Atheism is found wanting in so many ways. There are two major problems for atheism. The first is that on the atheistic worldview life is meaningless, and therefore, human life has no special value. The second major problem is that atheism argues for meaninglessness.
If God does not exist and the world is here by accident, then humans have no special value. In fact, this is exactly what speciesism entails. Speciesism is the belief that all life forms are on a level playing field. According to speciesism, human life is no more important than fly maggots. On a naturalistic worldview this is perfectly consistent. The real problem is that atheism has nothing to ground morality. If all is merely an accident then why not indulge yourself? If you believe atheism is the truth, you are acting foolishly by trying to follow any prescribed moral standard, for if God does not exist, then neither do morals. Michael Ruse has stated, "Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory." [1] Similar to the statement of Ruse is that of the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who said, "We may yearn for a higher meaning, but none exists." [2] On a naturalistic/atheistic worldview, human life has no intrinsic value. The problem is that this worldview if followed through will produce a world that is truly scary and one to be feared.
The second major problem is that atheism argues for absolutely nothing. Have you ever heard of an atheist apologist? Think about it, an atheist apologist is someone who is defending nothing. Why would an atheist even want to debate a theist? Why will the atheist not just let the silly theist babble about this God nonsense if they believe God does not exist? When an atheist debates a theist, he is essentially saying I will prove to you that all is meaningless, but what does that make his argument? Heywood Broun has said, "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." [3] Again, why would the atheist want to be so persistent in trying to prove the meaninglessness of the universe? Maybe, deep down inside, the atheist knows in his heart that he is, in fact, arguing against something.
Solomon said, that God has set eternity in the hearts of men (Ecclesiastes 3:11). It is my belief that all know of God, they only choose to suppress this knowledge (Romans 1:18-20), only to put themselves in the place of God. The atheistic worldview fails ultimately because it defends absolutely nothing. If you are in defense of nothing, then maybe your argument adds up to nothing.
[1] Ruse, Michael, Evolution Theory and Christian Ethics, p. 262-69
[2] Gould, Stephen Jay, The Meaning of Life, (December 1988), p. 84
[3] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Atheism
If God does not exist and the world is here by accident, then humans have no special value. In fact, this is exactly what speciesism entails. Speciesism is the belief that all life forms are on a level playing field. According to speciesism, human life is no more important than fly maggots. On a naturalistic worldview this is perfectly consistent. The real problem is that atheism has nothing to ground morality. If all is merely an accident then why not indulge yourself? If you believe atheism is the truth, you are acting foolishly by trying to follow any prescribed moral standard, for if God does not exist, then neither do morals. Michael Ruse has stated, "Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...and any deeper meaning is illusory." [1] Similar to the statement of Ruse is that of the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who said, "We may yearn for a higher meaning, but none exists." [2] On a naturalistic/atheistic worldview, human life has no intrinsic value. The problem is that this worldview if followed through will produce a world that is truly scary and one to be feared.
The second major problem is that atheism argues for absolutely nothing. Have you ever heard of an atheist apologist? Think about it, an atheist apologist is someone who is defending nothing. Why would an atheist even want to debate a theist? Why will the atheist not just let the silly theist babble about this God nonsense if they believe God does not exist? When an atheist debates a theist, he is essentially saying I will prove to you that all is meaningless, but what does that make his argument? Heywood Broun has said, "Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." [3] Again, why would the atheist want to be so persistent in trying to prove the meaninglessness of the universe? Maybe, deep down inside, the atheist knows in his heart that he is, in fact, arguing against something.
Solomon said, that God has set eternity in the hearts of men (Ecclesiastes 3:11). It is my belief that all know of God, they only choose to suppress this knowledge (Romans 1:18-20), only to put themselves in the place of God. The atheistic worldview fails ultimately because it defends absolutely nothing. If you are in defense of nothing, then maybe your argument adds up to nothing.
[1] Ruse, Michael, Evolution Theory and Christian Ethics, p. 262-69
[2] Gould, Stephen Jay, The Meaning of Life, (December 1988), p. 84
[3] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Atheism
No comments:
Post a Comment