In order to properly respond to Sarah and Mark, I would need to understand how each of their worldviews define God, not just how they as individuals do. For example, leading Secular Humanist Corliss Lamont states that "Humanism...considers all forms of the supernatural as myth" (Noebel 60). Lamont also declares that "intellectually there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing a supernatural Creator or First Cause behind the material universe...the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods" (Noebel 60). Marxists also hold to atheism. In fact, "God is considered an impediment, even an enemy, to a scientific...outlook" (Noebel 65). Now that both Secular Humanism's and Marxism's ideas about God have been firmly defined, I can now proceed to formulate a response to Sarah's and Mark's ideas.
The first ideas I will address belong to Sarah and Secular Humanism, as well as Marxism's and Secular Humanism's shared belief that Man created God himself. Again, Secular Humanism sees the possibility of the existence of a spiritual realm as nonexistent because of the fact that Man is the one who imagined the existence of God or gods in the first place. According to this logic, since Man can create God, Man becomes the beginning and ultimate end of all reality. If this is so, then, why is there evil and suffering in the world? Is Man not capable of fixing these problems with his brilliant imagination and borderline divine efforts? Obviously, this is not true, as international conflicts such as the wars in the Middle East and even areas like Libya have still torn these areas to shreds with global peace organizations' best efforts to ameliorate it all (i.e. the United Nations). This fact makes it even more depressing that Man is the answer to everything in the universe. We cannot rely on our own brains and imaginative faculties to "save ourselves," as atheistic views call for. This idea can be summed up in the image of a group of puzzle pieces that have come to life. Even though each puzzle piece would be capable of thought, speech, etc., they cannot see the whole picture they are meant to fit into. Their limited knowledge, therefore, stops them from solving their problem of fitting in a way to make a whole picture. Logical thinking would show that obviously, the puzzle pieces would never be able to successfully create (even within their own minds, no matter how hard they tried) the puzzle maker who can fit them together and see the whole picture from a higher vantage point. This is the situation with Man and his relation to God. If Man's imagination cannot even solve the planet's various problems, there is no possible way that a holy and righteous God can be fully thought out and invented by the human mind.
In response to Mark's assertion about evolving past our "need" for God, I have several examples to counter Marxism with that even coincide with the world of science--the "god" of Marxism. As stated before, Marxism sees God as an impediment to an "objective" scientific worldview. Mark gets his idea of "evolving" past our need for God from Darwinian evolution, a major scientific viewpoint that exists today as the antithesis of Creationism. Needless to say, evolution is one of the key principles of Marxist science. In response to this, I would say that Man himself has not "evolved", or even improved, in the mental realm, to the point of being able to fully control his own body. For example, it is impossible for scientists to create a cell from anything other than preliminary cell cultures that came from another living being, not the lab. Even if they could create cells, these scientists would never be able to give the cell life, whereas God breathed life into Adam, the first man. Plus, even if evolution were true, and humankind is ultimately descended from random chance and some inorganic chemicals, that would mean raw probability and some dead particles are still more intelligent than any man alive. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that God is the only One capable of keeping scientific balance in both our bodies and the world at large, something that Man cannot claim to ever be able to do. Therefore, it is impossible for a Designer/Creator God to not exist. Now, for a more serious example. Let us assume, for a moment, that Mark had been stricken with cancer, a so far incurable disease. Because of his "evolution past the need for God", Mark has nothing to rely on but mathematical figures that could still be inaccurate. On top of that, he has no source of comfort for his own mind except for the hope that the statistics might be wrong and he could be part of one of the percentages of cancer victims that survive. But since Man and his secular version of science cannot perform miracles either, Mark is still hoping in vain on this point. Ultimately, Mark would be forced to rely on inaccuracy to save him, which, for the Marxist, is unthinkable and probably even comparable to believing in a religion.
Atheism causes its victims to feel better about his or herself, on account of him or her being "God", or at least capable of manipulating His existence for their benefit. This gives atheists a false sense of control for their own life, which really centers around the real "puppet master"--Satan. For people such as Sarah and Mark, who hang on to atheism and reject any spiritual reality, I have one final question: Is the pride that atheism gives you so great that you are willing to forfeit your soul to eternity away from God in Hell, even if you were to find out that there is even a one percent chance of its existence?
No comments:
Post a Comment