23 that, "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." Jewish teachings specifically taught that anyone hung on a tree was accursed of God. Since that's exactly what happened to Jesus during the Crucifixion, He was regarded by the non-believing Jews and Judiazers as someone who was cursed by God.


Therefore, the entire community in which Jesus' disciples and followers found themselves in was vehemently opposed to their belief. But yet, they were willing to be stoned, crucified upside down, boiled, speared, beheaded, etc. for this belief. The only rational explanation for such a system of belief and refusal to give it up, Dr. Craig contends, is that Jesus did bodily rise from the dead. What other motivation could there be?


Now what would an atheist respond with? "The Bible is mythology and legendary. Jesus did exist, but legend crept into the texts that recount His actions to the point in which we have a completely distorted and inaccurate view of who He was."


Lee Strobal (author of The Case for Christ and another previous atheist) interviewed Dr. Bruce M. Metzger. Dr. Metzger responded to that very argument with the following: so many copies of the Bible exist (over 24,000, which agree between one another with a percentage correlation of 99.5%) that we can, without a reasonable doubt, believe that the accounts of the Bible are true. At that, the .5% are (generally) only differences in spelling. He explains that it is impossible for legend to have crept into the Biblical texts for several reasons (in a sequence).


First, the Gospel of Mark was written within 5-10 years of Jesus' Resurrection. With material about Jesus' life circulating that early, any witnesses who knew the facts to be otherwise would've corrected Mark. But none did. Second, there was a zealous incentive for the the accounts to be ONLY what Jesus did. Why? Again, the Jews. The Jews hated Jesus and His followers. That being said, if Mark began circulating information about Jesus that was incorrect (and especially incorrect in Jesus' favor), the Jews would've zealously pointed that out. They wouldn't have let Mark (or any historian for that matter) incorrectly record or make up what Jesus said or did unless it was exactly and only what He had done. Third, think about history logically. When we find a document, say, a diary by a Roman soldier. We don't scrutinize what it says. Unless it's an absolutely absurd claim (such as the sun being blue), we accept what the author said as being (generally) historically accurate. With the account of the life of Jesus Christ, we have not one, not two, not three, but four accounts of the same man. These four accounts agree on the points that matter about Jesus' life such as His claims to deity, His Crucifixion, His burial, and His Resurrection. For some reason, we can't accept these four accounts (the first of which was written within an incredibly close amount of time to the actual event) when we accept other works of antiquity with no problem (for example, the Iliad). That is not only illogical, but plain denial. Ravi Zacharias joked once that even Time Magazine in the 1980's admitted that "One thing we have to give the Christians is the amount of Historical backing the Bible has."


I will note that not everyone agrees with Metzger about Mark being written so close to Jesus' life, but his explanation of why he does believe in Mark's early account is quite compelling. For a more in-depth look at this assertion, see The Case for Christ.


Conclusion


I will not post an alter call this time. The facts are before you. What you decide is your choice and your business. Just remember that facts are just that: facts. Therefore, make your decision carefully and based on that evidence.


If you have your own questions about Christianity, email me or post them in the comments section below. 

In the name of  הוה' (Yahovah/Yaweh--God/Jesus Christ),

Robert A. Rowlett