Note: I first published this essay in February. From time to time I remove some articles that have not drawn much attention. I recently did this with this essay. However, I have learned that an atheist website has referenced it and that an article has been written in response to it. I am republishing a edited version of it, so that those who are interested can read the entire article in context. — Mark
During his sermon last Sunday our senior pastor said that as far as the Bible is concerned, atheism is a moral not a knowledge problem. The Psalmist’s statement, “the fool has said in his heart; there is no God,” notwithstanding, our pastor’s statement is substantially correct. In the past I have often made the same point more broadly by saying, “There is plenty of evidence for believing if you want to believe. Unbelief is not an evidentiary problem, but a moral one. “
Now you may disagree with both of our statements. If you are an atheist or an unbeliever I have no doubt that you do. But from time to time there have been a few unbelievers honest enough to admit it. That’s why I posted this quote by the well known atheist, Aldous Huxley:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning: consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption….for myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was…liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
This is a remarkable testimony, and one which many others could make if they were honest about it. In his book, What’s So Great about Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza has a chapter entitled, Opiate of the Morally Corrupt: Why Unbelief is So Appealing. In this chapter he argues that one of the reasons atheism is so attractive to many is that it liberates them to enjoy ”the pleasures of sin for a season.”
Other writers, such as Paul Johnson, in his book, Intellectuals, and E. Michael Jones, in Degenerate Moderns, have made the same point. In these books the authors present powerful evidence in support of the proposition that the main reason for the apeal of unbelief among many of the leading lights of modern infidelity, is – or was – their desire to be liberated from “a certain system of morality…because it interfered with [their] sexual freedom. “
But for unbelievers and atheists who live what almost anyone would consider a moral life, the very suggestion that their unbelief is rooted in immorality is offensive. The reason for this is that this culture tends to define morality on the basis of an individual’s treatment of other human beings. But remember, in this post I am defining morality as it is defined in scripture, especially in light of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Jesus.
Jesus was once asked; “What is the greatest commandment of the Law?” His answer was that the greatest commandment is that we love the Lord with all of our heart, soul and mind. He went on to define the second most important commandment for us; that we love our neighbor as ourselves.
Notice that Jesus placed our love of God on a higher level than our love for our fellow man. He then went on to add that the entire law hangs on these two commandments. His point was that commandments 1-5 hang on the greatest commandment, and commandments 6-10 hang on the second.
Understanding this truth almost drove the young Martin Luther to insanity. He reasoned, I think correctly, that if loving God with all of our heart soul and mind is the greatest commandment, then not loving God must be the greatest sin a human being can commit. Luther then set out to obey the great commandment. But he soon discovered that no matter how hard he tried he could not love the Lord with all of his heart, soul and mind. As a result, Luther began to be tormented in his conscience, even by the smallest sins. But rather than driving him to insanity, Luther’s conviction of sin drove him to rediscover the truth of salvation by grace through faith.
Now, taking Luther’s initial observation, and applying it to the subject of this post – the morality of unbelief – I think it is safe to say that as far as the Bible is concerned the greatest sin a person can commit is the sin of unbelief. The Bible assures us, for example, that it is the only sin for which there is no forgiveness. The Bible also warns us that it is the only sin for which men and women will ultimately be damned (John 3:18). So from a Biblical standpoint, unbelief is worse than murder, adultery, stealing, perjury or covetousness. From a Biblical perspective; the hubris that refuses to even acknowledge one’s creator is the greatest of act of immorality a human being is capable of committing.
It should also be pointed out that the motive for committing this sin is also worse than those that would move someone to commit a crime such as murder, because ultimately the motive behind this sin is nothing less than deicide and regicide; the desire to do away with God and seize His throne.
I have seen this from time to time in my debates with atheists, as some – like Huxley – have gloried in the meaninglessness of a universe without God, not as an excuse for moral excess, but as an opportunity to celebrate their autonomy. By denying God they can justify for their Godless form of existentialism. By denying God they are liberated to define their own morality, meaning and purpose. They are liberated to become the captains of their fate and the masters of their souls. They are liberated to take to themselves the prerogatives that heretofore – and according to scripture – belong to God. In other words, they want His job! But in order to have it they must kill Him first. Nietzsche – like Huxley, another honest atheist – understood this. But unlike most today, he understood the implications of it too.
Your argument on why atheists do not believe is specious at best. Citing two athiests is not much of a sampling. Atheism is the most logical conclusion given the evidence. You believe there is plenty of evidence to justify believing in god. Where is this evidence kept? Give me one piece of evidence supporting that Jesus is the son of god, and make sure that the evidence does not consist of “because the Bible tells me so.” I was a born again Christian until I started thinking for myself. Once this began, I struggled to make Christianity plausible but it is not and never will be. The fact that Christianity claims that God’s love is unconditional, but then places a condition on reaping the reward of this love(Heaven) is indicative of a falicy that has been sold for 2000 years. Take a look at the evidence required to form a scientific law and that should be the same standard that you use in providing evidence of god. Atheism is not liberating, it is depressing, but I choose to believe things because of evidence not the warm feeling you get from knowing that you are not going to hell.
By: Cy Beckham on June 25, 2008
at 9:55 pm
Cy, thank you for your response. First of all, I want you to note that my argument was not intended as an apologetic to convince unbelievers that atheism is immoral. Rather, it was a theological argument in which, as I said, I was defining morality “as it is defined in scripture.”
Second; when I preach I sometimes have said, “If what I am saying doesn’t apply to you just forget it. Hopefully next week will be more relevant.” I would say the same to you.
There are atheists, like Huxley, whose unbelief has nothing to do with a lack of evidence. If you are not one of these then what I have written does not apply to you. Also, my sampling may be small, but the number of quotes I included does not mean that the content of those quotes is not representative of the hearts of many others. So while your reasons for unbelief may be very different from Huxley’s, I am sure there are many atheists whose unbelief is very much like his.
Third; I do not accept your assertion that atheism is the most logical conclusion given the evidence. I would say only that it is one conclusion and there is a logic to it that you find compelling. If you were correct in saying that it is the most logical conclusion then we would expect that most logical people would opt for it and the road to atheism to be a one way street. But this is not the case.
Cy, with all due respect, there are many who have better and more logical minds than either of us, and most of these have not followed the evidence to unbelief. In fact, many have followed it away from atheism. In fact, even today most scientist are not atheists. This is why I say the evidence is not the problem.
Obviously, if two scientists can look at the same evidence and draw opposite conclusions from it, then the evidence lends itself to more than one interpretation and reasonable men and women can disagree.
To me the more interesting question is why does one intelligent and logical person find the evidence supportive of faith while another does not. My conclusion is the problem must not be with the evidence. And since most people have not opted for materialism, I think its fair to ask; “Why has a minority has opted for unbelief?” In other words; if not the evidence, what?
I have suggested some answers, answers that agree with scripture, certainly, but answers that were offered by certain well known atheists. There are other answers — based on my experience — that I could suggest. For example, some are unbelievers because of what a counselor friend refers to as, spiritual abuse (I am hoping he will submit an essay on this subject for my website. He has agreed to do so if he can find the time). Others are angry at God. Some, like Richard Dawkins, are arrogant and like to look down on unbelievers and consider themselves, “the brights.” Others have been taught it by atheist parents. The reasons are clearly varied. This is why I think it is more accurate to speak of atheisms rather than atheism. Unbelief is the common denominator, but the path to it is not as cut and dried as you state it.
Fourth; As to evidence. If you will read my posts you will see that I do not resort to “the Bible says so” to make my case for belief. There is evidence here, and original arguments based on logic and good sense. So I would invite you to become a regular here and at my website. My website also has a bookstore linked to Amazon.com. I have recommended a number of books that make powerful arguments for faith that go far beyond saying, “The Bible says so.” If your search, and the depression you mention, are sincere, then please, check out some of these books! I assure you, Cy, the fact that you have not yet found evidence does not mean its not out there.
Finally, If you read my posts and sermons you will see that I do not teach nor believe in the sort of god you speak of, this god of unconditional love. The god you are talking about is not the God of the Bible, though it is the god of modern pop-theology. The God I preach is much more complex than the single dimensional god you speak of. And I think that neither the Bible nor evidence supports the god you speak of.
Be well, and God Bless you. Let me leave you with this quote from Edith Stein. She to was once an atheist, she became first a Christian and then a Carmelite nun. She was put to death in 1942 by the Nazis. “Whoever seeks truth is seeking God, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
By: markcarlton on June 26, 2008
at 1:15 am
The road to conversion is mostly one way
Consider this: Christianity is infused into our culture to such a degree it is on our currency, granted tax exempt status, used as a way of judging morality, considered by many a legitamate form for deciding government and morality… and the number of atheists grows!
Why is this a surprise? Take a look what happens to believers when they are in the minority- often they are swallowed whole. The whole of North Africa used to be Christian- but they changed to Islam for tax breaks!
As for evidence… well, the majority of atheists are people who did look at evidence, while a huge number of believers are what you’d refer to as “having no clue what they are actually believing”.
Not to mention reasonable people agreed with eugenics, facism, communism, lamarkism, etc- “reasonable people” can be wrong. So we look at the evidence and the interpretations and assumptions they are using.
Guess which one is favored by that? Theist belief requires assumptions which aren’t justified by reality, which the assumptions for atheism are.
As for logical people… people with Aspergers Syndrome, a neurological disorder, characterized by poor social skills, obcessive desire to know and an insistance on logic tend to be disproportionally represented amoung atheists- a fact that is occasionally used as an insult.
By: Samuel Skinner on June 26, 2008
at 5:44 am
Samuel, thank you for your thoughtful response. You do raise a good point, and I would agree with you that many, perhaps most, believe because of culture rather than reason. But let me point out that the prevailing culture in the West right now is materialism. It is very easy, for example, to be an atheist in Great Brittan where only 2% of the population attends church on any given Sunday. But your argument has some merit.
However, your argument, when boiled down to the basics, is that atheists are smarter than other people. I would disagree with this. In addition, your argument fails to account for the many atheists who went against the cultural flow (materialism), by continuing to follow the evidence where it led them. To their surprise, it led them first to theism and then to Christianity.
But let me address your argument directly; the so called growth of atheism you refer to has other explanations than the one you offer. First of all, you need to recognize that when we speak of the growth of atheism we are talking about a Western phenomena; really, an English and American phenomena. Meanwhile in Europe, there is a revival of belief, if not in God then at least in something supernatural. What’s more, when we look at the entire planet, and not our little slice of it, atheism is actually on the decline. One might say that it has been tried and found wanting.
Now, let’s take off our euro centric glasses for a moment and look at the non western world. We we do we see that Christianity is not only growing, it is growing exponentially, and its growth is greatest in cultures that have not historically embraced Christianity. There persecuted minorities, far from being absorbed, are growing and in many cases impacting the majority culture in a way not seen since the first century. So your theory may need to be refined in light of these developments.
Your theory would also have difficulty explaining how a counter-cultural minority religion, like Christianity was in the beginning, managed to become the dominant religion of the ancient world in spite of severe persecution. Your theory would also have problems explaining the Jewish experience.
But let us return to the growth of atheism and the decline of faith in our little slice of the world. Is the reason that the evidence for materialism is so strong that no intelligent man or woman cannot believe in God any more? Perhaps. Or perhaps the Christian church in the West is so pathetically ineffectual, and its message and answers so anemic, that thoughtful individuals such as yourself have examined it and found it wanting. And I don’t blame you for this. I find current trends in Christianity more than alarming, and were I a seeker exposed to nothing more than what the modern church is telling us then I might turn away from it too. But having spent some time in the developing world among persecuted believers I have seen the real thing, and I understand why people are willing to be persecuted and even to die for it.
Thanks again for your thought provoking contribution.
P.S. I hope you are not offended that I removed the link you included in your response to my essay. It violates one of my rules (#4):
You are welcome to make any argument you would like under the “What do you think?” section. But make it yourself rather than referring us to a bunch of articles and links.
By: markcarlton on June 26, 2008
at 3:14 pm
“There is plenty of evidence for believing if you want to believe”
You cannot want to believe something, either your experiences lead you to it, or they do not. You do not choose your beliefs, they choose you.
Reality doesn’t ask for belief. It doesn’t care. You can believe with all your heart that you can fly by flapping your arms, but wanting does not make it so. The Vatican has lightning rods, and the Pope mobile has bullet proof glass.
“Cy, with all due respect, there are many who have better and more logical minds than either of us, and most of these have not followed the evidence to unbelief.”
i can’t call someone who believes that all the animals on the planet lived within walking distance of Noah’s house logical. Those minds didn’t follow the evidence because they feared where it would lead, they feared having their indoctrination undone, they feared being social outcasts. It has been only in living memory that secularization and being non-religious became even remotely socially acceptable.
If you were a god, would you care if the ants in the ant farm worshiped you? What need have you for their worship? Which would matter more: that they worshiped you, or that they treated each other well?
“By denying God they are liberated to define their own morality, meaning and purpose.”
Ah, this old saw, the old “atheists have no morals” bit. i’m going to let you in on a secret. Xians define their own morality… not the non-existent god. There’s no god to give it meaning… or at least no evidence of such. We have always given ourselves morality, meaning and purpose. Read Leviticus if you don’t get what i mean. Unless you seriously think it is sinful to eat shellfish. What is more likely: that shellfish are abomination or that proper cooking is a good idea?
By: Todd on June 28, 2008
at 4:08 am
Todd, thank you for your response. Let me begin by asking you about one of your lines of argument. You said:
Did you get this from episode 87 of Malcolm in the Middle (may favorite episode, except for the one where they visit the water park)? I seem to recall Dewey saying practically the same thing.
Let me briefly answer: God apparently doesn’t not care if the ants worship Him since He did not create them with the capacity to worship, or if they have the capacity they don’t seem to be exercising it. The error in your thinking, if I may say so, is that you have decided that size indicates significance.
I agree with Dr. Paul Davies, the internationally acclaimed physicist, cosmologist and director of, Beyond, the research institute at Arizona State University, that, “One of the most significant facts — arguably the most significant fact — about the universe is that we are part of it.”
Now let me go back to the beginning of your response. You said,
Who says? When there are two more or less equal options and I select one instead of the other, have I not chosen? Certainly faith, in the Biblical sense, is a gift, but it is also a choice we make. This is why I have defined it as “accepting a proposition as true on the testimony of witnesses.”
You continued:
Given the definition of faith that you have, this is probably an accurate statement. However, given my definition — which I maintain to be the Biblical definition — it does not apply because the gospel is reality. Not believing it is like rejecting gravity and it is equally catastrophic when it happens.
You said,
Given the assumption that present situation of the earth is the way it has always been, I would agree you. But has it always been this way? Have all things continued the way they are now from the beginning?
But, Todd, don’t let the flood get in your way. You don’t have to believe it to be a Christian or a Jew. Many take the Genesis flood as a myth (I don’t, but some do), or they believe that the flood was an historical event but a regional one. So in saying that to believe in Christ you must also believe in a certain interpretation of Genesis, you are building a straw man.
Or perhaps they interpret the evidence or the scripture differently than you. Todd, some are afraid to follow the evidence, and you are right that some fear questioning their faith. But, please, stop painting with such a broad brush. Many came to faith at the end of a search that led them through what Gandhi called, “The dry Sahara of Atheism.” They were atheists. They had already experienced whatever consequences were attached to it. But they kept searching and to their surprise found themselves at the cross.
If reality were as you describe it we would never have an Allister McGrath, a C.S. Lewis or an Antony Flew for that matter (He’s not at the cross, yet, but he’s on his way). This is what I was referring to when I said that if the case for atheism were as strong as many atheists claim it would be a one way street.
You continued:
I didn’t say that, nor would I. Many don’t have morals, but other atheists are very moral, perhaps more moral than I am. What I am saying is what Dostoevsky said, that if there is no God then everything is allowed. In other words, there is no logical reason to chose one moral standard over another. In a world without God, as you fellow atheist, Mao, observed, it all has to do with power. The man with the gun makes the rules.
You might prefer that the ants treat each other nicely, but if the big ant says that the red ants should kill the black ants, who are you to say that he’s wrong?
As to Christian inventing their own rules…if you are right, if there is no God, then that is certainly true. But there is just as much in reality that points us to an eternal God as there is that points us to eternal something, and like many reasonable people, I believe there is more evidence for God than for eternal matter.
Thanks again for you comments.
By: markcarlton on June 28, 2008
at 6:58 pm
Atheists aren’t smarter than other people- atheism is simply correlated with education. After all, the Raelians are atheists, and we can both agree they are nuts.
In Europe it is true that you have the practice supernatural beliefs and supersticions on the rise due to the New Age movement, However, there isn’t an increase in these beliefs- people believed already. As for “the rest of the world” would mostly be due to the collapse of communists countires… and then the desent into religious violence in several of them. I don’t think that is a good argument for religion. It is also worth noting that most communist countires (with the exception of Albania) didn’t eliminate religion- they controlled it. It is quite possible that we are seeing an increase in simply the number of people professing their beliefs, not the number of people who believe something.
Christianity is growing in India, China and South Korea… I think those are the big ones- probably doing well in Eastern Europe. It is dying in Europe and the US. Seriously, this isn’t a new trend- for the last couple of centuries upwardly mobile foreigners adopted Christianity in order to fit in to Western Society. What is new is the dispersal into the large amounts of the population… except the Christians did that 1700 years ago.
The problem is that it is having little effect on the Middle East and the developed world. The Middle East holds the other major universalizing religion and the Western World is the future for most developing countires.
Christianity managed to become a major religion because it tailered itself to become appealing to the lower classes and those who were interested in Judaism, but not enough to become real Jews- yuppies existed back them I guess. It’s growth was concentrated on major urban settlements. After that it focused on getting government backing and eliminating the competition. The primary advantage Christianity had was its overwhelming focus on conversion.
Judaism is an ethnic religion- it did well as the Jews did well and poorly as they did poorly. For the most part they didn’t convert to other religions becasue everyone they knew was a Jew and to do so would mean giving up everything.
The reason the church is dying in the West is that the forms that are growing in the develoed world are the more fundamentalist and fanatical strains. They may work on credulous peasents or intellectuals who can be taught to believe in the laying on of hands or the inevitable victory of the proletariet, but for the most part such beliefs don’t take so much of a root in the majority of the educated populance.
The link was one man’s attempt to find out how often people who are atheists convert to Christianity. Aisde from the kids, that is. He tried to find examples of people who were well versed in Christian arguments and were debators who switched sides. He was only able to come up with one example for an atheist doing it, while many of his fellow atheist debators where people who had switched from Christianity.
Or, in short, people who familiarize themselves with the arguments are more likely to become atheist than believers.
I’ll give Tod a hand.
Although ants aren’t intelligent, their intelligence to us is comparable to a potential God’s is to ours. Can you reason out an entire universe in your head?
You and your person quoted are assuming people are significant.
Technically we can’t choose beliefs. For example, the sky outside could be either grey or blue, but I can’t choose which one to believe in (CA is on fire, so the ash colors the sky).
I’m pretty sure the bible warns against taking it metaphorically- on a more practical note, what is to prevent you from taking the whole thing metaphorically? You’d then be an atheist anyway.
As for the world’s constancy, it is an assumption we make about the universe (explicatly stated in such fields as astronomy). Refusal to make it means such ideas such as everything created ten minutes ago (including our memories) are valid options.
Please. Flew converted to deism because of the argument from design. In case you aren’t familiar, it is the first on theists use on atheists. If the man couldn’t answer that… well, he was still an atheist, but the not one who considered why. That is the majority of atheists who switch to theism. Not all of them are like it- for example some switch because of a personal tradgedy or some other reason.
If there is God than everything IS allowed. Vox Day is the most obvious examples, but I have seen others justifying more egregious acts in the name of their lord and savior. Murder. Genocide. Rape. Slavery. Torture. All are acceptable with the lord as your shepard. I have seen each of these defended by a theist, a true Chrisitan.
Power does not determine morality- it determines control. It does not make you right- it makes other obey. Morality is based on getting the best results- happiness. Peace. Tranquility. Justice. You can judge another by these standards and find them wanting.
And, of course you are assuming that God has to benevolent. A God that commands obedience and makes a world entirely devoted to torture grounds? It fits more the profile of Khrone or Bhal than Pelor or Sigma.
By: Samuel Skinner on June 28, 2008
at 11:53 pm
Samuel, welcome back. If there is one thing I have learned in my many on-line debates with atheists, it is that you guys are nothing if you are not verbose. I really don’t like the scatter-gun approach to debate. After all, I do have a day job. Is there any way that we could narrow the focus to a single issue at a time? O well, let’s get started.
You said,
I would agree with this to a point. But may I suggest another reason for the correlation? The educational system in the West is secular and often nothing more than an indoctrination in materialism (We may not be able to teach our children to read, but we can destroy their faith). Given this, atheist and agnostics may not be the “brights” after all. They may be just the brainwashed.
If nothing else, the correlation certainly suggests that atheism is a learned way of thinking, and the fact that the opposite way of thinking is so wide-spread would also suggest that it is counter-intuitive.
You wrote a nice little essay detailing your analysis of a very simple fact that most people still believe in something, and Christianity is expanding. And having had some experience in the developing world, including some of the places you mentioned, so I reject your analysis as the uniformed. Nevertheless, you have constructed a very nice narrative. But since you like facts, let’s just go with what is demonstrably true. Globally speaking, for whatever reason, materialism, like the west that gave it birth, is on the decline. Meanwhile the Global south and east are on the ascendancy and so is faith. Sorry, that’s the way it is.
This is a good example of the fact that we do choose what we believe about many things. You offered and explanation for the facts. But there are other explanations. You reject them. In doing this you have made a choice.
You know, Samuel, I am tempted to respond to your post line for line. But having traveled this road in the past with other atheists I realized we could go tit for tat for the next year and accomplish nothing. I am sure that we can both come up with all sorts of arguments; theories and counter theories, but I also realize that the argument would be a waste of time for both of us. If you are interested in a thoughtful discussion of some issue I welcome the discussion. But but this tit for tat sort of argumentation is, in my judgment, a waste of both or our time. So I will avoid the temptation of answering you line by line.
Now as to your defense of Todd: When I originally responded to you (last night), I did go tit for tat, but I’m changing my post to avoid doing what I’ve just said I don’t want to do. So instead of answering every point you make (which would be so long that no one would read it, let me respond to just a couple of you points.
You wrote:
I don’t know what the difference between our intelligence and God’s has to do with our significance. Using your logic, the galaxy must be less significant than we are because it can’t think at all…which I think is Dr. Davies’ point.
You wrote,
Who says? By the way, some of your words, such as justice, and even morality, have no real meaning in a materialistic universe.
You concluded:
Certainly, and someone with a different morality can use their standard to judge yours.
Finally, this blog is no longer a place for debate. After more than a year of tit for tat I decided to go in another direction. This blog is now the discussion page and archive for my website, whoeveristhirsty.com which is an on-line church for serious seekers. The primary purpose of this blog is to discuss things I bring up in my weekly sermon. I am also open to serious question. Also, for time purposes (and to keep our posts shorter), let’s talk one subject at a time, O.K.?
By: markcarlton on June 29, 2008
at 3:31 am
The irony is that the same thing is being done to me on another site- sorry, it must be displacement. I apologize. Here- I’ll edit my post.
In the developed world, materialism was never intensely popular- we had spiritualism during the 19th century. More recent crazes have tried to adopt the mantel of science and appear less nutty- so we got the UFO hysteria. The New Age movement was a backblash, nut it wasn’t like materialists suddenly changed their mind.
The religious practices in the developing world tend to be miracle and personality based. They are not stable- in fact they are similar to the Great Awakenings experienced in the US. They also were dumped because they do not mesh well with each other, society, knowledge and a host of other things. When their equivalent happens in the US, they are an embarressment- aside from the cults, there is when they take religion entirely seriously. The US has a higher tolerance for this, but there is still a line that if you cross… you are considered a cook and a nut. For example, interpreting God’s will thrugh natural disasters.
My point was that we are to ants as God would be to us. Yet we have no desire to have ants worship us, except for those with serious self esteem issues. A God would presumably be the same way.
I use this definition of morality
In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions.
It is from wiki, stanford encyclopedia and webster.
By: Samuel Skinner on July 1, 2008
at 5:43 am
Opps… I hit three subjects.
Changes in worship.
Worship.
Morality.
Lets hit worship first- this way we can use fiction as examples of rationales and take em apart and see if they tick.
By: Samuel Skinner on July 1, 2008
at 5:45 am
Thanks, Samuel. It is easy to be drawn into completely fruitless discussion. Since I think your last point will be the easiest to deal with, let me see if I can remove the “ant” analogy from the table.
Contrary to the way the ant analogy was stated, both by Todd and Dewey (Seriously, the guy is quoting from an American sitcom, Malcolm in the Middle) — in which God is pictured as needing worship — theologically speaking, this is nonsense (Please understand, this is not intended as a put down. You are clearly quite smart. I am speaking of a theological non sequitur).
Two of the attributes of God would speak to this question; His self-existence and His independence. Simply stated, God has no needs and thus does nothing from a sense of need. This would include receiving worship. God doesn’t need it.
However, we seem to need it. Even in secular, atheistic cultures, it didn’t take long for avowed atheists to start worshiping Lenin and Stalin’s bodies, or collecting the quotes of chairman Mao and quoting them like scripture. In other words, personality cults soon arose even in states in which atheism was the official dogma. We see the same thing with movie stars and sports celebrities all the time (consider the Beckhams and Brittany Spears).
It seems to me that there is a deep human need to believe in and worship something greater than ourselves, if not God, then something else. We have the capacity and the apparent need to worship. In fact, we’re good at it. And as far as I can tell, its a unique ability among the creatures that share this planet with us. John Calvin said it well, “The heart of man is an idol factory.”
Now, for sake of argument, let’s assume there is a God and that He is as you have described Him — able to conceive of the universe in His mind, and powerful enough to have created it — and so far above us that we are like ants in comparison. Given such a God, wouldn’t He be a worthy object of our worship for creatures with our ability and apparent need to worship. Serious, if we are going to worship anything or anyone, Why not Him? Certainly, if the creation fills us with wonder and awe, so why not worship its creator if we are inclined to worship?
But given our alleged ant-like status, the question then becomes; Would such a being be willing to receive worship from the likes of us? And here’s where previous generations understood their theology better than ours. Here are a few lines from an old hymn, Come Christians, Join to Sing:
Come Christians, join to sing. Hallelujah, Amen!
Loud praise to Christ our King, Alleluia, Amen!
He is our guide and friend; to us He condescends…”
This theme is continued in the next verse with this line:
“Praise in His gracious choice.”
Taken together this hymn teaches us the important Biblical teaching that God — Who is so great that we are like ants in comparison — condescends to receive worship from us, and that He does so, not out of His need, but in a gracious choice to respond to ours.
Let me summarize; the god who needs our worship is not the God of the Bible. You will have to find someone who believes in that god if you want a defense of him.
I’m in a bit of a rush. I’ll talk morality this evening.
Take care, Samuel.
By: markcarlton on July 1, 2008
at 8:52 pm
Samuel,
As to morals. I reject your definition, although I know it is a definition that is current (it’s the second definition in one of my dictionaries). The reason I reject it is that it begs the question by assuming that morality is man made and determined by society (“an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people”).
I prefer to the definition in my Grandfather’s dictionary: “Having to do with right and wrong.” It had this note: “Conforming one’s conduct to a code.” This definition leaves the question open as to the source of morality and what it consists of, rather than coming down in favor of the materialist understanding. By the way, in spite your brief history, I think the fact that definitions themselves have become slanted in favor of a non-theistic word view is testimony to the influence of materialism on western thought.
As a Christian, I believe right and wrong is woven into the fabric of the universe and into our being. Thus, there is a moral order in the universe that is independent of us — though it is intuitive to us — that would exist whether or not we were even created; because good and right — righteousness — is the reflection of the character of the Creator Himself. He set the standard and wrote His law in our hearts. So we may have irreconcilable differences here.
By: markcarlton on July 2, 2008
at 12:06 am