On the Atheists’ Demand for Evidence

When asked why they do not believe in God, a common atheist answer is that there is insufficient evidence, or more commonly, there is no evidence at all. In one online conversation I saw recently, one atheist said of God “There is no evidence he exists, and until he is proven I must reject the god hypothesis.” Another replied “I can’t accept the unsubstantiated existence of any gods,  same as the existence of magic or ghosts.”  Such answers are common.

Modern atheists imply that if there were enough evidence that God existed, they would believe. They never seem to have a problem with the evidence for black holes and null sets, but they always seem to tell us that the evidence for God is insufficient or nonexistent. I have even had atheists tell me that they have found sufficient reason to deny that effects must have a cause, but not enough evidence that God exists.

David Berlinski, in his pointed response to modern atheists, The Devil’s Delusion, pokes a logical pin into the atheist balloon. He starts quickly:

It is wrong, the nineteenth-century British mathematician W. K. Clifford affirmed, “always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” I am guessing that Clifford believed what he wrote, but what evidence he had for his belief, he did not say.

With one swipe of the broadsword, Berlinski shows that atheist logic seems to run much stronger one way than the other.

It would seem quite reasonable to only believe in things where there is sufficient evidence. No one in the academic conversation would ask that anyone do so, certainly not Christian apologists. The way the conversations typically go with most atheists, however, there never seems to be enough evidence for God. Rational beings, they claim, never believe in anything without sure, solid, hard evidence. They claim they never believe in anything without it, even to the point of denying belief entirely, only accepting demonstrations of evidence. As the Clifford quote states, atheists always everywhere  demand sufficient evidence. But Berlinski’s logic pin is close by, ready to pop another inflated claim.

The problem, Berlinski says, is that “the concept of sufficient evidence is infinitely elastic.” It would seem that a reasonable person would apply the same requirement on all situations, demanding the same level of evidence for all things. But in almost all other situations, no one does. Berlinski explains:

What a physicist counts as evidence is not what a mathematician generally accepts. Evidence in engineering has little to do with evidence in art, and while everyone can agree that it is wrong to go off half-baked, half-cocked, or half-right, what counts as being baked, cocked, or right is simply too variable to suggest a plausible general principle.

Two of the atheists’ fundamental problems seems to be a demand for evidence that goes beyond the field of study, and a demand that the object itself be the sole basis for conclusions. As Berlinski points out, objects or facts by themselves cannot be the basis for any conclusions or belief. As an example, he uses the question of whether we should believe that neutrinos have mass:

A neutrino by itself cannot function as a reason for my belief. It is a subatomic particle, for heaven’s sake. What I believe is a proposition, and so an abstract entity–that neutrinos have mass. How could a subatomic particle enter into a relationship with the object of my belief? But neither can a neutrino be the cause of my belief. I have, after all, never seen a neutrino: not one of them has ever gotten me to believe in it. The neutrino, together with almost everything else, lies at the end of an immense inferential trail, a complicated set of judgements.

Believing as I do that neutrinos have mass–it is one of my oldest and most deeply held convictions–I believe what I do on the basis of the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best effort by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives, The neutrino has nothing to do with it.

Within mathematical physics, the theory determines the evidence, not the other way around.

When considering neutrinos, somewhere in the long inferential chain is a series of inferential steps. Each of these steps requires a certain degree of trust and confidence that the method being used is valid. I strongly suspect that if the question about the mass of a neutrino had implications about the moral life of the person running the experiment, the outcome would be not be pure logic, but fraught with emotion. If neutrinos having mass had implications for our sex lives or whether we should be more honest on our taxes, there would be a much higher degree of evidence being demanded for the conclusion. There would be a large number of otherwise logical people telling us that we have no basis for believing that neutrinos have mass, and that reasonable people ought to demand more evidence.

At the very least, we must agree that most conclusions rarely  add up like a math formula, and almost always require some logical inference.

But what of the claim that the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for magic, ghosts, and the like? I would simply ask: Really? Are you actually saying there is none at all?  Are you truly demanding the same degree of proof for all your other beliefs? Like the mathematician Clifford, what evidence do you have for holding the conclusion you do about the level of proof required?

My atheist friend, I submit that you are not as rigorous of a skeptic as David Hume, who went to great lengths to do exactly what you are trying to do. He once said this: “When we leave our closet, and engage in the common affairs of life, its conclusions seem to vanish, like the phantoms of the night on the appearance of the morning; and it is difficult for us to retain even that conviction, which we had attained with difficulty.” In other words, we ultimately have to put our little game back in the closet and return to normal, where we know we cannot doubt everyday things as severely as we doubt God, or we would not get through an hour of our life.

The atheist is therefore proven to apply his demand for evidence unequally. While worshipping at the alter of logic and reason, he falls upon it.



Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Skepticism | 6 Comments

Another Atheist Converts to Christianity

Another atheist has converted to Christianity. My atheists friends will no doubt be quick to tell me that we do not add up conversions to get to the truth, and they are correct. Surely there are also people who were raised non-atheist who become atheists. Nevertheless, you can read the story of this former-atheist-now-Christian here.

The interesting fact of this particular person, Leah Libresco, is that she was raised atheist from birth, her parents were both atheist, and religion was not in her upbringing. “I grew up on Long Island, where most of the people I knew were non-religious Jews. So, religion was so far from most of our minds…”  And as she explains, “There wasn’t really a time when I wasn’t an atheist. My parents are both atheists, so that’s how I was raised.

Further, she was educated, having graduated from Yale university with a degree in political science, a subject that often has a clash of ideas. More surprisingly, Libresco was a writer for the liberal Huffington Post and a rather popular atheist blogger.

What was the main idea that got through to her? The moral argument for the existence of God. You can find out more about the moral argument here and here.

Popular atheists today tell us that people like Libresco are not supposed to happen. Atheists like to think that all people of faith check their brains at the door. Yet if we just look around, we find many thinking people becoming believers in Jesus. You can find more atheists who have converted here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What About the Census in Luke 2?

Luke Chapter 2 includes a statement about the birth of Jesus. In Luke 2, it says “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town.”

As usual, skeptics are not far behind, and they question the validity of Luke’s account. One recent skeptic I encountered gives a typical series of objections:

  1. Only two of the books of the Bible mention Jesus’ birth. None of the others mention it, not even once.
  2. Luke was writing nearly 80 years after the events, and didn’t know he would be fact-checked on the events.
  3. There is no record of Augustus Caesar sending a decree for everyone to be taxed.
  4. Sending illiterate people back to their ancestral home would have been impossible.
  5. Quirinius did a census, but it was in 6 to 7 AD. It was just a local Judean census, not an empire-wide one.
  6. Matthew says this all happened in the days of Herod. (2;1). Herod died in 4 BC, 11 years before the census was conducted.


This is a tired old objection, and has been answered many times, yet the objection never seems to get old. Therefore it deserves an answer.

First, the previous post described the overall historical accuracy of Luke’s writings. (see here)  Luke has been shown true in a large number of dates, places, people, and geography, therefore we should, at a minimum, consider Luke to be as valid of a source as any in ancient history. We have no a priori grounds to hold any other single ancient source above Luke. (for more on the historical accuracy of Luke, see here, and here, and here.)

Second, Luke 2:2 gives us a key, when he says it was “the first registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.” Logically, if there is a first, there was at least two, or the sentence makes no sense. Modern skeptics seem to not deal with the brute fact that the language here specifically mentions the census happening prior to another. To be valid, the skeptic must give a rational explanation for Luke’s language in this sentence.

Third, the Greek here allows for the phrase to read, “before Quirinius was governing Syria.” In this translation, the main criticism of the skeptics becomes moot. Again, to be considered valid, the skeptics must have an explanation that deals with the language in the sentence and removes such an easy explanations as this.

Fourth, note the language in this verse does not say Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of the census, but was governing Syria. Perhaps a fine distinction, but important nevertheless, for Luke was quite careful to list the exact titles of about a dozen officials, as the list in the previous post above demonstrates. The general description here of “governing Syria” and not “governor of Syria” is striking by its difference. So the typical translation of “This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria” is specific language that would indicate that Quirinius was acting as a governor, but did not have the title of governor. This interpretation aligns with what we know from secular history, which is that the previous governor, Varus, had caused some degree of unrest in the region, and may have been viewed by Rome as needing help. Meanwhile, Quirinius was indeed in the region having military successes. Much of the critics’ energy is spent on a misguided attempt to refute something that the Bible does not say, namely that Quirinius was governor twice.

Fifth, the British Museum has among its documents a Papyrus 904 which describes a census taken in 104 AD. The document reads:

“From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out  . . . ” (1)

Note the document here commands all men who are currently “living outside of their districts” to travel back “to their own homeland.” Note that the command does not tell people to return to their homes, but to leave where they are currently living and return to their homelands. We could speculate to the extent of how far this may be, but the brute fact remains that here we have a corroborating source that commands people to travel away from where they are living now back to where they were originally from.

Modern skeptics find this idea to be so disruptive that it would put the entirety of the Roman Empire in turmoil. I submit that such a view is reading modern immigration into ancient times. People of that era did not relocate as much as we do in modern times. For the relatively few people who had moved, returning to the place of their ancestral homeland would not disrupt the entire empire.

Sixth, some of the skeptics’ criticisms can be dismissed outright, since they are closer to a “poisoning the well” fallacy than an argument. In one argument, a skeptic claimed that Jesus’ birth was only mentioned in two books, hinting that there was therefore reason to doubt. How many times would a fact have to be mentioned for it to be true? A single instance is sufficient. Further, other places do speak of Jesus’ birth: Phil. 2:7 speaks specifically of Jesus birth, and John 8:41 alludes to it. These are in addition to the many places that speak of Jesus having come in the flesh and being son of man. This criticism is an excuse, not a logical argument based on evidence.

Another attempt to poison the well is the date of Luke’s writings. The date of the writing is not as important as the date of the sources. Luke tells us that he investigated everything carefully (1:3, NASB), interviewed primary sources (1:1,2) and wrote down what they said (1:2,3). Luke tells us that he got some information directly from Mary (2:19). Anyone who was an educated Greek physician who knew he was writing history would have access to the temple records and the eyewitnesses. Luke tells us that the many sources he quotes had already documented them and handed them to him at the time of his writing (1:3). We are hard pressed to believe that any mother would forget the details of her first and most miraculous child’s birth.

Seventh, regarding whether or not Augustus Ceasar would issue such a decree, or whether a record of such a decree exists. As we have shown, Luke is as credible a source as any in ancient history, even more so than most. So we do have a record, in Luke. Next, registrations were done periodically, and when they were, it was not necessary that it be signed directly by Augustus himself. If any level of the Roman government decreed it, it could be said that Caesar decreed it. Such is done routinely today. When anyone in the executive branch of the US government does something, it is said to have been done “by the White House.” When the President’s press secretary speaks, the reports say that “the President said.” Still further, this is at best an argument from silence. It is not logical to say that because we have no independent corroboration from multiple sources, something did not happen.

Eighth, a Latin inscription was discovered that may indicate that Quirinius was Governor of Syria twice. A fragment of a stone was unearthed near Rome in 1764 that some notable scholars hold to be speaking of Quirinius being Governor twice (Sanclemente, Mommsen, and Ramsay). The inscription is not entirely clear as to its meaning, since part of it is missing. However, part of the inscription is missing and the evidence for it being Quirinius is debated.

However, in support of this, Geisler claims the following:

 William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to A.D. 6. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses, (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?) there was in fact a census between 10 and 5 B.C. Periodic registrations took place every fourteen years. Because of this regular pattern of census taking, any such action was regarded as the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census may have been instigated by a local governor. There­fore, Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of Augustus. (2)

Lastly, even if Luke were incorrect about this point, it does not prove what the skeptics seem to claim. If Luke were wrong, the most that would be lost would be the Bible’s inerrancy on this one point. While inerrancy is important, and I hold to inerrancy, this argument leaves the larger questions untouched. There are many liberal Christians who deny inerrancy, but still believe that God exists and the Bible teaches spiritual truth. The skeptics seem to think that if they find a few faults in the Bible, then they have somehow disproven the whole of theism in general and Christianity in particular. In reality, there are no errors in the Bible, but even if there were, the logic of the skeptics does not follow. We cannot dismiss all of Luke nor all of the Bible, let alone the existence of God, with a few missed facts, especially not just one.


In summary, we can safely conclude the following:

  1. Luke is proven in other passages to be a careful and accurate historian. Luke had access to written records and eyewitnesses who could have informed him of the facts. We should accept his writings about the census to be accurate until proven otherwise, and should hold Luke’s writings equal to, if not superior to, all other ancient writings.
  2. Luke never claims that Quirinius was Governor twice. He says the Quirinius was governing Syria. He could have done so without the official title.
  3. The language of Luke 2:2 allows for the census to be before Quirinius was governing Syria.
  4. People moving back to their homeland to be registered was done, is not as disruptive as critics claim, and could have been done here.
  5. The critics must account for the language that Luke uses when he specifically tells us that this was a first census during the time of Quirinius, which means there had to be at least two.

In the end, the Bible is again proven true and we can trust what it tells us.



(1)(from http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/quirinius.htm, accessed 12/23/16; for full translation see http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html#2, accessed 12/23/16.)

(2)(https://www.jashow.org/articles/bible/reliability-of-the-bible/alleged-errors-in-the-bible/alleged-errors-in-luke/, accessed 12/25/16)

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Historical Details in Luke & Acts

In the next post, we will consider the census described in Luke chapter 2. Before we do so, we need to give some space to the overall accuracy of the author’s writings as a whole.

Before we can rightly consider a single question in one verse, we must consider Luke’s writings as a whole. Throughout the Gospel of Luke and his other book, Acts of the Apostles, Luke sprinkles a great number of details. The vast majority of these details are minute and have no bearing on the overall spiritual point to the story. For example, do the following really matter to the overall message of the Bible?

  • When Peter knocks on a door, the name of the girl who answered the door was Rhoda (Acts 12:13)
  • Paul was joined in one of his journeys by Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus (Acts 20:4).
  • Paul and Luke waited three months, then sailed on a ship named “Twin Brothers” (Acts 28:11)

Further, Luke gives a very large number of details that can be historically corroborated by external sources. A few of these details include:

  • Correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5).
  • The correct family name of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7).
  • The proper port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (Acts 13:13).
  • Correct identification of the two gods associated with Lystra, Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:12).
  • Correct titles of the colony magistrates (16:20+).
  • Proper title of “politarch” for the city rulers (17:6).
  • Correct title for a member of the court (Aereopogite) (17:34)
  • Correct identification of Gallio as proconsul (18:12).

Colin Hemer’s book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History lists over 80 details like these, all of which are facts that can be independently corroborated by geography and secular history. The list includes distances, wind directions, nautical terms, local geography, and the like. (for more of the list, see here.)  In the gospel, Luke 3:1-3 mentions details purposely designed to place the reader into a specific date and location:

  • Fifteenth year of Tiberius Ceasar
  • Pontius Pilate governor of Judea
  • Herod tetrarch of Galilee
  • Herod’s brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis
  • Lysanias tetrarch of Abiline
  • Annias and Caiphas high priests
  • The region around the Jordan

If one were writing a story with a purely spiritual point about getting closer to God, these details not only have no purpose, but seem to get in the way. These details seem to have nothing to do with a spiritual relationship to God, building of a church organization, or giving pastoral advice to a congregation. Their only purpose would be to accurately record history.

The large amount of historical and geographical detail mentioned in Luke and Acts is significant. The rest of the book is accurate enough that when we encounter a question, we should give the author the benefit of the doubt, or at least begin with a premise that when we encounter a fact in Luke’s writings, we should give the author equal footing with other historians. Skeptics, because of the personal moral implications of the Bible being true, often hold the Bible to a different standard than other historical claims.

When we encounter the registration in Luke 2, we should at least begin with holding Luke on neutral footing with other historical documents, and be very cautious before we dismiss his details.

The next post will look in detail at the census in Luke 2.

Posted in Bible, Skepticism | 4 Comments

If We Communicate Meaningful Messages, Atheism is False

Atheists are fond of telling us that we do not have free will. Atheist writer Sam Harris has made a book-length explanation of why he believes all human thoughts and actions are predetermined. In his book Free Will he states “One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next–a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please–your brain has already determined what you will do.” (p.9) Further, the Center For Naturalism tells us that we are “fully caused” and “since we see that we aren’t the ultimate originators of ourselves or our behavior, we can’t take ultimate credit or blame for what we do.” (see here and here for responses)

The atheist naturalists are trying to tell us that all actions in the universe are caused by natural physical effects and forces, such as our interactions with friction, electromagnetism, heat, and gravity. There is no mind with free thoughts or free will, only a brain that is determined to do what it does by a complex series of physical and chemical cause and effect. To the atheist naturalist, we have no free will, we have no ability to originate thoughts. They tell us that we cannot begin a thought at all, for all our thoughts are merely effects of natural forces that we have no control over. Free will and free thought are an illusion. As the Center For Naturalism explains, “We don’t have souls that continue after death. Instead, we are fully physical creatures, fully caused to be who we are. We don’t have free will in the sense of being able to choose or decide without being fully caused in our choices or decisions.” (see http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/descriptions.htm)

The atheist naturalists must hold this view, for they fully understand that if we have freedom of choice, we must be responsible for our moral actions, and morality must be reduced from a moral law to a physical force. Moral laws have moral law givers, and we cannot have one of those, can we? Further, the ability of a human to generate an original thought would mean something besides physics and chemistry exists. Even a weak human mind cannot be allowed in the atheists’ world, for they want to believe that humans must be only driven by physics and chemistry, not by anything resembling a spirit.

The atheist pays a high price to hold this view.  The atheist tells us that all human sense of having a choice is an illusion. You just think you have a choice of whether to continue reading this paragraph, when in reality whatever you do is predetermined. If you decide to stop or if you decide to continue, you were caused to do so. You do not have a choice as to whether to eat that chocolate cake or pass it up, for all your actions are caused. Your choice to do an act of kindness or cruel torture is actually just an illusion, for whatever you decide is actually not your choice, but a result of physical and chemical forces beyond your control. The Center For Naturalism tells us “responsibility for their character and behavior isn’t ultimately theirs, but is distributed over the many factors that created them. And after all, were we given their environmental and genetic conditions, we would have become what they are, and acted just as they did: there but for circumstances go I.”

But the price gets even higher and the bill harder to pay.  If none of our choices are due to free will, but all determined by the many factors that caused them, then all the messages in the thoughts are not truly messages at all, for they were never thought in the first place.

A bit of communication theory is in order. Standard communication model goes something like this:

  1. A sender conceives a message.
  2. The sender encodes the message. (puts it into language, symbols, words, etc.)
  3. The sender sends the message.
  4. The receiver receives the message. (reads the book, listens to the words, etc.)
  5. The receiver decodes the message.  (understands the message)

This communication model of sending and receiving a message is used to explain all communication.

However, the atheist now has to tell us that through all the communication that we think we are doing, there is no message there at all. No communication can happen, for there is no meaning at all. The “message” that we thought we were thinking is not truly a message, but merely the equivalent of an electromagnetic force. If indeed we do not have free will, then we cannot even do step 1 of the model. If we have no free will, we cannot conceive of a message, for there is no message there to conceive. If all of our choice is actually an illusion, a predetermined firing of neurons in our brain, no message can exist because no meaning is there. One domino falling and knocking over the next domino creates no data — it is just an effect.

I am reminded of the atheist I once knew who was a PhD candidate in biology. I asked him if there was information in DNA. His response was “It is sort of information.” He was fudging. Well, there is no fudging in Sam Harris’ book, for he makes it quite clear that our brains determine what we will do, and free thought is an illusion. If this is so, then the mind can think of no message, but is actually just outputting what it was caused to output. One neuron fires because the one before it fired, and there is no true meaning there at all. If our choices and thoughts are caused by genetics and physical forces, as Harris so quickly tells us, then there is no thought there to encode into a message.

The atheist naturalist has spent quite a bit of ink and warm air trying to convince us that nature has no intelligent design because the design is simply not there. Richard Dawkins tells us that we must continually remind ourselves that nature has but the appearance of design, but design does not actually exist.

The trouble is that in communication, the message has design by definition. Everyone knows that messages have information. Books, phone calls, drunken arguments, love letters, and computer code all have information, and we know that they do. There is no real denying that messages have information and that humans communicate meaning to each other. You may disagree with my conclusions, but surely you will not  hold that the sentence you are reading has no information or meaning at all. We all know that information exists and is communicated in a variety of forms. This is undeniable, for to deny meaning is to make a sentence that communicates meaning.

Well, if communication happens, and information exists to be communicated, then something exists besides physics and chemistry. If we do indeed communicate messages, then there must be a message to communicate, a meaning generated somewhere, and encoded into language or Morse code or smoke signals. Atheist Richard Dawkins tells us that we dance to our DNA and have no real control over our actions. He tells us plainly that there is no meaning anywhere in the universe. He gave a speech on the mall in Washington where he told us “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Richard, Sam, really? No purpose? Nothing but blind, indifferent forces? Such a large price to pay, giving up all communication. But we all know there is meaning — to deny there is meaning is to make a meaningful denial.

Therefore if communication, then atheism and naturalism are false. It is much more reasonable to read the words that God has communicated to us in the Bible: “ Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)


Posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Philosophy | 6 Comments

The Problem of Beauty

Most Christian apologists and skeptics have heard of the problem of evil. Almost all people at one time or another scream out in pain asking “If God is real and good, why did this evil thing happen?” Many have also heard of the argument that the existence of any morality anywhere is a demonstration that God exists and materialism is false.

Less common is the argument from beauty, or more precisely the problem of beauty. Beauty being a problem is counter-intuitive. If evil is a problem, would it not be the case that beauty was expected, perhaps the norm?

If God does not exist, then all is reduced to matter and energy. Things just are, and have no transcendent qualities. We might have the idea that something is farther or closer, or redder or bluer, or louder or softer, but beauty and ugliness are qualities that do not come from physical or chemical facts about the object. Beauty is altogether other. It must come from a source that is other than the physical or chemical facts about the thing.

Of course we may disagree on what is beautiful, and some may be so overcome with ugliness that they do not see beauty at all. Ugliness, however, is a lack of beauty, and if we admit ugliness exists at all, we are back to the existence of beauty.

While we may disagree on what is beautiful, if we hold that anything is beautiful, we have admitted that the world contains a quality we call beauty. Beauty in a mountain, flower, or music does not help us reproduce, feed ourselves, or stay warm in winter. Therefore what purpose is beauty?

Since few will admit that no beauty exists in any form, and if we admit that something is indeed beautiful, we now have an external standard or quality that is wholly separate from pure physics, chemistry, matter, or energy. Further, since we can recognize more beautiful and less beautiful, we now have an external standard of beauty that is separate from ourselves and the thing that contains the beauty. This we call God.

Keep in mind we are not measuring length, counting decibels, comparing frequencies, or comparing hues and shapes. Such things are ultimately dry. Telling me that you have counted the number of shades in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel does not tell me that it has beauty, for beauty is something different than any calculation. I will not argue with you what is beautiful, but I will challenge you to give me a source for beauty that is pure fact and measurement. From where comes this concept we call beauty? Not from calculations in physics.

We are saying there is something more, something real we call beauty. If God did not exist, then we are left with physics and chemistry. We are left with measurements of hues and frequencies and lengths. We all know there is more, something qualitative that contains an element of beauty. The materialist has no source for beauty, and to say it is a psychological illusion is not convincing, for we all know beauty and ugliness exist. The materialist has no source for beauty, and therefore beauty is a problem.

The Christian has a very reasonable answer for the source of beauty. Just as the beautiful mind of a painter works beauty into a painting, or the great mind of a composer works beauty into a song, a beautiful Creator worked beauty into the fabric of creation.



Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Can Science Truly Enrich and Liberate, or Is Something Else Needed Also?

In David Berlinski’s book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, the author attacks some of the sacred temples of science. He quotes the summary of science given by the National Science Foundation: “Science extends and enriches our lives, expands our imagination, and liberates us from the bonds of ignorance and superstition.”

This is a grand claim. Science, when it claims to exist purely and entirely within the bounds of naturalism, has no external context outside of pure naturalism. Yet in the statement above, pure science can cause subjective value changes such as enriching one’s life and expanding (and presumably stimulating) people’s imaginations. We must ask a few questions:  What categories of science we must study to learn about enrichment and imagination?  How can the measurement of facts and data cause this enrichment?  Are there no external, non-scientific facts that are influencing the goals of science?  It would seem that the atheist scientist is sneaking something very large into the side door without very many people realizing it.

Berlinski points out the following:

Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate a unexpected ability to play the violin. This is a question that Darwinian biology has not yet answered.

Berlinski then notes that the eleventh century philosopher Al-Ghazali recognized such problems well before the modern movement of atheists with attitudes on parade, before the so-called enlightenment or age of reason. The point made by Al-Ghazali was that the naturalists’ system is limited to what we understand about the world. Yet the human intellect is dependent on the  body while our understanding of the body is dependent on the intellect, and all this in a purely physical and chemical world. Is not our understanding of the natural world limited by the natural world itself? How is the atheist scientist to get out of this circle into a realm of objective, non-brain dependent areas such as enrichment and imagination? Somehow the atheist scientist must start with a world of measuring quantity by observation and eventually get to the concepts of better and worse, and place them on a standard that is independent of anyone’s opinion. A very large set of values has been snuck in the side door.

To most of those in science, these are questions that do not fit into the world. The reason the atheist scientist does not ask them is not due to a preconceived determination to avoid such questions, but because the values attached to such things as enrichment and better and worse are so engrained into our world that they are just assumed to be true. Who would question the values of enrichment, imagination, better, and worse?

Yet these are the very concepts involved in religion, the very thing that the atheist scientist has set up to destroy with the code words “liberates us from the bonds of ignorance and superstition.”

The statement made by the National Science Foundation has the end of science being enrichment, expansion, and liberation. These are excellent goals and certainly we should support the advancement of them in the spirit that science intends. We should vote to increase these goals and not vote for ignorance and superstition. Science has helped to bring us all the comforts of modern technology.  Yet these goals are not scientific concepts, not things that can be attained without the values that are introduced by something outside of science. The atheist Darwinian certainly has to do mental gymnastics to get them into a system purely filtered by survival. Science therefore is not a be-all, end-all system that answers all questions, but is rather a very valuable area of study that fits into a larger system that studies such things as enrichment, expansion, and liberation.

So we must conclude that the world of values exists. We also know that the values that Jesus introduced are still the best, those of putting God and others above yourself.





Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment