Food for Hunger, Water for Thirst

There can be no real meaning to life unless there is a God.

Maybe it really is a simple choice between atheist Bertran Russell's "leading lives of quiet desperation" and atheist Richard Dawkins' "blind, pitiless, indifferent universe" or the God that says "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart" (Jer 29:13).

After all, when we are hungry, there's food.

When we are thirsty, there's water.

So when our souls ache for peace and meaning, why shouldn't there be an answer for that, too?


Related post: Feed Me!

Another Co (God and me) Incident

One of the ministries I contribute to regularly is Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (http://www.rzim.org/), and every other month or so they send an audio CD with updates on the ministry or one of their many excellent speakers delivering a message.

About a month ago, I received a CD with Dr John Lennox giving his comments on the fatal logic errors in Dr. Stephen Hawking's recent book, The Grand Design, where Hawking purports to show that the existence of physical laws like the Law of Gravity are sufficient to ensure the universe would come into existence without any aid from outside influence or intelligence (God).

I loved that CD playing it at least 20 times in my daily 40 min commutes to/from work. Dr Lennox' insights and comments revealed simple truths that somehow had escaped me even after all my study in philosophy, religion, and apologetics. I shared the CD with many people. I kept telling myself I needed to listen to it at my computer where I could easily pause/rewind, so I could capture the many thoughts/ideas and names Dr Lennox mentioned ... but I just never got it done.

In addition to the occasional CD's, RZIM also mails periodic ministry updates in a small pamphlet, "Just Thinking". On a recent morning I happened to notice one lying on the desk near my keyboard that I had not opened, so I decided to take it as I left for work with the intention of reading it during lunch.

That morning while driving to work, a still small inner voice reminded me I had not transcribed the Lennox CD, yet.

At lunch I broke the seals on the pamphlet and opened to the first article, "Stephen Hawking and God" by John Lennox. Though this was not the identical presentation as the CD, it had all the important points - and it had a bibliography!

Purpose of Life is NOT Death

Many non-Christians, but surprisingly many Christians too, make an assumption I think is false: God's purpose in giving life is just about people getting to heaven. In other words, God is just trying to get back as many of the souls He gave out as He can. Already starting to sound a little strange, isn't it? I think saving souls is certainly important, but that is NOT the most important thing. Simply put, the purpose of life is not death. The purpose of life is to glorify God and we do so both by making wise choices to acknowledge Him and obey Him. Those who make bad choices end up glorifying God and showing His wisdom and His judgment. Look at Pharaoh. Here is a sample pro-abortion argument where this misunderstanding comes into play.

Can Atheists be Good?

This is a perennial question - can an atheist be good? 

 My answer: they can only appear to do good things if we lower the standard for what we call "good." 

 Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, taunts Christians with the question, "Name one good thing a Christian can do that an atheist cannot." Atheists can commit their lives to helping the poor, needy, and downtrodden, even "surrender their body to be burned" for their fellow man (i.e. "be good"), but they cannot fulfill the highest moral imperative - worship God. Apart from the Agape love of the cross, the highest love of man is but a better hate - and not really "good" at all.

g or G

Anytime you are talking with someone else or reading articles talking about God, you need to keep your sonar alert for the g or G flip-flop phenomenon. You have to keep asking yourself, "Are they talking about god or God?" 

 How many times have you read articles penned by an atheist talking about God where you realize he/she is describing the god of the mirror, not God, the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Creator of the Universe? 

Below is a rough approximation of an experience of one apologist during a question and answer time 

Atheist: "Who created God?" 

Apologist: "I don't understand your question." 

Atheist  (louder): "I said, who created God?" 

Apologist: "I heard you the first time, but I don't understand the question you are asking. It doesn't make any sense." 

Atheist: "I want to know what caused God to come into existence." Apologist: "Your question still does not make sense. You are asking me who caused the "uncaused cause", God. You are trying to deny the meaning of the concept of God by citing it's definition. Your question does not make sense." 

Atheist, finally realizing his god view of God: "Oh."

Secular Dreams

Is worship confined to a time and place or is all of life to be a living worship? 

 Is there a place, a time, an action, or an idea over which God does not claim absolute sovereignty and the right of judgment? 

 Is there a place where the light of Truth should not shine? 

Is there a place where the expression of God’s mercy and grace should be banned? 

Is there a place one can flee where God does not hold one accountable for their decisions? 

Is there a place where Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”, is not the most important question of life? 

Is there a place where reality does not softly cry out its “madeness”? 

Is there a time or place where there is no one to thank for a beautiful sunset or sunrise? 

Where does just saying something is so make it True? 

Where is room found for “secular”? Only in the vain dreams of the Godless.

The god of the Mirror

Very interesting 10 segment video of a debate between Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Good) and Dinesh D'Souza (What's so Great About Christianity) at King's College NYC on You Tube. 

The first segment is here. 

 There has been a recent glut of "God/religion is bad" books by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Hitchens. As I have read commentaries and books on these, watched videos as the above, and based on my own experience with local atheists (including my semi-atheist younger self), two thoughts have been firming up in my mind.  

One thought is that even when these people are willing to assume God's existence, they form their ideas, writings, and speech around the god of the mirror - not the God of the Bible, but a god fashioned in their own image. 

So, when Christopher Hitchens rails about how immoral god is, he is absolutely right. He's seeing his own image in the mirror. It's like those who choose to marvel at man's engineering and scientific greatness in building a magnificent telescope rather than be awestruck at the wonders revealed. 

Then, notice the cool calculated vehemence and loathing coming through in Hitchens. Add to that the fact that these writers have all but given up on trying to support their positions with credible arguments and evidence - reason is thrown out the window. 

I recommend Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, where he and his wife expose the non-existent arguments of Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. On the cover of The Dawkins Delusion, atheist Michael Ruse is quoted: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why." 

 It's right out in the open. It seems we have turned a corner; the wraps are coming off; gasoline is being thrown on the fire. 

Opportunity knocks.

Foolish Public Education

Submitted to local papers for publication: 

 “The God who is totally irrelevant and can be safely ignored is not God.” 

This is the subtle, but effective, indoctrination our children receive through 12 years of so-called “religiously neutral” public education. 

IF there is a God, then all meaning, morality, and all Truth are rooted there. Teaching anyone contrary to this fundamental and basic foundation is teaching a lie and seeking their harm. 

Teaching our children religious neutrality “… doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” (“Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson.) 

Wouldn’t teaching the existence of God and his basic characteristics – justice, love, mercy, etc – in public education be indoctrination?

Yes, but no more so than the current “religiously neutral” approach! 

But someone will be offended. Teachers can deal with incivility and hatefulness, but Truth always offends liars! 

But it’s illegal. Not by the founding fathers or the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not there. 

 Belief in God, disbelief, and ignorance are all religious positions. Pick one! But, but, but …. Come on. We can send men to the moon and can’t figure out how to do this? 

We haven’t tried. We twiddle our thumbs and argue about prayer at graduation while generations of our children get foundationless educations. 

No wonder we keep getting more and more foolish with the passing years.

Facts are not Enough for Morality

A local atheist had an article in the newspaper saying we should teach logic and good reasoning at the earliest ages in our educational system. He went on to say that some people are simply not persuaded by facts, preferring to cling to their view points butressed by selectively culled facts.

Here is my response:

When Gary Sloan is right, he’s right. I heartily agree all students should be taught sound reasoning skills from the earliest age. The brain has become the least used muscle – politicians, television and radio talk hosts, rappers, and movie stars do our thinking for us. Emotional slogans pass for good reasoning. “Feel” and “think” have become synonymous.

Oh that people did live by facts and good reasoning; then, there would be no legalization of mothers killing their babies. The scientific facts are incontrovertible that from conception the embryo is genus homo sapiens (human being). Neither size, level of development, environment/location, or dependency can be construed as justification for killing the fetus without also justifying killing classes of already-born persons.

Of course, facts alone are insufficient for such moral judgments; values and worldviews come into play. Hidden in the above argument is the value that it’s wrong to take innocent human life - not just wrong for me but wrong for all. Discussion of values opens the door to truth – is there objective, universal truth? Are some things wrong for all people at all times? How about the ancient ritual of placing living babies onto the red-hot arms of idols?

Yes, we need to include good reasoning skills and rules of logic in early education, but that alone, without knowledge of objective and universal truths and values, is like training in the use of hammer and saw without knowing the objective is to build a house.

Suicide by Atheist

"If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. ... You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature." G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy.


That man has a soul is generally accepted by most common folk - even writers and artists - though we may quibble over exactly what this soulishness means. For this article I would like to set forth a definition that most would accept - a throbbing ache for fulfillment. We seem to be born with a longing for meaning and significance. Most of us eventually discover that meaning and significance are not found in the physical pleasures or acquisitions of life. In the words of Ravi Zacharias, "The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced what you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has let you down." (from Can Man Live Without God)

But where do we look to satisfy this soulishness? That's the issue.

The Christian view is that the soul is a God implanted compass to draw us outside of ourselves pointing us to look to something higher and greater. That's all I will say about this view because I want to focus on several atheistic/humanistic approaches.

The first view I call the honest view. I will use famous 20th century atheist Bertrand Russell as it's proponent. His remark that life must be lived in a state of "unyielding despair" both states that there is no higher purpose or meaning to look to and correctly analyzes the life result of that belief - despair, with no hope and no way out. In short, Russell says there is a yearning but no ultimate fulfillment for life. There is no meaning.


"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook."We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating" Stephen Jay Gould

The second I call get over it. A proponent of this view was the late Stephen Jay Gould. As shown above, his view says man can be liberated and exhilarated (his notion of the soul's fulfillment) if we just face the facts squarely and get on with it. Interestingly enough, though, his language gives him away - "This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." If man is just a cosmic accident, why should there be anything to trouble or terrify? Man's soulishness becomes a cosmic joke played by blind chance.


"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite." Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Richard Dawkins is an example of the third view which I call counterfeit. Dawkins seems to agree that the things that give meaning to life are not the physical but the ethereal experiences of awe and wonder from science, music, poetry, etc. From his evolutionary/atheistic perspective, however, Dawkins is amazed at what the mind of man can conceive rather than that man's mind can conceive at all. It's like those who look at the amazing pictures from the Hubble space telescope and only marvel at man's accomplishment of building and placing such a great and powerful instrument.


Conclusion. Yes, it is fearful to contemplate the vastness of empty space teaming with billions and billions of stars. How small and insignificant this makes man -- if the measure is man alone. No further can the atheist/humanist go. Left with the honest assessment of unyielding despair, or the get over it bravado of the superficially troubling, if not terrifying truth of accidental and meaningless existence, or the counterfeit of looking low to the creature for awe and wonder, these all draw a giraffe with a short neck - man with a much diminished soul - in short, inviting man to suicide.

"Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end." G.K. Chesterton

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 3)

Go here for the previous post in this series.

"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven."

I know exactly what Dawkins is talking about. It's exactly the way I felt as a four year old when my mother - who I thought loved me - and the enemy nurses held me down to give me a shot when I was sick! Absolutely no pity or decent human feelings. Thank God my mother had faith to believe the shot would make me well - not absolutely guaranteed - and that the lesser (my temporary discomfort - certainly not from my point of view) was outweighed by the greater. This is a common principle we all use and should be applied to Dawkins' quote.

The problem obviously is the context and how you judge the reasoning used to evaluate the greater/lesser moral equation. The 9/11 hijackers believed heaven was the goal of life, and the only way by their faith, Islam, to guarantee heaven was as a martyr. Further, they believed their religion mandated the killing of non-believers, infidels. Looks like perfectly good reasoning to me, IF their religious understanding is true.

Everyone falls back to their core beliefs and principles from which to reason and justify their actions. Well, maybe with the exception of those who just act like animals with no need for justifying their actions to any moral standards at all. We can see that the 9/11 hijackers would try to justify their actions based on their religious beliefs. So, where do other mass-murderers find justification for their lesser/greater moral evaluation? Let's take Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - the greatest mass murderers of all time, and all in the progressive 20th century.

Since they were atheists, I would suggest they can only look to their DNA. There is no good or bad - only "what is." They evolved by a process that endows no special moral place to the human animal above any other animals - "Nature, red in tooth and claw," in Tennyson's poem "In Memoriam." After all, this is what Darwin's theory of evolution has proved, hasn't it?

"Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent."

Few atheists are honest enough to admit that without a transcendent moral law, morality simply becomes a matter of individual moral tastes - some love their neighbors, some love to eat them. "Might makes right" becomes the operative principle.


Thank God most atheists live to a much higher moral standard than their beliefs require.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 2)

(go here for part 1)

"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."

Sometimes, even an atheist can hit the nail on the head - incompatible faiths! The religions of the world make incompatible claims. Christians claim Jesus rose from the dead; Jews disagree. These are major differences, not minor. While it is theoretically possible that no religions have the truth, it cannot be that all are true. Gathering people together of different religions for prayer to their different gods is just an act of covering all the bases -- "we don't know which god is the true one, so we'll just pray to them all". Somehow, I doubt the true God - especially if He has gone to a lot of trouble to make men aware of Himself - is going to take that very seriously!

The only religions that could get together and pray in unity are Christianity and Judaism for they, at least, share the same God even if (to the Christian) the Jew only knows him partially.

One of the underlying problems of 9/11 was a religion, Islam, that condones, and obviously to some requires, killing of infidels - just look at the recent problem of the convert to Christianity in Afghanistan. Some will say that extremists have hijacked a peaceful religion, then I will say the burden is on the leaders of peaceful Islam to aggressively help put an end to those who have hijacked their religion. Other than some verbiage here and there, I have not really seen any such organized attempt.

Although there were old testament times when the God of the Christian and the Jew instructed the Jews to wipe out entire races, these instances were very specific in their rationale and were only for a very specific time and place. There is no generalized condoning of killing infidels in Christianity/Judaism - in fact, just the opposite is true. The Jews were commissioned by God to be a blessing to the nations. Roman 2:4 (NASB) gives the true definition of tolerance for the unrighteous: "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" Christianity makes converts through persuasion and the opening of hearts - not by sword or suicide bomb.

If you were to gather religions together, then gather them in commitment to the preciousness of human life - committed to action not just words. Unfortunately, abortion-full America, would show up with bloody hands.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins

I'll bet that title got your attention! Obvoiusly, as a Christian, I don't agree with everything infamous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins has said, but there are a few things I believe he got right - unwittingly. It's kind of like Caiaphas saying, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (Jn 11:49-50, NASB), and the crowd crying out for Jesus' death at his trial before Pilate, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25, NASB).

Examples:

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." This one is rather tame. Who wouldn't agree - you would be surprised! Many people think minds are meant to always be open. I disagree. Minds are meant to close on facts guided by the light of truth. Openness is just a mind-phase enroute to closing.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." I agree because Dawkins obviously does not include Christianity in his definition of religion (remember, religion is man seeking after God/Godlessness - Christianity is God seeking man) since the early pioneers of modern science were Christians. These men/women were propelled by their belief in a God of order who revealed Himself in the complexity and order of His creation. For them, uncovering the mysteries of the universe was akin to touching the mind of God. Unfortunately, ignorance (much willfull) on matters of religion is epidemic in our culture and most do not see this distinction nor know their science history. True science goes where the evidence leads ... but, wait a minute, isn't Dawkins an evolutionist?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Once again, as above, it is obvious that Dawkins excludes Christians from those of faith and for the same reasons. I'm sure there is a word that describes ghost words. In our culture today, the word faith has an unseen, but clearly understood, preceeding ghost word - blind. Of course, from the context of his quote, it is clear this is what Dawkins is referring to. Anyone who has actually studied the Christian Bible knows that the Biblical concept of faith is more a reasonable faith or trust - definitely not blind. Unfortunately for Dawkins, though, this kind of leaves him hanging on the horns of his own quote. What kind of faith does it take to believe that Darwin's theory of macro evolution is true -- in spite of the lack of evidence in support of it and the growing body of contradictory evidence?

I may continue this later ...

You may want to go here and check out more of Dawkin's quotes.

Future Topics - part 2

Here are more topics for future posts. Of necessity this will be brief, and I know that may leave room for misunderstanding. Consider that if what I say makes you angry - you may want to just wait till later when I develop the topic. Then, you can unload with both barrels! Still, I welcome feedback on these topics. Your feedback will influence which one I write on next. There is no significance to the order of things in this list - they are just products of a disorderly brain.

Stuck in the 50's. When it comes to witnessing our Christ to others verbally, it looks to me like most churches (at least my own denomination, Southern Baptist) equip members to witness in the culture of the 50's (1950s). All the programs and methods assume an open, if not friendly, culture that believes there is a God and is willing to give fair and open consideration to claims of God's word. Ha! "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." The church has failed to equip believers for today's anti-God, quick slogan culture. No wonder witnessing and baptism rates are abysmal. No wonder our youth are so susceptible to humanistic college professors.

When someone says, "Well, all religions are really alike, aren't they?", quoting John 3:16 is a totally inadequate response.

All religions claim to be True. A religion is a system of belief - that includes humanism and atheism as a religion. To believe something is to hold that it is true. BUT religions believe contradictory things - Jews say Jesus was not God; Christians say He was. All religions may be wrong, but all cannot be right. Even those who say they are tolerant of other religions are intolerant of those who actually have the temerity to say their religion is true and the others are false. But even this - tolerance of all - is a claim to exclusive truth because it says the intolerant are wrong!

Someone sneaks in every night and replaces pages of Webster's. When God thought man was getting too uppity at the tower of Babel, He confused man's language and split him up into different people groups. Well, the devil is trying that, too. Perfectly good words are getting changed under our noses. Words like gay, faith, hope, love, etc. When we in the church use these words, the culture is hearing and seeing something different.

To Boil a Frog, Put him in Cold Water -- or -- If you Think things are Bad, Wait till you Open Your Eyes! Inch by inch; bit by bit. Every tiny step downhill is calculated to not disturb the feeling of normal. An old Chinese proverb (aren't all Chinese proverbs old?) says, "If you want to know about water, don't ask a fish." However, the perspective of decades reveals just how radical the cultural transformation has been. The times in which we live are anything but normal. And let's not call it progress - outhouses to indoor plumbing is progress. The ideas of the culture we live in are intended to mold and shape people after man's image - not God's. These times are evil and wicked, and we (the church) should not be comfortable here in the least.

If there is no God, then why apologize for Despair? Bertrand Russell, the prominent atheist of the last century, said life has to be lived in unyielding despair. I think Russell was giving an honest evaluation of atheism in answering the universal soul-cry of man for meaning and significance. The late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould likewise betrays his belief system when he uses words like "superficially troubling, if not terrifying," to describe man without higher purpose or meaning. If the hearts cry for meaning and significance has no fulfillment, then a cruel joke has been played on man. But who do you blame? Not God, He doesn't exist! It must be time + matter + chance.

A Twist - Are the Jews responsible for Jesus' death? On one hand, it definitely was Jews who held an illegal trial and condemned an innocent man. Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate. It was Jews who chose Jesus to be crucified rather than Barrabus. Technically, it was the Romans who executed the punishment, but the punishment never would have happened without the Jews calling for it.

Here's the twist. Christians know Jesus to be God - part of the Trinity. How can God be killed? He can't. So, in this Christian understanding, neither the Jews nor Romans present in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago killed God. It is simply impossible for man to kill God. In fact, Jesus Himself absolved them of guilt when He said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." As God, Jesus had the authority to forgive sin. Then Jesus gave up the spirit and died. He was not killed.

Bottom line: If a Jew accepts Jesus as God and savior, then no guilt remains. If he doesn't, it still is not the Christian who could condemn, but his own religious system for the illegal aspects of what was done. Ultimately, Jesus hanging on the cross was the best gift ever given to this world, but, like every gift, it has to be received.