Atheism (II)
March 17th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
‘Dare to think for yourself.’ On atheism and meaning.
This is the second article on atheism from a Christian point of view. The series is response to the atheistic billboard dat appeared close to Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam in March 2009. In this contribution we will take a closer look at the second statement on the billboard: ‘Dare to think for yourself’. According to the atheists behind the billboard it is self-evident that the non-existence of God leads to the call to have the courage to think for yourself.
Is there any daring left after God has fallen away? What independent thinking can we do apart from God? In my previous article we saw that the atheistic worldview does not leave us any morality to guide our lifes. That is, as we saw, because the material reality does not offer a foundation for an absolute ethic. How is it with meaning? In order to think for ourselves there has to be a reason to do so. There has to be meaning. Thinking must be meaningful.
Atheism (I)
March 16th, 2009 § 2 Comments
On atheism and morality.
Suppose God didn’t exist. Would we be able to enjoy life? According to our billboard atheists this enjoyment stands in contrast to what we should be doing if God in fact did exist. The billboard can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) God does not exist, so stop being moralistic; stop correcting others and just enjoy life. (2) God does not exist, therefore you need not feel resposible to anyone. So let go of all restraints. In both cases it seems there is a clear link with moral consciousness. So how are things with morality in atheism?
Strangely enough I come up with a double answer. On the one hand the atheistic worldview rules out the possibility of an absolute moral on the other the average atheist proves the existence of absolute moral values with his behaviour.
Atheistic Campaign
March 11th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Since fall last year the atheistic buscampaign that started in London has received a worldwide following. Atheists have taken to advertising and they’re liking it. In the Netherlands it has been difficult to get the bus rolling so an alternative billboard campaign has been started with the first near Amsterdam airport on the 10th of March 2009. The text reads: ‘There probably is no God, dare to think for yourself and enjoy this life’.
Atheists love to put religion down. There are believers (dumb, dumb, dumb) and atheists (smart!). In my opinion atheism is just one of many sets of beliefs about what reality is truly all about. As far as I’m concerned it does not offer the most plausible explanation for reality.
That’s why I would like to take the opportunity to discuss the untenability of atheism in a series of three articles addressing the three propositions of the billboard:
Extinguished desire
February 6th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Today we find Buddha images just about everywhere in the West. Whether it’s the Grand Café at the corner, the shopping mall or in our neighbor’s home. The head with the curly hair from Thailand seems to be slightly more popular than the fat bellied grinning Chinese Buddha. In any case the Buddha is very popular. He represents wellness, that trend in our societies to combine spirituality with moderate consumerism, simplicity with a kind of selfish detachment. Great ‘spiritual leaders’ like Richard Gere and Steven Seagal teach us to enjoy everything Zen.
How well justified is this passion for Buddha, this desire for an Eastern yet atheistic spirituality? Elsewhere (on my Dutch apologetics blog) I have written on the threefold requirement that any worldview needs to meet in order to qualify for viability:
(a) Inner coherence (the different assumptions of a worldview should not logically conflict with each other).
(b) Correspondence to reality ( a world view should correspond to the reality as we generally know it).
(c) Livability in day-to-day reality (not only does a worldview need to be believed, one needs to be able to practice it too).
Whatever remains of the postmodern and irrational enthusiasm for Buddhism doesn’t amount to much as we shall see.
A worldview needs to have inner coherence. How well is Buddhism faring in this respect? Buddha’s fundamental insight was that all suffering comes from desire. When desire is put to a halt suffering also has stopped. How realistic is it to aim for non-desire as goal of one’s life? Doesn’t a buddhist contradict himself the moment he desires to reach non-desire? The goal has to be pursued with what is the opposite of that goal. The goal ceases to be a goal when that goal is purposelessness. How could the road to the top of the mountain only lead downwards? At this point various elements in Buddhism contradict each other, desire being necessary to reach ‘desirelessness’.
In the second place a worldview needs to correspond with reality. The Eastern religions that developed on Indian soil, buddhism and hinduism, propose a radical interpretation of reality. Hinduism teaches that everything is divine and that the material world is merely an emanation of that divine, whereas buddhism completely ignores the existence of God. Both religions however consider reality to be an illusion. Part of the deliverance that is sought consists of the insight into this truth. Buddhism is the more radical of the two in that it proposes that ultimate reality is nothingness. What we experience as reality is mere appearance. The buddhist has every right of course to believe this, but is it realistic to assume this to be true? The material world is simply there after all as are our feelings such as love, care, compassion etc. On which grounds are these things denied? Buddhism us something that is so radically different from what our intuition and our senses tell us.
The third test is that of viability of a worldview. In practice the followers of the Buddha come into conflict with the radical concepts of buddhism. To stop desire? Striving for the insight that the individual is nothing more than an illusory collection of components? To desire Nirvana, the state of being extinguished? Is the answer to the suffering in our human existence truly to eliminate existence from the suffering in order that the suffering too won’t exist anymore?
It is no surprise that along with Theravada Buddhism, the more radical and ‘orthodox’ form of Buddhism, a much wider movement developed called Mahayana Buddhism in which idols are worshiped en adherents believe in Boddhisatvas (half enlightened spiritual beings that help man on his way to Nirvana). Very often Buddhism has developed into a typical religion of good works.
Buddha was radical in his practice in life as was his take on it. At least, if the legends about him are historically correct. We may admire him for that. In that regard it is not strange that in our affluent and materialistic West there is interest in the simplicity, the emphasis on virtue and transcendental focus of Buddhism. But in his postmodern and eclectic flirt with Buddhism Western man ignores the elementary contradiction of non-desire through desire and the reality that the Buddhistic worldview cannot be lived out, a fact to which countless Buddhists have testified throughout the past centuries.
Buddhist poet, Kobayashi Issa (1762-1827) went to seek comfort from a teacher after loosing two children. The only comfort he got was that all things, including his two children, are an illusion. He wrote a haiku (Japanese poem) in which his doubt shines through:
The world of dew –
A world of dew it is indeed,
And yet, and yet . . .
Everything is illusory, and yet, and yet…
And yet it is impossible to live with that belief and find comfort in it.
The dead-end of the evolution debate
February 5th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
This year marks the 200th birthday of Darwin. Various publications and a lot of attention in the media remind us of this important fact. Darwin was the one who finally allowed atheists to deal a death blow to the God of Christianity. The evolution theory was to provide an explanation for the existence of life on earth. God’s final straw was taken from him. Bye, bye, God.
The evolution debate is marked by a lot of confusion. Evolution is supposed to be a scientific fact. Evolution and big-bang cosmology are confused with each other as are young earth and old earth creationists and micro and macro-evolution. When you do not believe in a literal six day creation, you reject the divine inspiration of Genesis, etc., etc.
The worst misunderstanding that is popular among proponents as well as opponents of the evolution theory is the implicit idea that where the evolution theory seems to gain ground automatically the existence of God becomes less plausible.
This debate is likely to continue for some time. The evolution-theory is a scientific theory. Scientific theories and conclusions change. They do not provide a good foundation for binding statements about the existence or non-existence of God. Add to that the fact that a large segment of the scientific community passionately beliefs in the sanctity of a naturalistic world-view and you’ll understand that the elimination of God is simply a foregone conclusion.
It is better therefore to resort to classical apologetics which has seen a tremendous revival in the past decades. Classical apologetics is mainly philosophical in nature and thus depends much less on the results of scientific research. Arguments in favor of the existence of God in fact are so strong that even a die-hard atheist like Anthony Flew now acknowledges that God must exist. Listen to the arguments of people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga and realize that we find atheism dangling dangerously on the last straw that was reserved for God. Bye, bye, atheism.
Even if it would be proven ten times over that evolution plays a role in the development of the species, it would from a philosophically point of view say nothing about the existence of God. Dutch theologian, biologist and philosopher calls himself a ‘cosmological agnost’. I had come to the same conclusion albeit with a less flattery term. As far as I’m concerned, the evolution debate leads to a dead-end when it comes to the real discussion that needs to take place: Does God exist? I take it He does.
Apologetics and reason
February 4th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
Some people look at apologetics with mistrust as they are under the impression that depravity includes reason. I hold to the position that man’s reason has remained intact after the fall, although its functioning has been hampered by the sinful nature of man. Here are a couple of reasons why I believe reason still functions properly:
I do hold to the utter depravity of man. However to say that reason has become imperfect as a result of the fall is not the same as saying that reason is dominated by sinful nature. Reason functions well, but put in a corner the sinful nature will try to escape, mock, deny or do whatever in order to suppress what reason tells it. This is what I think Paul teaches in Romans 1. Fallen mankind has knowledge of the eternal God, but it is suppressed.
There is I think an interesting analogy with the will. What does the gospel message say? It says: repent and believe, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. Now, if the human will is so fallen that it doesn’t function anymore, why preach and call to repentance? Yet, the call is there including the human responsibility to act upon that call. If the evangelist calls on the fallen human will cannot the apologist in the same way call on the mind? In fact the latter makes more sense as I believe that the will is the very center of man’s rebellion toward God whereas the capacity to reason is merely a function of being human and thus subject to the sinful nature. The will is fallen, reason is merely subject to fallenness.
In addition there are a few biblical examples of reason being used in order to persuade men toward God. (A) In the OT God says to his people: Let us reason together. God does reason through the mouth of the prophet with propositions and showing the logical falacies of idolatry. (B) Jesus used logic on his adversaries (his argument on the Messiash being the son of David and named Lord by the same / his argument of paying taxes to Ceasar, etc.). (C) Look at Paul’s use of logic, i.e. apologetics in the various settings where he confronted men with the gospel, esp. Mars Hill.
When you look at Eastern Orthodoxy you will find they have a interesting take on the creation of man. They hold that man made in the image of God is not the same as man made in God’s likeness. One of my relatives wrote to me this on it: ‘Orthodox affirm that Adam was perfect not so much in an actual but in a potential sense. Made in the image (icon) of God means that he possessed rationality, freedom, moral responsibility, etc: everything that marked him out as different from the animals, and he had these from the moment of his creation. Made according to the likeness of God, on the other hand, means that he had the potential to be assimilated to God through virtue, by which, if he had made proper use of this facility for communion with God, he could have become like God, deified.’ When Adam sinned the likeness was affected not the image. If that is true it gives us yet another argument in favor of my position on reason.
