The Atheist View of Humanity

Atheist view – “All in all? You're just another brick in the wall.”

Pink Floyd

Bertrand Russell confirms this belief. “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.”

On atheism, there can be no other view of humanity.

=====

Christian view – You're a child of the King; a brother/sister of Jesus; created in the image of the Creator of the universe. “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are created in His image, with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind.” 

Randy Alcorn.

Because of Creator God you are loved.

Because of Creator God you were born into His love.

Because of Creator God you were born to know His love.

Because of Creator God you were born to enjoy His love for you.

Jesus

Even Dung Beatles

I can’t remember where it is, but there is some society, I’m guessing Africa, where people worship dung beetles.

Amazing isn’t it?

There is not a culture anywhere in the world, no matter how primitive or advanced whereby humans do not have a sense of awe in the face of the imbroglio unfolding before us. One that challenges and overwhelms our senses and intellect. 

Martin Luther stated that humans must have God or an idol. Even atheists who claim that God does not exist worship the very philosophy that makes that claim, while ignoring the science that refutes the “no God” hypothesis.

Be it a dung beetle, Creator God or yourself, you will worship something.

Philosophy To The Rescue

I had done a series not too long ago called Atheists Save The World – I think. One part contained a post saying that science could not heal what is wrong with human nature. Surprisingly this atheist guy that drops by from time to time admitted that science doesn't have the ability to cure the human condition – i.e. Science cannot remove our corrupt self-love and self-obsession. That's more than most atheists are willing to admit. Most think along the lines of Richard Lewontin who said, “Only science is rational. Science is the only begetter of truth.”

This, even though:

. Science can't tell us why kindness is better than cruelty - yet we still believe it to be true

. Science can't tell us how or why the laws of mathematics and logic and morality came to exist - but we still live as though they do exist.

. Science can't explain or prove metaphysical truths like -

- there are minds other than my own

- the external world is real

- the external world didn't begin to exist ten minutes ago appearing as aged.

. Science can't prove or disprove ethical beliefs such as whether the Nazis or Joseph Kony did anything evil – yet we believe they did.

. Science can't prove one way or the other on aesthetic judgements such beauty and goodness - yet we all live as though we know the answer.

. Science itself can't be justified by the scientific method of enquiry.

. Science is incapable of establishing that all truths about the universe are discoverable by the scientific method.

. Science can't explain why in the world we would evolve the capacity to examine and understand our universe, the origin of stars, or the mathematical uniformity of our universe, since none of these are needed for our survival. Natural selection, we're told involves no fluff. Nothing exists, atheists tell us unless it aides our survival. So what's up with all this supposedly superfluous knowledge?

Science certainly can't tell us the answer.

As I said, the atheist agrees that science can make our lives physically easier but the root cause of our troubles is beyond science. Sadly the atheist moves right along to Philosophy as our Saviour. This, even though human philosophy is as deeply flawed as the human condition itself. When atheists bring their world-view to philosophy, it causes atheists to think that moral, logical, scientific, or mathematical truths / laws do not exist apart from our noetic activity. This is the same activity that atheists rely on to tell themselves that humans are born good.

In order to think that we are good, they ignore the fact that we know objective morals, obligations and duties exist and we know it absolutely when someone does something wrong to us. We don't have to ponder for even one second whether what we're experiencing is culturally or socially formed. And we certainly feel no compulsion to let the aggressor off the hook because atheists tell us that “determinism” was at work. The victim appeals to, and the perpetrator claims ignorance of the same objective moral law that transcends them both.

This right and wrong is not something we have to be taught. We know it instinctively. Even children as young as a year old have been observed in clinical studies to react negatively when they see something unfair taking place to other adults or children. No one has to teach a small child to hide behind h/her back a cookie that was not supposed to be taken. No one has to teach a child to hit the other toddler who “stole” a toy.

Now, Jesus teaches that we are conceived with a sinful nature while atheists say that we're born good. In atheist-world, it's not humans who corrupt the institution. Rather it's the institution that corrupts the human. Contrary to this atheist belief, much if not most of what parenting involves is squashing the child's tendency toward physical and emotional violence and encouraging the child to behave in a consistently respectful manner toward others. We have to teach our children correct behaviour because we are not born good.

Atheists appeal to reason / philosophy as our salvation, yet:

. Reason itself is not a reliable way to know right or good.

. Reason doesn't free us of prejudice.

. Reason doesn't free us from cruelty.

. Reason is a calculative function of the brain that is pulled this way and that by our pre conceived world-view.

. Reason is hampered by the fact that some (atheists) deprive themselves of access to the “whole truth” which exists a priori:

- In the spiritual realm,

- In the Person of Jesus the Christ, and

- Which is revealed to us by interpenetration of the Spiritual realm with the material realm.

Don't get me wrong, our God given ability to reason is a wonderful thing. Yet it remains hobbled, crippled until our spiritual eyes have been opened.

Atheists cling to the Enlightenment which was nothing more than the idolatry of reason and which led to the worst horrors of modern history. All because atheists sought to replace God with human reason.

We're off to the Canadian Rockies so I won't post again till some time in September. 

Are Atheists Reduced To This?

Are there any laws or First Principles that atheists aren't forced to deny, adjust, or change in order to preserve the world-view faith of atheism?

For instance”

The Principle of first cause

The Principle of sufficient reason

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

In order to maintain their atheism, atheists are reduced to ignoring all of the above Principles or Laws.

In order to maintain their atheism, followers must downplay the magnificent, awe inspiring and in truth, the miraculous. For example the exquisite fine tuning of the universe. For those of us who need a mental image to grasp a concept, scientists have described it this way. Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 (the fine tuning of the cosmological constant) the ship's balance could not be off by more than billionth of a trillionth of the mass of a SINGLE ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize. In a mocking tone and to preserve his atheism, Richard Dawkins says the constants are “more or less” finely tuned.” Mm hmm. “More or less finely tuned.” There's an understatement for you. Atheists have to guard themselves from grasping the truth of their situation. If atheists admit to recognizing the precision and order that allows our universe to exist, then they have to recognize the existence of whatever created that order and precision.

. Atheists are reduced to denying all forms of “proofs” and probabilities except scientific proof and probabilities.

. Atheists are reduced to believing that material things can just pop into existence without an external cause.

. Atheists are reduced to believing that matter can create itself.

. Atheists are reduced to saying that the universe is Necessary and that it explains itself. The problem is, it isn't and it doesn't!

. In order to maintain their atheism, atheists are reduced to asking inane and incoherent questions like:

- So what created this eternal Being?

- So when did this eternal Being begin to exist?

. Atheists are reduced to declaring nothing to be something and non life to actually evolve into life.

. Atheists are reduced to denying our objective moral intuitions as well as their authority.

. Atheists are reduced to stating that design is not design. “We must constantly remind ourselves that what we are seeing is not designed?” Francis Crick re: Genome Project

. Atheists are reduced to posit finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings in order to preserve their faith.

. Atheists are reduced to abandoning classical historical scholarship and deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus.

. Atheists are reduced to following whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and call that a reasonable way to live.

. In order to remain an atheist those people must believe, they must FORCE themselves to believe in infinite regress and the material infinite.

Does this not boggle the mind? These people who do not need God in order to be good people are forced to tell themselves colossal lies to support their belief system. And then they declare themselves Brights!

. Atheists are forced to ignore Occam’s Razor and go in search of ever more complicated solutions in the science of origins, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid the conclusion indicated by current evidence.

Without this their atheism fails.

. Atheists are reduced to denying that laws of logic, mathematics, moral laws, and physical laws exist independently from us in order to make atheism seem logical.

. Atheists are reduced to denying the very scientific evidentiary principle (observing, testing, verifying) they worship, for to not do so would prove their suppositions false. They must deny that everything that begins to exist has an external cause for its existence. They must deny that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.

. Atheists are reduced to saying, “I'm not someone who believes God doesn't exist because that would require evidence, and there isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist. Instead, I'm a non believer. You don't need evidence to be a non believer.

. Atheists are reduced to denying even consciousness and the “I.” They are forced to deny our very self in order to make atheism not seem absolutely absurd, illogical and incoherent.

Atheists are forced to look at the human abilities of self-reflection, art, medicine, the enjoyment of music and say it comes from an illusory direction of will. In fact, they are forced to say that self-will or freewill choice are also an illusion. In reality, according to atheism, these things are determined only by chemical exchanges. Even though our vocabulary is enormous, our grammar complex and our conversations deep and meaningful, it all comes, say materialists, without purpose or meaning save for that which we individually invent or pretend to have. These atheists look at the human ability to codify language, our unbounded creativity, selflessness, love, the exercising of our rational faculties, our ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses and call it the simple, random and unguided firing of neurons. Our strong spirit of enquiry, our research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics while noteworthy for some, is nothing of lasting consequence to an atheist for all will, on atheism, come to an absurd and meaningless end. Yearn for meaning in life? It too is of no lasting import. It’s the same illusion that causes us to devote so much of our time to philosophy, theology and ethics. Or so the materialist world-view claims. Atheist are forced to say that our religious sentiments and practices and our intense and endless quest for meaning can be traced to some random mutation eons ago.

The concept of atheism forces us to say that it’s only the illusion of the “I” that questions not only our origin but also our destiny. It’s only the illusion of the “I” that has a refined aesthetic sense that admires beauty and longs to be surrounded with it. When we cultivate a garden, put flowers in a vase, or hang up a painting, it’s the illusion of the “I,” according to atheism that is expressing a love of beauty and a strong creative impulse. Our poetry, painting, dance, drama and music, our weekly craft groups where baskets are woven, wool is spun, shawls are knit, and photo albums are covered, all this, says the ardent materialist, is carried out for no particular reason save to follow the command of chemical exchanges.

Reason, language, enquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour, to such intangible but fundamental qualities, atheists like Bertrand Russel can only respond, and in the total absence of proofs or evidence, yet driven by a desperate desire to be free from all accountability to one’s Creator, they hope that you will agree, “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction . . . that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

The atheist’s philosophical and powerful emotional reaction to the fact of a universe with a beginning and to the impossibility of life arising unaided from non life shows that we are far, far more than a mass of chemical exchanges, more than mere thinking machines.

Yet in this meaningless, vacuous, philosophy atheists are forced to dwell.

atheists and 2 + 2 = 5

Can you imagine how disconcerted someone would be if they did not believe in the number 4? They could work for generations, for thousands of years searching for the answer to the mathematical problem of 2 + 2 and never arrive at an answer. In the end they would probably wind up saying that such a problem doesn't even exist. Sounds absurd? Of course it does. That's why I say that atheism sounds absurd. Here's the connection.

When asked, “Why is there a mathematically precise, life supporting, moral universe?” atheists that I've spoken to go into intellectual paroxysms, and world-view spasms of contradictions, finally arriving at Richard Dawkins backup plan, “It's not important to ask why.” Pfft!

It's only the most important question in the universe, but when you refuse to accept that the number 4 exists, and when copious amounts of evidence (a universe worth of evidence) points to the reality of number 4, well, atheists are forced to ignore the question altogether. Let me give some examples of the journey this question has taken.

“This question is the darkest in all philosophy.William James

“This question could tear the individual's mind asunder.”

Bernard Lovell

“The attempt to answer this question constitutes one of the most grandiose enterprises of the human intellect.”

Arthur Lovejoy

Really? All you have to do is accept “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and this question delivers a life-giving answer. 


But no . . .

“Each of us is grazed by the question's hidden power.”

Martin Heidegger

Remember Richard Dawkins who encourages his followers to not even contemplate the question at all? Arthur Schopenhauer says of such people, “The lower a man is in an intellectual respect, the less puzzling and mysterious existence itself is to him.”

All one needs to do is accept, “For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.”

Colossians 1:16

But no . . .

Many primitive tribes have assumed as have modern atheists (those who tried to retain the now discredited and utterly refuted Steady State model of cosmology), “It has always been this way.”

“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.”

Hebrews 3:4

In the “Principle of Sufficient Reason,” Leibniz writes, “There is an explanation for every fact and answer for every question.” This principle having been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, Why is there something rather than nothing?” 


That sounds like a good start but alas, the a priori world-view that the number 4 does not exist rules out contemplating the question and therefore missing the most important answer in mankind's existence. Leibniz could see plainly that either the universe is necessary (it can't NOT exist) or the Cause of the universe is necessary. Either matter is eternal (and we now know that it can't be) or the Cause of matter is eternal. God's explanation of Himself as “I Am,” was on the tip our knowledge,

But no . . .

The likes of David Hume took centre stage with, “Any proposed answer to this question would be mere sophistry and illusion, since it could never be grounded in our experience.” 


That sounds fine but “cause and effect” IS based on our experience. We have NEVER experienced something coming into being without that thing having an external cause for it's beginning. Remember, the scientific method is based upon observation, testing, verification. So close to discovering the number 4,

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they were created and have their being. And He swore by Him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it.”

Revelation 4:11

Friedrich Schelling came close when he stated, “The main function of all philosophy is the solution of the problem of the existence of the world.” Protecting the atheist world-view brought enquiry to the same dismal end.

“For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”

Psalm 96:5

In, Creative Evolution,” Henri Bergson almost petulantly demanded, “I want to know why the universe exists, since the existence of matter, consciousness and God Himself is a conquest over nothingness.” 


Sadly, as atheists are today running into an increasing number of concrete walls, Bergson makes the absurd claim I predicted in the first paragraph of this post and says the question itself is an illusion, a pseudo question if you will. A question that Heidegger said was “The deepest, the most far-reaching, the most fundamental of all questions,” is of necessity left by atheists in the garbage because the only possible answer, the most logical answer, the most rational answer is Creator God. And like atheists today, Heidegger advised his listeners, “being able to ask a question means being able to wait, even one's whole life long,” [for an answer other than the correct answer]. Atheists know that there is no possibility of a material, natural, scientific answer to the universe coming into being because until Big Bang, literally nothing material, natural or scientific existed. But they will wait until they arrive in hell waiting for a material answer.

Still, reality entices.

“You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.”

Nehemiah 9:6

“It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that things are.”

Wittgenstein. 


Again, forced by his world-view to deny reality, the absurd became preferable and Wittgenstein concluded, “The question is senseless. The riddle does not exist.”

Isn't that profoundly sad? Tragic? When the evidence leads directly to Creator God, those who claim to diligently follow the evidence turn away and refuse to acknowledge that the question even exists. Father Coplestone, in a debate with atheist A.J. Ayer said, “The question is an opening to the transcendent, a way of seeing God's existence as the ultimate ontological explanation of phenomena.” 


It was not to be. Human nature in it's unredeemed state will not tolerate anything that attempts to knock humans off the throne.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

John 1: 1-3

“In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.”

Psalm 102:25

“I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all.”

Bertrand Russel

“Long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being.”

2^nd Peter 3:5

“The beginning of the universe doesn't need a cause.”

Steven Weinberg

“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was NOT made out of what was visible.”

Hebrews 11:3

When the only possible cause is Creator God, atheism driven science must state the irrational and incoherent as fact. 2 + 2 = 5, because the number 4 does not exist.

“For this is what the Lord says - He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.”

Isaiah 45:18

Einstein himself believed in the Steady State model of the universe. He had to in order to preserve his world-view. He was even willing to fudge the figures to get what his world-view demanded. The metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning are so disturbing to atheists that they must adhere to the absurd.

- Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me. I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. The expanding universe is  preposterous, incredible, repugnant, it leaves me cold.”

- Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

- Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Genesis 1:1

First Lemaitre, then Hubble, then scientists at Bell Labs showed empirically that the universe is not ontologically self-sufficient. The universe came into being from something infinitely small. What does infinitely small mean? I'll let cosmologist Alex Vilenkin explain. 
“Imagine “space-time [the matrix we live in] has the surface of a sphere. Now suppose that this sphere is shrinking like a balloon that is losing its air. The radius grows smaller and smaller. Eventually the radius goes all the way to zero. Pause for a moment to think of a sphere whose radius has gone “all the way to zero.” No time. No space. The surface of the sphere disappears completely and with it space-time itself and even the laws of physics. We have arrived at nothingness. We have also arrived at a precise definition of nothingness: a closed space-time of zero radius. This is the most complete and utter nothingness that scientific concepts can capture. It is mathematically devoid not only of stuff but also of location and duration. Nothing is nowhere. It’s not anything like a chunk of vacuum because a chunk of vacuum has extension. It’s not anything like anything. It’s nothing.

Alex Vilenkin

What's a non-believer in the number 4 to do? As many an atheist has said to me, “It's only science. Science can be wrong.” What do the leaders in atheism do when the evidence points to a Creator who brought the universe into existence ex nihilo from literally nothing?

“It's not important to ask why.” Richard Dawkins.