In the book “Can Man Live Without God?” Ravi Zacharis writes:

If I am merely the product of matter and at the mercy of material determinism,why should I subject myself to anyone else’s moral convictions? If, on the otherhand, I am fashioned by God for his purpose, then I need to know him and know that purpose for which I have been made, for out of that purpose is born my sense of right and wrong. There are two worlds represented by these options.

The atheist lives in tension. He says one thing and knows in his heart of hearts that another is true. The atheist ethics professor teaches ethical relativism, mocks Christianity with its moral absolutes, and explains to his class that right and wrong, as objective moral standards, do not exist. But then he absolutely demands that you not cheat on his test on ethical relativism. If you do cheat, he immediately forgets that he’s an atheist and begins speaking like a Christian, insisting that cheating is wrong and that you should know that.

We cannot teach people that they are nothing but material things that have evolved out of the slime and then try to also teach them that there is moral law they need to abide by. They are too smart to not see the implications of the atheism they’re taught. So they reason this world is a struggle for existence, and if cheating on a few tests will help me to get ahead and get the good job and earn the good money, then why not?

There is no foundation for morality apart from God. If naturalists really begin to live in a manner consistent with their worldview, their moral lives would implode.

Taken from “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Some atheists argue that we don’t need to believe in God in order to have morality. We can determine what is right and wrong by using reason alone.

Atheist Kai Nielsen argues that it doesn’t take God’s existence for us to figure out what is just and fair in a given situation. Do we really need God in order to know that we ought to keep our promises, or tell the truth, or pay our debts, or allow an elderly woman to take our seat on the bus? If we want to be treated with respect and dignity, isn’t it only reasonable that we should treat others with respect and dignity? It doesn’t take the existence of God for us to figure out how we ought to conduct ourselves morally.

Both Kai Nielsen and Immanuel Kant are right when they suggest that we can come to know what is right and what is wrong by the use of reason alone. After all, the moral law exists and is reasonable and God has written his moral law on our hearts and given us reason so that we might understand the world he has created. But if there is no God, no moral law, and if nothing exists but material substances as atheists like Nielsen suggest, why should a notion like ‘reason’ bond us to any particular type of conduct? If there is no moral truth to be discovered and if I have to simply choose the moral point of view because that type of life is what I find worthwhile for myself, then the decision is arbitrary, rationally speaking. The moral difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is roughly the same as the difference between whether I want to be a trumpet player of a baseball player.

Because the naturalist worldview cannot support the real existence of right and wrong, any standard of morality the atheist comes up with is going to be arbitrary. It will simply be his idea of a good way to have some resemblance of morality in an immoral, impersonal, meaningless universe. Often it will also be inconsistent and even contradictory to the naturalist worldview. To see this, all one has to do is ask the question: How exactly does this ethical standard arise naturally from an infinite sea of ever changing material substances?

Taken from "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Atheists will argue that there does not need to be a God given moral law, but that we can choose to do anything so long as we are not hurting someone.

For example, as long as sexual activity is between consenting adults, you should be free to do whatever you like, with whomever you like, in whatever combinations you like, and in whatever circumstances you like in or out of marriage as long as no one is hurt by it. ‘Hurt’ is usually narrowly defined in terms of sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy.

If human beings are nothing but highly evolved animals, as atheists claim, then it could be argued that no harm is done when people behave like animals. A hedonistic lifestyle may adequately provide for what you want out of life. Do whatever your desires and appetites and addictions and fetishes compel you to do.

If God exists, and he designed human sexuality to be expressed and find its meaning and fulfillment in the loving commitment of marriage, then unbridled sexual activity would be a destructive activity that attacks human dignity and eventually inflicts profound and lasting emotional, spiritual and physical wounds.

Everyone is hurt by the ‘do no harm’ ethic. Those involved in sexual promiscuity, or in other immoral activities that might be considered entirely private, are hurt because God made them for something so much higher and better. They degrade themselves when they fail to pursue their higher calling. Those who follow their example are hurt, especially the children who assume that this must be a good way to live. Parents who would never have wanted this for their sons or daughters are hurt. Even society itself is hurt as its moral tenor is diminished by such behavior even though its proponents claim they’re not hurting anyone else.

A problem for the naturalist who subscribes to the ‘do no harm’ ethical standard is that it is actually inconsistent with the naturalist worldview. Do naturalists see the ‘do no harm’ standard existing in nature? Is this something the natural world teaches us? Didn’t Darwin claim that, in nature, the strong prey upon the weak and only the fittest survive? Isn’t his how things should be in this strictly material world?

If human beings are merely highly evolved animals, why is it universally understood to be wrong for one human being to steal from, injure, or murder another human being? What is the rational basis to insert the notion of ‘right and wrong’ into an atheist worldview?

The consistent atheist is forced to admit that the ‘do no harm’ standard contradicts the naturalist worldview that embraces Darwin’s evolutionary principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. Natural selection is guaranteed not be being nice to competitors but by overpowering weaker competitors.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Some atheists will argue that there does not have to be an objective moral law rooted in and reflecting the character of God

They claim that we can figure out for ourselves how to make wise, good and ethical decisions. One suggestion would be to ask ourselves the simple question: what will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? What choice will result in the greatest total amount of happiness?

The major problem with this alternative ethical standard is that there is no way of measuring the greatest total amount of happiness. An atheist will define ‘happiness’ in terms of his naturalist worldview and the values that flow from it. A Christian will define happiness in terms of his theistic worldview and the values that flow from it. For example, an atheist might argue for smaller families on the grounds that each child will have better clothing and toys therefore more happiness. A Catholic might argue for a large family on the grounds that each child will have more love, more sharing and more memories, and therefore more happiness since happiness does not come from having lots of material possessions.

Our worldview determines our values and our ideas of where happiness is to be found. Happiness is not some measurable commodity that can be weighed objectively as a basis for making ethical decisions.

Another serious problem with the ‘happiness’ method of doing ethics is that once the happiness of the individual is subordinate to the happiness of the group, nearly anything can be justified. If what is important in moral reasoning is the ‘total amount of happiness’ then the happiness of the individual becomes secondary. The individual is no longer an end in himself but has become a means to the happiness of the group. Virtually any behavior can be justified on the grounds that it will result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

Another problem for the naturalist who subscribes to the ‘happiness’ method of doing ethics is that it is actually inconsistent with the naturalist worldview. If there is no God as the naturalist asserts, no moral law and if humans are mere products of natural processes, accidents of chance and time; then why should we care about what results in the greatest total amount of happiness? Why should we choose to allow this arbitrary standard to bind us in our freedom? Why shouldn’t we do what we want? Why shouldn’t we pick our own arbitrary standard, such as “right will be whatever makes me happy”?

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

The Problem of Evil

In the last post I mentioned a common argument put forward by atheists. If an all good and all powerful God exists, then he would not allow evil to exist. Evil does exist, and so an all good and all powerful God must not exist.

The fact that this is an unsound deductive argument is not the only problem it has. It is only on the basis of a theistic worldview, in which God exists and provides an objective moral standard, that we can call anything objectively evil.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, atheists can’t really speak about good and evil if they are to be consistent. For if there is no supreme standard of ‘good’ which would be God, then nothing can be rightly called ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ Everything just is and therefore any given human act such as murdering an old woman for the money in her purse or starving mentally ill people to death because they are inconvenient to have around cannot really be classified as ‘evil.’ You may not like their actions but if God does not exist you have no basis higher than your own private preferences for labeling them as ‘evil.’

In a naturalist universe, nothing exists but particular material things simply doing what they naturally do. The problem of evil can only be a problem with a theistic worldview. Within a theistic worldview one might ask the question: Since God is all good and all powerful, I wonder why he allows evil to exist as he does?

Atheists must assume the existence of God and of moral absolutes in order to even pose the problem of evil. How then can the problem of evil be used as an argument against God’s existence?

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Does the existence of evil prove the non-existence of a good God?

If an all good and all powerful God exists, then he would not allow evil to exist. Evil does exist, and so an all good and all powerful God must not exist.

This assertion is an unsound deductive argument. It’s unsound because it assumes the truth of a premise that cannot be known. It takes for granted that an all good and all powerful God could not or would not allow evil to exist even for a limited time. Since evil does exist, the God Christians and other believe in cannot exist. If it is true that an all good and all powerful God could not or would not allow evil to exist even for a limited period of time then of course the argument works.

How does the atheist know that an all good and all powerful God could have no possible reason for allowing evil to exist for a time? The atheist cannot know this. In fact, a good, loving, and all powerful God might conceivably have a number of reasons for allowing evil to exist for a time and apparently he does.

It may be hard for us to understand why God allows evil, but the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

What do Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot have in common? They were all atheists.

Atheists have used their amoral principles to wreak unthinkable violence against their fellow human beings around the world.

Joseph Stalin was a man committed to the dream of a civilization of power set free from the constraints of belief in God. Early in his life he had been a student preparing for ministry in the Russian Orthodox Church. He eventually came to reject God and all religion as the mere invention of man. Later in life he went on to build one of the first officially atheistic states in the world.

Stalin was probably personally responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than anyone who has ever lived. In the forced famines of 1932 he engineered to bring about the collectivization of Russian farming. It has been estimated the he purposely starved to death some seven million land owning farmers. Millions more were executed or taken to the gulags.

Mao Tse-Tung, the infamous Communist Chinese dictator, was a committed atheist – so committed, in fact, that he exerted the considerable might of the Chinese army and political apparatus to force, as far as he possibly could, all Chinese citizens under his regime into atheism.

Mao Tse-Tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of a quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime.

In Cambodia, under the dictator Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime, more than two million human beings were executed or worked to death by their atheist guards acting under orders from their atheist boss.

It would be dishonest to suggest that these dictators had no connection with their materialistic worldviews. Atheism as a worldview teaches us that right and wrong are a matter of subjective personal opinion – entirely relative and thus, gives us reason to treat others as a means to our ends. In essence, the naturalist worldview doesn’t teach us to be good.

How were Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot able to commit such horrible crimes? Because they viewed these human beings as the mere product of evolution. How can anything be wrong if God does not exist? We may not like what some have done. But how can it be objectively wrong?

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Adolf Hitler was clearly committed to a vision of the world that was essentially Darwinian, Nietzschean and atheistic.

Freidrick Nietzche, the father of modern atheism believed that man was an animal evolving from beast to what he referred to as the “Superman” A race of supermen unchained from the shackles of religion, belief in God and morality, who would use their intelligence and will to create their own world.

Adolf Hitler was clearly committed to a vision of the world that was essentially Darwinian and Nietzschean. Hitler had his own twisted version of Nietzsche’s “superman” – the infamous Aryan master race. He admired Nietzsche, read his work and visited the archives in Berlin where a photo was taken of him gazing up at the philosopher.

Hitler despised as did his atheist mentor, the core moral values of Christianity – goodness, mercy, love and forgiveness. Instead, he worshiped the gods of power and lived by a morality that was akin to Nietzache’s new ethic for a new age. He saw himself as implementing a Darwinian law of nature that would result in the elimination of the unfit and bring about a civilization fit for a master race.

In the atheist world view of nature, it is good for the strong to devour the weak, because that is how the evolution of species progresses. If human beings are nothing but accidents of chance and time, material substances and nothing more, why shouldn’t Hitler eliminate those he perceives to be inferior and weak?

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. The gas chambers of Auschwitz are the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment. The gas chambers were not prepared by some ministry in Berlin but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.

Although atheism need not necessarily result in immorality and violence, it certainly leads some adherents in that direction. It removed from consideration the existence of a good and loving God – and with him, any objective standard by which the actions or moral choices of another can be judged.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

“God is Dead” says Freidrich Nietzche, the father of modern atheism.

In the previous post I pointed out that if atheistic naturalism is true, ethics must therefore be personal and relative, that men and women, families and nations must simply choose for themselves what they will consider ‘right for them’ and ‘wrong for them’.

This thought seems harmless at first, but as you read through “The Godless Delusion” this harmless thought becomes very problematic.

Freidrich Nietzche, the son of a Lutheran minister, has been spoken of as the father of modern atheism. He came to reject Christianity and saw that atheism implied not only moral relativism but also the death of morality.

According to Nietzche, man is an animal evolving from beast to what he reffered to as the “Superman” A race of supermen unchained from the shackles of religion, belief in God and morality, who would use their intelligence and will to create their own world.

In the meantime, whatever stands in the way of this evolution must be obliterated. More than anything else, Christianity stands in the way, especially with its teachings about humility and compassion, ideals that Nietzsche detested. He asked the question, how can man erect a civilization of power on pathetic ideals about love, peace, and kindness? Christianity must be ruthlessly destroyed in order to make way for the race of supermen who would rise above Christian superstition about the God who isn’t there.

Once Nietzche’s ideas began seeping into European intellectual circles, things started heading downhill rapidly. These ideas coupled with Darwinism and other naturalist sources were instrumental in propelling Europe towards the worst era of violence it had ever experienced.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

How can atheists adequately account for the law of morality when according to their worldview, nothing exists except material things?

For the most part, atheists believe in a law of morality just like those who believe in a God. But according to the atheist world view where nothing exists but material things, what is the basis for believing in the existence of right and wrong? What are right and wrong? Are right and wrong material things? Are they natural objects in the natural world like flowers and rocks? Can you touch ‘rightness’ and how much does it weigh or how long is it?

If right and wrong are not natural objects in the natural world then what are they? Are they natural properties like the colour blue or the property of smoothness?

Right and wrong exist as standards above the mere preferences and tastes of cultures, societies and individuals. Atheists can not deny that they are universally perceived. But how can they adequately account for them according to their world view which insists that nothing exists except material things?

Christians believe that the laws of morality are non material moral properties that exist in the real world alongside natural objects, but that attach to actions rather than objects. The Christian worldview can account for the laws of morality because this view of the world includes the existence of non material spiritual entities like God, human souls and angels. But how could an atheist say this when he has already committed himself to a world view which essentially says that the natural universe is all there is?

There is absolutely no basis for anything like a moral law in a universe in which nothing exists but material substances. The preconditions for moral law simply do not exist in the naturalist worldview. There is no way to account for them.

For the atheist to be consistent, he must say that right and wrong do not really exist and that they are merely words individuals and societies have adapted to express their preferences. Ethics must therefore be personal and relative, that men and women, families and nations must simply choose for themselves what they will consider ‘right for them’ and ‘wrong for them’.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

God’s character provides the source for morality as well as the standard for moral law in the universe

Moral laws reflect the nature of who God is. God’s character provides the source for morality as well as the standard for moral law in the universe. Every human being is made in God’s image, like God, we are moral beings. It is no surprise that we know intuitively that right and wrong exist and are real. Right and wrong are not just words used to express our personal preferences but real fundamental moral laws that God has written on our very souls.

God is the perfection of goodness and it is in comparison with that perfect standard that we can measure all relative goodness. Without presupposing an absolute standard of ‘good’ there would be no way to discuss how near or far something is in relation to that standard.

When Christians speak about God being all good, it is not as though “right” and “wrong” are arbitrary concepts base on some arbitrary decision that God has made. Right and wrong reflect the nature, the moral character of God. God could not declare that murder, rape and lying are good because those things do not reflect his nature. On the other hand, honesty, peace and virtue are good things because they reflect the nature of God.

The instinct each person feels to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It’s God given because God is good and he wants you to know the truth by which you can live and experience happiness and peace.

When Jesus Christ commanded us to be good, kind, loving, just, merciful, patient and forgiving, he was saying: Live as God created you to live. Reflect his character of goodness and truth in you own actions. Be imitators of your Father in heaven.

The Christian theistic world view can account for the real existence of a moral law, as well as humanity’s universal recognition of that law.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

In the book "The Godless Delusion" one of the authors tells the story about an experience he had with an atheist professor of psychology.

The professor began by saying that right and wrong do not exist, they are merely cultural conventions, words societies use to describe what they approve and disapprove of. Take for example the Eskimo tribes in which the elderly are set on a block of ice and sent out into the ocean to starve to death or the primitive practice of cannibalism or the Indian practice of Sati in which many widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands. These are examples of how different cultures view right and wrong. For these people, these practices are good and right. It is their way, and who are we to speak against them?

If right and wrong really are merely subjective cultural conventions and really are relative from society to society as the naturalist (atheist) wordview tells us, then how could we ever say that one society was morally superior to another? We can not say that Hitler was wrong when he murdered six million Jews. All we can say is that we disagree with Hitler's views and that we don't like what he did.

Regardless of what some people say, we all believe in an objective law of morality. Even those who say that moral laws don't exist or morality is just relative from culture to culture actually show, by the way they think, speak and live that they really do believe in an objective moral law.

Even the atheist ethics professor believes in an objective law of morality. He immediately becomes a strict proponent of moral absolutes the moment soneone cuts in line in front of him at the checkout counter. "This isn't right! I was before you!" It will do no good to say to him at that moment, "Hey, morals differ from culture to culture, and who's to judge?"

The atheistic naturalist world view is not able to account for objective morality and our moral experiences as human beings. By contrast, the Christian theistic world view does provide a basis for objective morality.

The atheist knows that right and wrong are objectively real and he can't help his natural response to even a minor violation of the moral law. In his heart of hearts he knows it exists. God has inscribed an innate sense of justice on his very soul. The atheist can't erase is simply be telling himself over and over again that right and wrong are merely subjective social conventions. What ever he says be believes as an atheist, deep down, he cannot help but know the truth, even if he refusess to admit it to himself or anyone else.

Regardless of time and culture, people believe in an objective moral law.

Each of us demonstrate that we believe in a higher law of morality - something higher than our own opinions and preferences - something objective, beyond ourselves.

Atheists will typically respond that what we call 'right' and 'wrong' are merely cultural norms or societal conventions that have evolved over time. Subjective ideas of right and wrong that have come from the individual and which the group has agreed upon. They assert that the differences in morality from culture to culture and time to time proves the point.

But whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real 'right' or 'wrong' you will find that same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him, he will be complaining 'It's not fair, you promised.' Does this not demonstrate that all people regardless of time and culture believe in an objective moral law? Has there ever been a culture where breaking a promise was a virtue?

You might think you are justified in breaking a promise or that you haven't really broken a promise at all, but when the tables are turned you realise that your reasons don't hold water. Both parties know that it is objectively wrong to break a promise. The quarrel is not about the rightness or wrongness of breaking promises but about whether this law has been broken and whether the offender was justified in doing so.

From 'The Godless Delusion' by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley

Each of us continually demonstrate that we believe in a higher law of morality - something higher than our own opinions and preferences.

Everyone believes in right and wrong not merely as words we us to describe the things of which we approve or disapprove, or what we like or dislike, but as real standards that somehow exist in the real world. We demonstrate this belief continually in the way we speak.

Everyone has heard people quarrelling, they say things like...'That's my seat, I was there first'...'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'...'Give me a bit of your apple, I gave you some of mine'...'Come on, you promised.'... The person who makes these remarks is not merely saying that the other person's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other person to know about. Your companion seldom replies, 'To hell with your standard.' He nearly always tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standards, or that if it does, there is some special reason for it. It looks as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or good behaviour about which they agree. If they had no agreement about the 'rule of fair play' they might fight like animals but they would not be quarrelling in the human sense of the word.

Quarrelling means trying to show that the other person is in the wrong. There would be no sense in trying to do that unless you both had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a soccer player had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of soccer.

Christians believe that a personal God exists and has a particular nature and moral character. Moral laws reflect that nature of who God is. His character provides the source of morality as well as the standard for moral laws in the universe. Since every person is made in God's image, like God, we are moral beings. It's no wonder we know intuitively that right and wrong exist. It's no wonder we sense to the very core of our being that right and wrong are somehow "real things," not simply words we use to express our personal preferences. God has written these fundamental moral laws on our very souls.

From "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley

God's existence is clearly perceived in the things that have been made

For the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousoness, because that which may be known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18)

Notice that St Paul does not grant to the atheist that the evidence of God's existence is either ambiguous or equivocal. Rather, he insists that God's existence is clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

Whether or not someone is willing to admit it he 'gets it.' When he encounters nature's voice proclaiming the existence of the God who created it. It's not that God's existence is merely suggested through what has been made, or faintly hinted at. St Paul says it is clearly seen. In fact, he says God's existence and nature are so clearly recognisable that men and women who refuse to acknowledge him are without excuse.

All of creation cries out the existence and glory of God, so much so that in order to escape God, the unbeliever must engage in a massive and continual suppression of the evidences seen in his creation.

Whatever an atheist may say about the world, he is still a manifestation of the image and likeness of God. He bears in his own being the most powerful proofs of God's existence and information about his nature. If he closes his eyes to escape into the solitude of his own mind and heart, he is immediately confronted with the clearest of all evidences - his own being.

The atheist claims there is no God, but he has no choice but to live in the world God created, the real world, a world that calls out to him from every direction the truth of God's existence.

Taken from the book "The Godless Delusion," by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

Creation reveals the creator

Scripture teaches us that God exists and that God created everything in the cosmos.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... (Gen. 1:1, 26)

According to scripture, the atheist is also in the image and likeness of God. Whatever he may say about the world, he is still a human being created specifically to mirror the God who created him. He is an image, a likeness of God.

Scripture also teaches us that all creation gives evidence for God's existence.

The heavens are telling the glory of God: and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. (Psalm. 19:1)

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. (Romans 1:20)

It makes basic intuitive sense to think that a building will evidence the existence of its builder, so it makes basic intuitive sense to think that if God created the heavens and the earth, then all creation would evidence God's existence.

That which is created speaks of its creator.

Take, for example, the book "God Is Not Great," written by the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens. We should be able to agree that Hitchens' book makes the case for the existence of Hitchens. The book speaks of the existence of its author in every way as well as revealing something of his nature, character and personality.

Imagine for a moment that someone denied that Hitchens wrote the book. Imagine this person claimed that the book called "God Is Not Great" was just the result of an explosion in a print factory or the book was simply the accidental result of random processes acting upon random collections of elements. Can you imagine anyone wasting any time pondering the possibility that Christopher Hitchins did not write the book, which just happens to bear his name on its cover and in its copyright statement and happens to have his picture on the dust cover?

As a book tells you much about its author, so it is with the stars and planets, oceans and forests, animals and plants, and especially human beings, speak about its creator. Each of them individually and all of them corporately speak to us of God's existence. And, through their beauty and order, they tell us a great deal about what kind of person he is.

For the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousoness, because that which may be known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal pwerer and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what hs been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18)

The denial of God's existence leads to the complete disintegration of morality, meaning, human value and the possibility of knowledge.

Continuing on with the book "The Godless Delusion," the authors Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley outline the approach they will take in the following chapters to solve the problem of the godless delusion.

While the Christian worldview can account for and make sense of the most basic and important aspects of his/her experience as a human being the atheist worldview simply cannot. Naturalists who say that nothing exists but matter cannot make sense of realities such as the existence of right and wrong the possibility of knowledge, or the belief in human dignity freedom and personality. The authors hope to lead the atheist to see that he/she must in fact presuppose God's existence in order to make heads or tails of his/her experience as a human being.

God's existence alone provides the very preconditions of intelligible human experience while the denial of God's existence leads to the complete disintegration of not only morality, meaning and human value and dignity, but the possibility of knowledge itself. The atheist world view leads to foolishness. It leads to conclusions the atheist is not going to be willing or able to live with. The atheist must presuppose God's existence even to argue against it.

Science is a method for investigating the natural world while naturalism is a philosophy that says the natural world is all there is.

Naturalism is a philosophy which says that nothings exists outside of the natural universe. As I pointed out in the last post, naturalism has its own creation story. Over a period of time, the naturalist creation story has come to dominate in the academic realms, especially in the sciences. This has come about due to the erroneous idea that...


1. Since science has proven to be correct and successful in revealing the secrets of the universe.

2. And that science and naturalism are essentially the same thing.

3. Therefore, because science is true, naturalism must also be true.

4. Since naturalism is true then God is not true.


It is absolutely true that the scientific method has been demonstrated to be a trustworthy method of gaining information about the natural world. This is evident by the successes in the fields of medicine, engineering and technology.

The problem arises with the second assertion that science and naturalism are in some way to be equated, that the two are somehow the same thing. This is the point at which the argument fails. Science and naturalism are not the same thing.

Science is a method for investigating the natural world while naturalism is a philosophy that says the natural world is all there is.

The question could be asked: how does your investigation of the natural universe lead you to the conclusion that the natural universe is all there is?

Since science only studies the natural universe, how could science tell us anything about God or beings which live outside the natural universe? How could science deteremine that God does not exist if its domain is limited to the physical universe?

The question of whether God exists is strictly a philisophical question. It's answer cannot be determined by the use of the scientific method or scientific instruments. The fact that science has not stumbled over God in the forest means nothing at all with regard to the question of whether God exists. If God was a material substance it might, but he is not.


Notes taken from the book 'The Godless Delusion' by Patrick Madrid and Keneth Hensley.

The Battle of Two Creation Stories: The Christian Story and Atheistic Naturalism.

I've been reading a book called the 'The Godless Delusion' by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensly. I wanted to share with you some of the insights and arguments presented in the book.


The Christian Story

As you probably know, the Christian story starts with 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' etc etc.

This world view teaches that an infinite personal God exists and created all things. We are not merely bodies but embodied souls, spirits made in God's very image and likeness, to be his sons and daughters, intended to share eternally in all that he possesses. As God's children, we have meaning and purpose that extend far beyond the few years we may have in this world. While here, we must live in our Father's love and in accordance with the moral laws he has written on our very hearts and revealed to us through his Son, Jesus Christ.

For the past seventeen centuries this has been the story which has helped Western society answer the most basic questions about where we came from, why we are here, how are we to view ourselves and how we are to live our lives.


Naturalism's Story

Recently in the West, another story has come to challenge the place of the Christian theistic story. It goes something like this. 'In the beginning was the natural universe matter and energy and nothing more.'

According to this story, we and all living things have been created by the earth. We are the result of an entirely natural evolutionary process operating within an entirely natural universe. God does not exist, and we were not created in his image and likeness. There are no spirits or souls.

The atheist asserts that nothing exists outside the natural universe but how is it that he/she knows this?