2007 was a banner year for atheism. Anti-God manifestos by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins were bookstore blockbusters. And The Golden Compass, a not-so-subtly atheistic children’s film, hit theaters last month.
With all the attention the atheist agenda is receiving, doesn’t it seem strange that most Americans find heroes among those who reflect a biblical worldview?
Earlier in 2007, CNN began polling people for a list of their heroes. As the results began rolling in, it became apparent that the frontrunners had something in common. Whether or not they professed belief in God, they all lived their lives in a way that would not make sense if He did not exist.
One of the nominees, Wesley Autrey, a construction worker with two small children, jumped onto the New York subway tracks to rescue a young man who had fallen off the platform. Then Autrey sheltered the man with his own body as a train passed overhead.
After the rescue, Autrey told an interviewer: “It was as if something was telling me to do what I done. A voice out of nowhere said, ‘Go and save that life, that life is a life worth saving, and don’t worry about your own.’ It seemed like something just lifted me up off the platform.”
Another nominee was Major Scott Southworth of the Wisconsin National Guard, who adopted a severely handicapped orphan boy when he was serving in Iraq several years ago. Now he is working to bring more than 20 other neglected and abused handicapped boys from Baghdad to the United States for medical treatment.
Then there was Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor and the professor at Virginia Tech who used his body as a shield to protect his students from the gunman. And 15-year-old Zach Hunter from Atlanta who has raised more than $20,000 to help free modern-day slaves. And American Jewish doctor Rick Hodes who volunteers his time and expertise to care for the sick in Ethiopia.
Atheism has no explanation for these acts of self-giving and even self-sacrificing charity. As Chuck Colson has said many times, Darwinian evolution cannot explain this kind of altruism: How does one who willingly dies for another pass on his or her genetic traits for the improvement of the species? No, defenders of atheism and Darwinism, if true to their convictions, should sneer at this kind of self-sacrifice as weak and pointless.
But we know better. Why? Because we—and these modern-day heroes—are made in the image of God. His very character is stamped into our beings. We see in these heroes a reflection of the same God, who in Christ “being made in human likeness . . . humbled himself and became obedient unto death—even death on the cross.” This is the same God who tells us “to lay down our lives” for our friends, “to let the little children come,” and “to act justly and love mercy.”
Tragically, many people, including many Christians, are practical atheists, living our lives in a way that ignores God’s existence. But in the final analysis, we are all still wired to find heroes in those who live life as though God does exist.
_________________________________________________
From BreakPoint®, January 3, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
Comments
seedplanter,
"While I understand that the signers of the Constitution did not organize a theocracy, they did however recognize their indebtedness to the Creator and it was in a Christian framework at that. "
Oh it was in a christian frameworkd then huh?
well if that's the case why is there no reference to christ, jesus or anything biblical in the consitution that was penned by the forefathers?
why oh why when they refer to god, do they use Deistic terminology to describe him/it.
What's the deal with the treaty tripoli as it implies the USA is in no way founded on christian precepts?
Thank you for your kind gestures, it was an interesting conversation.
I wanted to also mention to you that Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath have an interesting exchange going on, not only debating in books, but also on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4crCoBj2tA
While I understand that the signers of the Constitution did not organize a theocracy, they did however recognize their indebtedness to the Creator and it was in a Christian framework at that.
Be that as it may; a happy and prosperous new year to you too!
I will leave with this:
SP said: "In conclusion, I think it is the most reasonable position to assume that atheism is no prescription to the world’s ills ...."
I absolutely agree. Atheism means nothing and can do nothing and is arguably a silly, vacant label. Just as not believing in Zeus defines nothing of a person values, nor does not believing in the God of Abraham. Too often these on-line discussions are lacking in much nuance and various parties probably do not get a clear picture of one another. Often (particularly on this topic) the discussion focuses on one thing to the exclusion of another.
I support and defend religious liberty. I support and defend any person's right to believe what they want. I support and defend our secular Constitution (with the deistic reference to a creator, not the theistic reference to God or Jesus). I quite simply am motivated to keep our government secular for the benefit of all.
Best to you SP. May you have a healthy and prosperous new year.
Let’s recap this one:
SP: If naturalistic evolution is true, then why should not all of its social adaptations and evolutionary constructs be equally esteemed including that of radical religious fundamentalists with bombs strapped to their backs? I think that it could be argued that it may have sociological benefits that include increasing a sense of pride and honor to die killing the enemy of one’s culture.
FV: The [simplified] way I look at that as follows: Is there a victim? (clearly yes) Is the action universally perceived as appropriate (clearly no). Is there any evidence that their motivation (their belief system) valid or true? (clearly no). Hence their actions are wrong.
SP: Darwin’s survival of the fittest comes into play. The Islamic culture is at risk with expansion of the West. In an evolutionary framework, it could still be argued that treacherous acts are a form by which evolution acts in an attempt to preserve one’s self that is completely immersed in a specific cultural context in which specific beliefs have evolved, be it for meaning, survival, socialization or mental health (researchers have reported that religious people are happier).
Interesting bit about the washing of hands, the Bible mandated this years before. I don’t know how familiar you are with the ceremonial cleanliness; there are a few customs that are strange to us today, but over all they seemed to be advanced for the times. Laws such as cleaning with running water, not to touch dead things, proper handling of human waste, etc. is worth note. Again, to exclaim this wisdom evolved seems preposterous, especially in light of the medical discoveries that you noted.
By the way, the dark ages were not so dark, excluding the escapades of the Catholic Church. Vishal Mangalwadi has a great work that is to be published on the history of Christianity that is worth taking note.
FV: “I am not an anti-theist (I have nothing against the person), but I do have a problem with the mode of thought when it goes beyond the personal and is inflicted upon society through public policy and abhorant actions.”
It is interesting the way atheists can express such intolerance, seems rather desperate. Even though there are big enough holes in naturalistic evolution to fly a Boeing 747 through, yet there is this pervasive commitment to silence all opposition, no matter what the cost. Today I was listening to the news about a woman in Germany who was arrested and lost custody of her children because she was home schooling her children. This is the direct result of the secularist’s antagonism toward religion. Secular atheism has been a scourge to society over the long haul and has caused far more devastation than Islamo-fascists could only dream of.
Dogmatism according to Answers.com is “An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.” I noticed that you prescribe to Dawkins’ dogma (which is defined elsewhere as “the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot” -WordNet) of atrocities committed in the name of atheism. If you expect to have an intelligent conversation, I would recommend at least modestly changing your position. It is no trump card (it does not prove atheism or theism), it is however a matter of historical record as to the threat of “radical atheism” (social injustices committed ‘in the name of atheism’). The fathers who wrote “We the people” did not forget the “Creator” factor who gives us the “unalienable rights,” rather than an unaccountable government, who thinks it has the power to give them just as easily as take them away.
In conclusion, I think it is the most reasonable position to assume that atheism is no prescription to the world’s ills whether natural evolution is ever proven true or not.
I’m not buying your “accurate translation.” Everyone does have their presuppositions. This does not imply that you are disingenuous about your beliefs. Nor does it follow that you have only looked at the data by which your beliefs are strengthened. What it does mean is that no one is neutral, except perhaps for those who have truly suspended certain conclusions while going over the evidence, which is a rare humility to discover when it comes to the polarizing nature of the subject. I once heard a preacher say that he is an atheist when he gets out of bed, until he’s had at least two cups of coffee; humorous, but deeply philosophical. Science itself is not a philosophical exactitude, it hinges on many prerequisites and variables. Modern science in a test tube cannot disprove an invisible God any more than it can prove His existence. What we have to do is examine the evidence. The evidence seems clear to me for the affirmative and I stand in the company of many a men far more superior to my intellect.
As I mentioned, listening and reading many debates on atheism, I have noticed one common denominator; whoever is best informed and most capable of expressing a persuasive argument wins, regardless of the facts. We can blow the dust off our books and study like the devil and maybe even reach some conclusions, but regardless of whomever wins the debate, there is always more information that is unknown. It is interesting to note that both naturalistic evolutionists as well as Bible thumpers have utilized that defense when backed into a corner.
Clarification: I originally said "I am not an anti-theist (I have nothing against the person), but I do have a problem with the mode of thought."
I should have said: I am not an anti-theist (I have nothing against the person), but I do have a problem with the mode of thought when it goes beyond the personal and is inflicted upon society through public policy and abhorant actions.
Part 2 of 2
Seedplanter said “I am not a scientist, but I am acquainted with the debates and know enough to be able to say that atheism adheres to just as much religious dogmatism as any other formal religion.”
Here is how Merriam-Webster defines ‘dogmatism’: 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises.
This is quite the opposite of good science. Every non-believer that I know would readily change their position should compelling evidence be presented. The scientific community would be giddy with excitement if some new, compelling evidence came forth. In fact major honors would be bestowed on whoever brought real evidence of an intelligent creator. There is no incentive to keep real knowledge suppressed in the scientific
Seedplanter said: “In all that Lennon and Stalin did to eliminate faith in the name of progress…”
The tried and true theistic ‘trump card’. These atrocities were not perpetrated in the name of atheism. These regimes suppressed anything that competed with their demand for a singular allegiance to their regime. There were a whole lot of things wrong with those regimes; most importantly, they were missing “We the people”. To blame it all on non-belief is a not a well thought out argument even though, anecdotally, it is convincing to many.
Seedplanter said: “If naturalistic evolution is true, then why should not all of its social adaptations and evolutionary constructs be equally esteemed including that of radical religious fundamentalists with bombs strapped to their backs?”
Interesting argument. The [simplified] way I look at that as follows: Is there a victim? (clearly yes) Is the action universally perceived as appropriate (clearly no). Is there any evidence that their motivation (their belief system) valid or true? (clearly no). Hence their actions are wrong.
A further tangent to this topic of right and wrong is to consider how we legitimately learn that something is right or wrong (the ‘ugly’ moral relativism). Before we knew that microbes existed and figured out their role in disease, surgeons did not deem it necessary to wash their hands prior to operating. That was not immoral because they lacked that knowledge but were trying to help the patient. If a surgeon today did not wash their hands, it would be considered immoral. Our morality is relative and always will be relative to what our best knowledge is at the time. Prior to science shedding light on origins and sociology, our best knowledge might well have been that women were inferior and other races/creeds were inferior or deserving of death. We have moved on from the dark ages. Morality SHOULD be relativistic.
Part 1 of 2
seedplanter said: “You might as well say; I don’t believe in God, therefore creation could not have happened. I don’t believe in miracles, so therefore creation is not a viable position. Everyone has presuppositions that interpret the neutral data, it is really quite elementary.”
That is not an accurate translation. How about “I see no evidence for God, therefore I seek knowledge about our origins.” I was referring to the mode of argument that I do not respect. Just because something is not ‘A’, does not make ‘B’ true. Assuming ‘B’ on insufficient evidence merely extinguishes inquiry…the think our species excels at. [note that, as someone educated in the sciences, ‘evidence’ has to come from the empirical method.]
Seedplanter said: “if you do not have enough faith to believe in the Bible prophets, it does not mandate atheism, neither does evolution”
Your right. I find deism a perfectly legitimate position. Science, at present, does not have any deeply satisfying theories (and zero evidence) of anything that might have happened prior to the Big Bang. Deism also has the admirable trait of not claiming to know the mind of that creator. Hence cannot be used to demonize segments of society or commit violence in the ‘name’ of the creator. Atheism is a rather silly label. Do we have a name for people who don’t believe in Zeus? Does not believing in Zeus define anything about a person. ‘Atheist’, when deconstructed merely means ‘without theism’. I am not an anti-theist (I have nothing against the person), but I do have a problem with the mode of thought.
Continued …
In all that Lennon and Stalin did to eliminate faith in the name of progress, it could not be divorced from the human heart. The reeducation camps in North Korea are filled with people who refuse to abandon their faith. One might even say that it is their faith that literally keeps them alive (both physically and as a person), in the face of what has been likened to that of German concentration camps. Perhaps you are comfortable relying on naturalism to explain your existence, it does not necessitate that it is the most correct or even the best way of thinking (with or without God). Nor should one presume that atheism is the best proposition for unifying a diverse community.
If naturalistic evolution is true, then why should not all of its social adaptations and evolutionary constructs be equally esteemed including that of radical religious fundamentalists with bombs strapped to their backs? I think that it could be argued that it may have sociological benefits that include increasing a sense of pride and honor to die killing the enemy of one’s culture. Without a morality that transcends culture and creed, anything can be defended, because everything is relative including homosexuality as you made mention of. I think that homosexuality is defenseless in terms of sociological benefits as a whole; it does not aid evolution or reproduce species, it is linked to depression and suicide, to name a few counterproductive results to the promotion of evolution. Yes, I think that to ignore such data is inconsistent with the pro-natural-evolution sentiments.
FV: “I don’t know how it happened, therefore God did it.” Am I supposed to respect that?
You might as well say; I don’t believe in God, therefore creation could not have happened. I don’t believe in miracles, so therefore creation is not a viable position. Everyone has presuppositions that interpret the neutral data, it is really quite elementary.
I think naturalistic evolution is a shot in the dark. You have concluded: “The universe looks exactly like it would if no supernatural actor was involved.” Other scientists have come to the opposite conclusion, while maintaining their dogmatic atheism. Others have in fact crossed over the political divide in spite of the consequences. The pressure is there in the scientific community to adhere to atheism as pressure exists in churches to adhere to creationism (p.s. if you do not have enough faith to believe in the Bible prophets, it does not mandate atheism, neither does evolution).
I am not a scientist, but I am acquainted with the debates and know enough to be able to say that atheism adheres to just as much religious dogmatism as any other formal religion, with naturalistic evolution being preached from its bully pulpit as its foundational statement of faith; creationism threatens the established hierarchy in much the same way as Martin Luther threatened the authority of the pope. Some of the straw man arguments that atheists bring to the table for rejecting creationism are laughable (i.e. the myth that creation stalls progress, when it in fact has given us the fundamentals of modern science and has inspired countless scientific discovery).
FVThinker, Genesis 1 and 2 are consistent. Chapter 1 gives the overview of creation and Chapter 2 fills in details.
The 'standards of right and wrong' to which I was referring are standards of morality. You are cherry-picking items here and there without giving context. If you read the Bible as a continuum from Genesis to Revelation, with an open heart and open mind, asking the Lord to instruct you, you will see that the old covenant to which you referred has been superseded by the new covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and that the things you mentioned are not part of that. We are living in an age of God's grace, and He is giving all men everywhere time to repent of sin and humble themselves before Him that they might be forgiven, receive His free gift of eternal life, and be ready when He returns for His own.
maranatha7593,
Given all the conflicting stories in the bible, God must be schizophrenic. Chapters 1 and 2. Were Adam and Eve created at the same time or did Eve come from Adam's rib?
You say that the bible's "standards of right and wrong have proved to be best for the human race." Hmmm. Killing non-believers and disobedient children is in that list too then?
Correction: I'm assuming you're deeming the Bible to be 'mythology', but you also have no objective proof of that.
FVT: maranatha7593 asks me "what is your objective standard of what is right and wrong?"
Some basic tenets of how I conduct myself are 'if there is a victim to my actions, then it is probably wrong' and (what you would know as) 'the golden rule'. The latter of which was documented long before Christianity. I am sorry that it is not as convenient as someone at a pulpit telling you and I just what is right and wrong, but reality is not necessarily convenient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But your standard here is not objective; it is subjective, for you have decided on this.
I wasn't proposing that we should base our standards of right and wrong on what any man behind a pulpit tells us, so I'm not sure where you came up with that.
I'm assuming you're deeming the Bible to be 'mythology', but you also have objective proof of that. I believe it to be God's Holy Word, and its standards of right and wrong have proved to be best for the human race.