The New
Atheist Problem
It has become clear to me that Richard Dawkins and the New
Atheists have a problem. They
continually re-define the word “faith”.
They characterize faith as the belief in something without any evidence
and belief in something even in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Faith is more a sense of trust based on
evidence and reasons to accept. What the
New Atheists are referring to is “blind faith”, which is indeed a reprehensible
and indefensible position.
But if we look more closely at what these critics are saying,
we find the illogical nature of it. The
humanist/naturalist believes in nature and science. They claim all things can be explained by
science. Yet that statement is a philosophical
statement without any evidence!! What
are the reasons for accepting such a claim?
I can give numerous examples of things that science cannot explain. Take for example the periodical cicadas. Every seventeen years this insect comes back
to life from the ground in numbers so great is astounds us all. The sound of them rubbing their wings is at
times deafening. How is it that these
insects know to come up out of the ground, lay their eggs, live for a few
weeks, die, and then return in 17 years?
How do they know that? How is it
that their sense of time is so accurate?
Science can’t explain it. They
speculate, but have no solid evidence for the phenomenon.
What about the constants of nature in the universe? The positive and negative force of the proton
and electron in the atom, the force of gravity, the entropy in the universe all
are examples of phenomenon that science has no answer for. Are we then to conclude that they don’t
exist?
You see, in order to accept the humanist/naturalist/evolutionist
position, one must take a ‘leap of faith’ that has less evidence for it than
does the reasonable and rational decision to accept Christ, as Frank Turek and
Norm Geisler so appropriately said in their book of the same title, “I Don’t
Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”.
The “brights” like to make it seem as though their position is better
thought out, more rational, reasonable, and with more evidence. But the opposite is actually the truth. Philosophers, scientists, and thinkers for
centuries have sought after God. The depth
of their discoveries has been the basis of science in the modern age. Yet only recently do we come to think that
science has all the answers. What
hogwash! It is as though we simply can
dismiss the thinkers of the past as being misguided, uninformed, and
simplistic. The arrogance of the
“brights” to think that way is beyond measure.
They like to cite the many examples of the past where the prevailing
thought was later shown to be wrong.
Well, is it not possible that their prevailing thoughts today are wrong
about the supernatural?
It seems to me the best course of action is to investigate
from all angles and to look at history, philosophy, and science to find the
evidence with which to base a logical and supported hypothesis. One must keep an open mind and not venture
into the investigation with a decision that the supernatural cannot exist
already made, which is what they do.
The search for God and Truth has been the single most
important and significant endeavor of man’s existence. It is because life on this planet has no
meaning, no value, and no purpose without God and immortality. If we are all just molecules in motion in a
baseless and irrelevant universe, then I wish to no longer be a part of
it. Ecclesiastes says it well, “So I
hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to
me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing
after the wind. I hated all the things I
had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after
me.” Think about it, without God and
immortality, what are we here for? Where
do we come from? Where are we
going? Is this all there is?
Great thoughts!
ReplyDelete