Posted in Apologetics, Existence of God, Metaphysics

“Something” or “Nothing”?

Posted on by Mac Deaver

The issue of “origin” as a concept has to begin somewhere. From whence did everything that is arrive? What is the source of all that we experience on earth? Ultimately, we are going to have to face two theoretical possibilities. Either there was a point at which there was “nothing,” or there has never been a point at which there was “nothing.” But before we go further, let us make sure that we are all on the same page regarding what nothing “is.” Look at those last quotation marks. They indicate that the very concept of “is” is opposed to the very concept of “nothing.” If we say that nothing is so and so, we are trying to give nothing some sort of ontological or “being” status, which by definition it simply cannot have. Nothing is not something. Nothing has no characteristics or qualities. Nothing is void of everything. It is the absence of anything and everything. It is the negation of all being. And by “being,” we mean existence at its most fundamental ontological level. If “nothing” were to be the absolute ultimate ontological condition at a given point, then we as men could not “think” it. As humans we cannot live with nothing and our minds are not equipped to even clearly grasp the meaning of the term we choose to describe as the absolute ontological contradiction to “being.” We have to think of “nothing” as a “something” even to bring it forward as a concept for discussion. Isn’t that amazing? And isn’t that insightful?

So, when we talk about “nothing” as a theoretical possibility regarding origin, we are having to intellectually squirm around in the effort to make sense of that which we are trying to describe. It is hard for a finite mind to get hold of the concept of nothing. It would do well for atheists to contemplate this point the next time they criticize the concept of eternal “something”. As humans we can only contemplate “nothing” as a topic from the background of the something that already impresses itself constantly on our minds. The backdrop of the discussion of “nothing” exists as a “something”. It cannot happen any other way. Since a human mind is certainly “something,” then we can only begin to attempt to fathom the concept of nothing via something, that is, our human minds. Minimally, the existence of at least the human mind is always the ontological presupposition to the discussion of “nothing”. Without our minds, there is no discussion, there is no issue, there is no controversy about the ultimate origin of all there is. So either “something” or “nothing” as the ultimate ontological explanation for all else is only relevant to a mind.

Now, just what does that insight tell us? It tells us that “nothing” can only be thought about by “something”! The approach to the topic of “nothing” can be made only by a mind. But a mind must exist before the concept can be thought. It is, then, impossible for “nothing” to be an intellectual category of existence all by itself. It can only exist in some sense as someone’s thought. If there were no thinker, then “nothing” could be thought or mentally produced as a concept. If there were no thinker, “nothing” could ever be known to be the ultimate ontological condition. If there were no thinker, “nothing” could never be discovered to be the ultimate ontological condition. “Nothing” as a concept only exists in a mind. Without a mind, there is no “nothing” to be thought or discussed. If “nothing” were (and without an eternal Mind) to be the ultimate ontological condition, then that “nothing” would have to continue as the ontological state. Out of nothing, nothing comes! That is, ontologically speaking, something cannot come from nothing! It is irrational to attempt to contradict that basic truth.

Think about it this way. Non-being cannot “be”. Non-being is not being. And not-being cannot be an existing ontological category that permits exploration or discovery as an existent category can. This means, then, that when in language we attempt to discuss the concept of “nothing,” that we can only do so by approximation. We can approximate the proposed ontological category of “nothing” only by language accommodation. But we can never actually get our minds around “absolute nothing,” because a mind can only think of “something”. That is the nature of thought. A thought cannot contain “nothing”!

Just as “something” is ontologically prior to “nothing” (as truth is to falsehood and as good is to evil), logically a mind is ontologically prior to the discussion of the possibility for any kind of “nothing”. That means that “something” is ontologically prior to “nothing”! “Nothing” as a category of thought or being only makes any sense either ontologically (in the totality of reality) or conceptually (in someone’s thought) with something already existing. Ontologically “nothing” can be isolated and in concept identified only against the background of “something”. It is, as already stated, like the concept of good or the concept of truth. “Evil” makes sense only on the ontological precondition of an existing good. And falsehood only makes sense on the precondition of an existing truth. Just so, “nothing” means nothing (that is, not anything at all) conceptually unless ontologically “something” exists with which it can be contrasted.

So, it is impossible for “nothing” to exist because “nothing” is “non-existence.” In one sense, to say that “nothing exists” is to say that nothing both exists and does not exist, which is a logical contradiction. This means that nothing cannot be anywhere located. It cannot be discovered because it cannot be found. It cannot be found because, by definition, it has no existence. If it has no existence, it has no accessibility to discovery. We talk about it only in some accommodative sense by an approximation in concept and then in language. Since one cannot discover “nothing,” he can only get close to it by altering the meaning of it. Since men cannot conceive of “absolute nothing,” we imagine a condition that is “almost nothing.” That is the best that we can do regarding the topic of origin. When we try to imagine a state of “absolute nothing,” we always fail. So, perhaps without thinking, we redefine the “almost nothing” that we imagined to be good enough to be the “absolute nothing” that is necessary in the discussion of origin as an alternative to an eternal “something”. So then, we should see that in our discussion of “nothing” and “something,” we cannot even discuss the contrast between the two without at the same time granting some sort of existence to the concept of “nothing” so that our minds can handle the discussion.

Now, think about the fact that if we could comprehend “nothing” (complete and universal non-existence absolutely) without accommodation and approximation, the concept itself could not have clear and precise definition. That is, it could not have clear meaning to us. Why? Because definition distinguishes something from something else. That is what definition does. By the fact that we can discuss “nothing” in some way that seems to make intellectual sense to us in the discussion of origin, we learn that it is being contrasted with “something” already. And I submit to you that the precondition or the backdrop or the contrast that makes the discussion of “nothing” a theoretical possibility in a way that is rationally intelligible is the existence of our minds. Our minds are always being the precondition or the “something” with which the “nothing” we seek to explore is held in contrast. “Nothing” is meaningful as a concept only because of “something” already being presupposed which presupposition is the human mind itself! This is the way that it is; this is the way that it always must be. We think at times that we are really grasping “nothing” because we try to imagine a blank or a void outside of our minds. But the mind itself is so constructed as to impose by its own nature conceptual limitations on our thinking. “Nothing” at minimal ontological reduction must be at least a concept or a thought we try to think or that is manufactured by our imagination, but we can never quite rid it of all content. Never!

To illustrate the impossibility of thinking of “nothing” without approximation (getting only close to its real meaning), let me offer a few items. Let us say that someone objects to our treatment of the topic and says that he can think of and describe, with absolute comprehension, the meaning of “nothing”. Let us say that our objector says that he thinks of “nothing” and can adequately describe it as a hollow or an empty place (void) or a place without form or color or shape. But you see, dear reader, that he is thinking about “nothing” from the viewpoint of “something”. The human mind is stuck right here in its capacity to conceptualize anything. We can only approximate the concept of “nothing”. We cannot grasp it accurately and certainly not comprehensively. We can only think in terms of “almost nothing”. This is as close as we can get! When the objector says that he thinks of “nothing” when he thinks of a hollow or an empty place, he is affirming “something” by which he means to be describing “nothing”!

Interestingly, the first definition in my dictionary of the word “nothing” is “something that does not exist.” And even the second definition, “NOTHINGNESS,” by the “-ness” on the end of the word suggests, somehow, “something” (see Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 577). That is, “nothing” is being considered as “something”. We cannot mentally get to the concept of “nothing” without identifying it as “something,” some state of affairs or condition or situation or location, etc. Now, isn’t that instructive? The human mind simply cannot get its arms completely around the concept of “nothing”. That means that when we attempt to think it or try to discuss it, we are doing so by means of some kind of conceptual and language accommodation, so that each of us knows what the others are meaning to say without anyone’s actually and precisely saying it when we refer to “nothing”. No human being can at one and the same time (1) exist and (2) claim accurately that “nothing” is possible of comprehension. The already existing mind cannot “get it”. We can only intellectually arrive at the border or the idea of the concept of it by thinking and speaking in terms of “almost nothing”. And that is as far as we can go. The bottom line is, then, that in the discussion of origin, we cannot even consider the idea of “nothing” without first presupposing “something”. By negation of “something,” we conceptually arrive at its opposite “nothing”. But that “nothing” cannot have complete meaning without the “something” that it opposes. To make this clear, let me offer the following. Let us identify the ways in which we can think of “something” and “nothing”. We can think of “something” in the following ways:

Possibilities for “Something”

1. Something as only a concept (that is, it exists only in a mind).

2. Something as an actual ontological existent (that is, it exists also outside of the mind).

3. Something as only a word or sound (that is, there is no ontological referent for it even though the word can be written or spoken).

4. Something as an actual non-existent.

Number 1 can be illustrated by a 4,000 pound horse.

Number 2 can be illustrated by a real horse.

Number 3 can be illustrated by a unicorn.

Number 4 can be illustrated by a horse no longer alive and whose bones and flesh have been completely absorbed by nature.

Possibilities for “Nothing”

1. Nothing as only a concept (that is, it exists only in a mind).

2. Nothing as an actual ontological existent (that is, it actually exists outside of the mind and without a mind).

3. Nothing as only a word or sound (that is, there is no ontological referent for it even though the word can be written or spoken).

4. Nothing as an actual non-existent.

Number 1 means that “nothing” is never outside the mind at all. There cannot be an “absolute nothing”.

Number 2 is a contradiction by definition. “Nothing” cannot be “something”.

Number 3 is actually a denial that “nothing” exists since it is only existing by a sound or a word that names it but gives it no ontological standing. We have a sign without a referent to which the sign points or for which the sign stands. “Nothing” is really simply a word or sound with no meaningful referent.

Number 4 is the meaning of “nothing” being attempted in the discussion of origin, but we arrive at the concept of “nothing” only by conceptual approximation.

Now why is this important to consider? It is important because it means then that, ultimately, there is no alternative to the eternal existence of “something”! Since out of nothing, nothing can come, and since the human mind can only approximate the condition of nothingness by the description that “almost nothing” exists, we are seeing and saying that “something” has always existed. And the very description that “almost nothing” exists becomes itself void of significance in the effort to identify theoretical possibilities in the discussion of ultimate origin. Why? Because we are affirming that “something” really does, after all, exist! And, ontologically speaking, that is the contradiction of the claim that “nothing” exists. In other words, to say that “almost nothing” exists is to say that “something” exists! So, to claim that “almost nothing” exists is not much of a claim, as it turns out, after all.

Think about the concept of improbability. If someone says that it is improbable that God exists, since the claim of improbability is the admission of the possibility of the contradictory, then whoever says that it is improbable that God exists is saying at the same time that God may exist after all! More strikingly, however, when someone says that it is possible that at a point “nothing” existed, since he can only approximate “nothing,” he is saying that at a point “almost nothing” existed, which implies, at that point, “something” existed after all!

Think about it this way. What if someone is discussing a box that he thinks has been emptied of all the apples in it. Suppose he says to a friend of his that the box is empty. Then suppose that his friend looks into the box and finds one remaining apple. Being shown this, the original claimant who said the box was empty now, in response, says that the box is “almost empty”. What does this mean? Obviously, if the box is only “almost empty,” then clearly it is not empty at all! Now to apply this easy illustration, when we find that the “ontological box” is almost empty (conceptually as we attempt to think about “nothing” as a category of inquiry and discussion), we are finding that the “ontological box” is not empty at all. “Something” is in it. But it looks like that something is barely in it. That is, the box looks to be almost empty or void of anything except this one lone, isolated apple.

Ah yes, it looks like there is a large encompassing atmosphere that envelops the one lone apple. The box is larger than is the apple within it.

And here is where the application of this illustration breaks down because the actual ontological condition cannot be that way. Why not? Because the ultimately identifiable “something” has no encompassing atmosphere that is larger than it is. If there is a larger encompassing something that is beyond what the already identified ultimate “something” is, then the “something” identified could not be the ultimate “something” possible! This reminds us, does it not, of Anselm’s correct insight regarding the ultimate Being as being that “greater than which cannot be conceived”. It is not merely coincidental that Scripture claims that God inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15; cf. Psalm 90:2). Conceptually, that is not anything close to saying, for example, that God inhabits Georgia. What God inhabits cannot be properly conceptualized as being a place larger than the inhabitant. The nature of ultimate Being cannot be described that way.

The Bible claims, and the situation must ontologically obtain, that beyond time and beyond everything else that there could ever possibly be, something had to be already “in place” with the “place” not being something like geography (e.g. Georgia) but a condition beyond time and place. The ultimate something, whatever or who it is must be beyond time in the sense that everything in time is characterized by the property of merely enduring through moments or segments of durative existence. That is, everything in time is marked by time and must be in the process of passing away or passing out of time. I would describe time basically as the process of diminishing change. The ultimate something or existent must be beyond time. Too, the ultimate existent has to be beyond place in the sense that it must be its own place. When Scripture declares that God inhabits eternity, it is saying that God is his own residence! He simply cannot exist in a place that preceded him, and he could not possibly exist in a place that succeeded him! God is his own area or “place”. He, himself, constitutes the only location there is, at least before any creation occurs.

This means that ultimate Being is something beyond both time and place as we are forced to think about both concepts, because we can only think of time as it applies to things created (that is, finite things); we can only think of place as location always in some sense larger than any possible existing inhabitant. Interestingly, according to Scripture, there is a sense in which God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and he inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15). God is the “I Am That I Am” (KJV) or the “I Am Because I Am” (ASV) per Exodus 3:14 in that he is not an effect but the eternally existing Being whose being is explainable only in terms of its own and only ontological self-sufficiency. The reason for God is God. As Aquinas taught us, his essence simply is “to be”. In one sense, it sounds so strange, but when the finite mind begins to explore the nature of reality, the absolute essentiality of such an ultimate essence is found to be not simply a possibility but an essentiality. So, again, God is beyond time and he was, since he was outside of time, the only “location” before creation.

Following creation, all of creation must be “in him”. This is why Paul can tell the philosophers in Athens that men live “in God” (Acts 17:28). The whole creation is a different sort of thing (by the nature of any created thing) from the Creator himself. All of creation must be “in God” in that God is greater than any and all of what he makes. The effect cannot be greater than the Cause. To revert to our “almost empty basket” illustration earlier, we see that God is not simply the lone apple left in the basket that shows that the basket is only “almost empty”. Rather he is the essential and necessary “basket” that contains any and all apples that can exist. So, as it turns out, the “something” that is implied by the “almost nothing” is, in fact, not merely a lone “something” that means that the basket is barely occupied, but rather the “something” turns out to be the necessary Lone Something—or God—that is able to contain everything else that ever there is or could be.

Now, what if someone grants the contention that it is really impossible, after all, for the human mind to completely comprehend the concept of ontological “nothingness,” but then registers the objection that such is irrelevant in the discussion of origin since the human mind cannot fathom the concept of eternity either. Suppose a skeptic says, for example, that the impossibility of complete comprehension of the idea of “nothingness” is not important to the discussion anyway, since the concept of eternity is equally off limits to human comprehension. Let us explore this possible objection and see if there is some merit to it.

When someone says that the concept of an eternal something (God) is just as hard to intellectually grasp as is the concept of an ontological “nothing,” we would suggest that since we humans are here to look at the topic of origin, something is certainly existing now. We must begin the exploration of the nature of the origin of our universe by virtue of the fact that something is already in place. The “something” and all the “somethings” that are present display their nature to be finite (limited) and contingent (dependent) effects without efficient cause and without sufficient reason from within themselves to explain themselves.

It is an obvious feature of our universe with its component parts, that the items that when combined constitute that universe are such as to cry out to us that they cannot explain themselves and they cannot cause themselves. The idea of something’s causing itself is a contradiction in terms. “X” cannot cause itself to exist because if “X” is the cause, it already exists before its effect does, and if “X” is the effect, it cannot be the effect of “X” that does not exist previously. It is irrational to suggest that anything can cause itself! It is an impossible situation that amounts to a claim for an ontological contradiction which is absurd. Well, if it is impossible for anything to cause itself, what about the possibility of something’s being the reason for itself? Those who study philosophy may be familiar with the principle of efficient causality and with the principle of sufficient reason. These are two different principles of tremendous worth. And both of them cover the existence of everything that there is! The principle of efficient causality covers everything that is an effect (which is everything but God). The principle of sufficient reason covers everything including God.

No man thinking correctly can say that (1) he caused himself to exist or that (2) he has the sufficient reason or explanation for himself within himself. Every man, if he thinks about the matter at all, surely realizes that the explanation for himself lies outside of himself and the cause for himself is outside of himself. And such is characteristic of every particle of this physical universe! The efficient cause and the sufficient reason for everything within the universe and the universe itself is outside of itself. That is the very nature of the essence of physicality. And even regarding the mind of man, by self-reflection, each of us can know that (1) he did not cause his mind to exist (since it is a contradiction to claim that a mind caused itself to exist) and (2) the sufficient reason for the existence of his mind within his body indicates that the sufficiency for the arrangement is not within the arrangement itself. It has to come somehow from the outside. Each of us would begin to explore the cause and the reason for ourselves by taking the first step and claiming that our parents are our efficient cause even if they cannot be the sufficient reason for us. According to Scripture, all men have a heritage of efficient cause all the way back to Adam and then to God who is the ultimate efficient cause and sufficient reason for the existence of everything outside of himself.

Every “something” in the universe, or the universe as a “something” considered as one entity, indicates its complete ontological inadequacy in explaining itself or being the reason for itself or in being the cause of itself. Every feature of our world points to a “something” that must exist and not by causing itself (which as we have seen is a contradiction in terms) but which must have the reason for itself within itself. But a mindless “it” or a simple piece of matter has no capacity to be its own explanation or reason, as we see in looking at our universe and all that composes it. The ultimate principle of the universe cannot be just an “it” or an “It” or an “IT”. All of the “its” as a category are effects at best of something that is not. The essence of the ultimate Being has to be greater than everything that composes a part of our universe and greater than the universe as a whole.

The ultimate “something” or “Something” has to be this way! God has the reason for himself within himself. He does not cause himself because such is impossible and also because he is no effect. But he does and must have within his own essence the essential claim on existence. And all effects must be less that all causes. And the total effect of creation must be less, in some sense, than the ultimate Creator. Aquinas taught us that God’s essence is to exist. Now, we may not be able to completely fathom such an essence, but we can fathom the necessity of such an essence when we are considering how it is possible for anything now to exist at all.

So, let us look at our two possibilities as we think about the origin of our universe. Everything is the result finally of either (1) “nothing” or (2) “something”. Now, it is correct to say that it is hard for a human and finite mind to comprehend an “eternal something”. But the “eternal something” is implied by every “finite something” that exists. The fact that it is hard for a finite mind to comprehend an infinite and “eternal something” ought to make us humble, reverent, and submissive while admitting to ourselves that it is impossible for us to completely grasp the nature of divine essentiality. But what we do know is that while we cannot grasp the nature of essentiality (and thus the sufficient reason for God’s infinite eternality), we can grasp the necessary nature of that existence as an explanation for whoever it is that causes everything else to exist. The first cause must be his own explanation. It simply has to be this way. And this is what the Bible means in affirming God!

It is true that we cannot fathom completely the concept of “nothing”. We can know, however, that “nothing” cannot be the ultimate cause of anything. And “nothing” cannot explain anything. We can approximate the category of “nothing” only by looking at it against the background of “something”. In fact, “nothing” is always being considered “something” as we try to imagine it. It is also true that as we talk about the eternal God as the ultimate cause of everything outside of himself and as the sufficient reason for himself, that we are claiming something that we cannot completely comprehend.

However, the two situations are not parallel in that—

1. “Nothing” can ever be the cause or the explanation for anything, period!

2. “Something” necessarily or essentially existed forever in order for something to exist even temporarily today.

3. The incapacity of the human mind to grapple completely with the concept of “nothing” only indicates the necessary background of “something” as the precondition for the discussion of “nothing” anyway.

4. We cannot know “nothing” as such, and we cannot know the essence of essential existence that must characterize the ultimate cause of the universe.

5. But we do know that since out of “nothing,” nothing comes, and that since “something” has come, then the “ultimate Something” somehow carries his own eternal ontological credentials for himself within himself. It cannot be any other way.

In the 1976 Warren-Flew debate on the existence of God, Warren said that an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God by appealing only to the concept of God (see p. 54 of The Warren-Flew Debate). Rather, Warren said that the attempt at disproof would necessarily entail not only the concept of God (which concept by itself is coherent), but such would entail combining the coherent concept with some empirical fact which supposedly contradicts the concept. This is what is involved when atheists attempt to disprove God by the so-called “problem of evil”.

So, according to Warren (and this was never denied by the atheist Flew in the debate), the coherent concept of God plus some empirical fact alleged to be contradictory of the concept would be required to attempt to disprove theism and to establish the claim of atheism.

Now, what have we been saying in this article? We have been saying, in effect, that the concept of “nothing” is really an incoherent concept at best. We simply cannot make sense of “absolute nothingness”. The state or condition or situation of any proposed “absolute nothingness” is an incoherent concept in and of itself! It only becomes intelligible by making it “almost nothing” against the backdrop of a “something”. By itself the concept of “nothing” or “nothingness” can never rationally be suggested as an alternative to the necessity of creation. The concept of “God” is a coherent one, and the atheist Antony Flew did not deny such. But the concept of “absolute nothingness” is not even coherent! In the Warren-Flew debate, Flew suggested in his rejoinder on Monday night, “It seems to me that someone could perfectly consistently be an atheist and believe that the universe is going as a matter of fact to have an end, or believe that it had had a beginning but was not going to have an end. However, I am myself inclined to believe that matter is without end and without beginning. But I do not see why as an atheist I have got to” (ibid., p. 65).

Thus, as an atheist Flew wrongly accepted the irrational notion that (1) “something” can come from “nothing,” while at the same time wrongly accepting the view that (2) matter is eternal. But Flew also conceded correctly that the concept of God by itself is coherent! Warren exposed Flew for accepting the self-contradictory view from Strato of Greece, called the “stratonician presumption,” which claims that “everything there is is a product of nature” (ibid., p. 170f.), which if true would mean, as Warren pointed out, that nature produced itself (now who can possibly actually believe that when he understands what it means?) and he told Flew that he needed to get on with the business of attempting to prove the eternality of matter (p. 187)! Warren used the Second Law of Thermodynamics in physics to show that the claim that matter is eternal is false (ibid.).

Finally, if the concept of “God” is coherent, and if the concept of “nothing” is incoherent, and if the attempt at disproving God must entail not only the coherent concept of “God” but an empirical fact judged to be contradictory to the concept, then what can we finally say about the concept of “nothing” plus some empirical fact? Notice that the incoherent concept of “absolute nothing” plus any empirical fact, means that “something” exists! Why? Because the empirical fact exists alongside the incoherent concept of “nothing”.

So, the concept of “God” plus some empirical fact is what is necessarily attempted by atheists to disprove God when they use the so-called “problem of evil,” but no facts can disprove God, because all facts ultimately demand God for ultimate explanation! As Professor Warren used to teach us, “if one thing exists, then God exists. If the one thing that exists is God, then God exists, and if the one thing that exists is not God, then it requires God for its existence”. And the incoherent concept of “nothing” plus some empirical fact proves “something” rather than “nothing” exists because the empirical fact is “something”.

It is impossible, then, to build a rational case for atheism either by the alleged eternality of matter or by “something” coming from “nothing”. There is no room in the discussion of ultimate explanation of the origin of anything, rationally speaking, for claiming anything other than God!

Posted in Christian Living

“You’re First” and “You’re First, Too”

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

 

By Weylan Deaver

In the aftermath of the recent severe hailstorm in Denton, there has been no shortage of roofing companies pounding the pavement, hoping to get to pound on our housetops. It seems common practice for them to stick a sign in their customers’ yards when an agreement is reached. Thus, my neighborhood is dotted with a multitude of signs from a plethora of roofers, one of which is called the “You’re First” roofing company. Now, I know nothing about them and have nothing against them, and give them the benefit of the doubt they are a good business. But, I just found it funny, as I drove down my street, to pass a house with a sign in the yard saying “You’re First,” then to pass the house right next door with a sign in its yard also saying “You’re First.” How can both homes be first to that company? It brought to mind a more important point. We often want to think of ourselves as serving God, but our actions betray that we also want to pursue our own interests at God’s expense. In other words, we’re telling God, “you’re first,” while at the same time saying to self, “you’re first, too!” In reality, it cannot work that way. “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). We can put ourselves first, or we can put God first, but we cannot do both at the same time. Come investigate the church of Christ. We do not promise visitors that they are first, but that we will strive to offer an atmosphere where God and his truth are.

 

Posted in General

To Mark Or Not To Mark (My Contrarian Bible-Marking Philosophy)

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

You might think a preacher marks up his Bible more than anyone else with highlights, underlining, references, definitions, etc. I used to be of that mindset. I thought it ideal, for example, if I were teaching a class on Matthew, if I could just open my Bible and have all my study notes in microscopic print in the margin. That way, no additional notes or notebook would be necessary to teach the class; I could carry my Bible and nothing more (how marvelously simple!). Over time, my Bible-marking ways evolved into anti-marking. I didn’t just decide to mark less in my Bible; I ceased it altogether (writing on the blank pages in back of the Bible doesn’t count). You may feel free to differ. But, here is my reasoning.

First, margin notes are not easily transferred. Any continuously used Bible will wear out and, no matter how precious your handwritten margin notes, the day will come when you have to replace your Bible. Transferring notes then becomes a daunting or even impossible task, depending on their copiousness (not to mention legibility).

Second, writing in your Bible is a constant battle against the margin (usually a small margin). Bibles I tend to favor are diminutive in size. I don’t want lengthy book introductions, extensive outlines, commentator’s notes across half the page, archaeological supplements, or a hefty concordance in the back. All of that makes for extra pages I have to carry around. If I need a concordance, I’ve got a better one on my bookshelf and even online than one in the back of a study Bible. All I need in a Bible are a few maps (optional), some handy cross-references (if a study Bible), and footnotes (esp. translator’s textual notes). In other words, I want a Bible that fits my hand—not a backpack—and that usually means one with small margins which are not conducive to handwritten notes.

Third, marking your Bible brings the danger of impairing the readability of the back side of the page. Without just the right kind of pen, handwritten notes tend to bleed through thin Bible paper. There are colored pencil options, but I believe in ink (pencils are for elementary school). So, your eloquent comments regarding Matthew 6:33 (on page 7) end up bleeding through to page 8 and making the “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12) unreadable. Not good.

Fourth, margin notes anchor you in yesterday’s level of understanding. I’m not going to teach a Bible book exactly the same next time around. My understanding grows with time and learning. Points I may have highlighted years ago may be superceded by more apropos material now that I know more. But, where am I going to put additional notes from further fruitful study if my margins are already full from what I wrote ten years ago? Maybe my first tour through the book was mediocre and now I’ve got a Bible full of mediocre notes that leave no room for more meaty reminders. Maybe, instead of margin notes, you underline verses, but, over time, discover that you wish you had not underlined a verse (like Genesis 1:1). When I was about twelve, my grandfather gave me an expensive Dickson Analytical Study Bible. It had a moroccan leather cover and more study helps than you could shake a stick at. Were I still using that, you can believe that the underlinings (etc.) I put in it back then are not what I would have put today.

Fifth, Bible-marking creates the risk of missing something important. To me, this is the weightiest reason of all. If you underline a verse (or highlight it in a color, or notate the margin), then your eye is drawn to that verse every time you open the Bible to that page, right? It’s as though we’re saying that verse is super-important, as opposed to the rest of the verses on the page, which are not important enough to merit highlighting. With the subconscious emphasis drawn to the highlighted verse, what becomes of my ability to notice the verses right before, or after, the highlighted verse? What if I unintentionally treat the highlighted verse in the second column as more significant than anything in the first column? When I look at a Bible page, I want it to contain God’s words instead of my own, for my own may serve to detract from my ability to fully appreciate God’s.

Now, as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. You may benefit greatly from marking up your Bible. If so, more power to you. There’s nothing wrong, either way. These are simply my own opinions, and I’ve never seen anyone enumerate the view I’ve grown to adopt.

Posted in Doctrine

Find the Right One

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

 

An encyclopedia of religions lists over 2,600 faith groups in America and Canada. That staggering figure is in stark contrast to Jesus’ promise that “on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). Most who call themselves “Christian” see no problem with thousands of different churches with differing doctrines, as though God were pleased with this arrangement. In fact, many see such diversity as a boon because they think it gives everyone opportunity to look for a church that “fits” them. The number of denominations keeps growing. The world keeps turning. The clock keeps ticking. God’s patience keeps lasting—for now.

All the while, the right church is the one found in the Bible, and not simply one found in a phone book, or with an internet search. Jesus is “the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). So the church is described, metaphorically, as Jesus’ body. Just how many bodies (churches) are there supposed to be? The apostle Paul wrote “there is one body” and that Jesus is the savior of that body (cf. Ephesians 4:4; 5:23). All who want to be saved eternally must be in the spiritual body of Jesus, which is the church of Christ.

Think about it. If there is only one church that Jesus promised (Matthew 16:18) and then purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28), then every church which is not that church is a wrong church. But, how can anyone tell which church is right? Again, God’s plan is so simple. He wrote a guide for us called the New Testament. When a person obeys what that gospel teaches, he is a Christian. When a group of people in the same location all obey that book, you have a congregation of the church. Which church? God’s church. To find the genuine article, study your New Testament for the earmarks of the church when it first began, then find who is practicing the same now. The New Testament has not changed.

But beware. Satan is a subtle deceiver, making the multitudes content with churches that depart in countless ways from the original blueprint. Yet, Jesus says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up” (Matthew 15:13). We in the church of Christ lovingly invite you to investigate us. Put our beliefs under a microscope. Shine a spotlight on our teaching. Check our practice against the words of the apostles. Ask hard questions. Think deeply. Dig until the truth is uncovered. It could very well mean you have to leave the church you are in. If so, pay that price. Eternity hangs in the balance. And one church—the Lord’s true church—outweighs every other. Find it.

 

Posted in Announcements

Site Improvements and a Great New Feature

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

Dear Readers,

If you’ve not been to the site in a while, please come see what is happening. Annoying ads (over which we had no control) are now gone. Recent articles can be found by simply scrolling down the page instead of having to dig through the archives. We are very pleased to announce a brand new feature. There is now a page tab labeled “Audio.” Clicking on that takes you to our new page where audio sermons will be posted. Particularly, we plan to publish Mac Deaver’s sermons, as preached at the church of Christ in Sheffield, Texas. His two lessons from March 30 are already up on “Why Naaman Got So Mad.” Give them a listen, and check back weekly for new sermons being posted. Help us spread the word and, if you like a page or an article, please go ahead and “like” it on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, etc. Encourage your friends to subscribe to the site, and they will receive an email every time a new article is posted. Thanks much!

Posted in Apologetics, Books, Reviews

God’s Undertaker (Book Review)

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Richard Dawkins, irascible critic of the Creator, says “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion” (p. 8). He would like nothing better than to banish theism and religion to the ash heap of historically bad ideas. But, has science buried God? That question is the subtitle of God’s Undertaker, a Lion Hudson book penned by John C. Lennox. With three doctorates, Lennox is a mathematics professor at Oxford and a philosopher of science at Green Templeton College. His twelve chapters are a volley of withering fire against pseudo-science masquerading as the real thing.

Is a Dawkins an atheist because of the evidence, or because of a worldview, not founded on science, which he carries with him to the microscope? Lennox’s thesis is that real science actually points toward an intelligent Designer. That some scientists are so vehemently opposed to God speaks more to their unscientific prejudice and presuppositions than it says about God. The degree of atheistic animosity toward theism is itself a curiosity to Lennox, begging investigation why, if God were fiction, anyone should hate Him so. Lennox gives the much needed reminders that “Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science” (p. 19) and “you cannot deduce a worldview from a science” (p. 121). Worldviews are not mixed in a test tube; they originate outside science, but end up influencing the conclusions of scientists.

Lennox claims the biblical worldview, grounded in the ancient Hebrews’ concept of a single, omnipotent Creator has done more to advance science than any contribution from the ancient Greeks. Far from stopping scientific investigation, it was belief in an orderly universe created by God which initially propelled the discipline. Theism gave science its beginning; atheism gives science a black eye.

Lennox takes evolutionary theory to task, pointing out there is an “edge to evolution,” beyond which it cannot go. This is why small changes within species are observed (i.e. microevolution), but evolution across species (macroevolution) has never been observed, much less duplicated by science. Gaps in the fossil record tell an embarrassing tale too often buried as science’s dirty secret.

Further, as science is able to see increasingly on a microscopic level, it is becoming more difficult to argue against design in the universe. Lennox discusses the marvel of DNA from a scientific and mathematic perspective, adding up facts that make it impossible for life to have arisen on the basis of mindless chance. And, as information theory begins to blossom, he draws a striking point on the biblical teaching that, prior to the incarnation, Jesus existed as the “Word” of God. Information is real, but not physical. And there is nothing anti-science in recognizing divinely-put information in a cell, which gives design to an organism (especially when evidence points to the impossibility of its being undesigned).

Rejecting the popular concept that faith is not evidence-based, Lennox gives a cutting edge, refresher course on why we need not bow to brash scientists who overreach into metaphysics and stake claims far too weighty for science to bear. The last chapter is a devastating critique of David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher who did much to destroy belief in biblical miracles.

Lennox is an engaging writer, pulling the rug from under atheism with true British courtesy. But his kindness does not disguise the tatters in which he leaves materialism. His final two sentences are worth the book’s price: “Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second” (p. 210).

[This review was originally published in the April 2011 issue of Sufficient Evidence (pp. 56-58), the journal of the Warren Christian Apologetics Center.]

Posted in Baptism, Doctrine, Marriage

What About Divorce and Remarriage Before Baptism?

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

It goes without saying our society has put a chasm between itself and Bible teaching on marriage and the family. Divorce is pandemic, and often followed by second or third marriages entered without any regard for what Jesus taught on the subject (e.g. Matt. 19:3-10, etc.). The pressure exerted by Satan on the church can be tremendous. The devil would like nothing better than to get Christians to compromise the gospel without realizing that is what’s happening. While the devil tempts us to fold up, God tests us to hold out and lift high the banner of divine truth—even if most turn a deaf ear (2 Tim. 4:1-4). While the world runs rampant in sin, the church is trying to reach out to save some souls. This leads to inevitable contact with couples in a second, third, or fourth marriage who may want to become Christians. There are two basic approaches to such a scenario.

The first approach says that Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage (cf. Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-11) applies to everybody—Christian and unbeliever alike. Jesus’ gospel is for those in the church, as well as those outside of it, and the same commands, truths, and principles apply to all. Therefore, if a couple finds themselves in a marriage out of harmony with what Jesus taught, repentance demands they cease their unscriptural marital relationship. Put simply, they must get out of the marriage. Dissolving a sinful marriage is easier said than done, and may incur a plethora of difficulties, but the question needs asking, “How badly do I want to go to heaven?” Remember Jesus remarked, “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12, ESV). Tragically, most are not willing to do whatever it takes to be saved.

The second approach says that God has separate requirements for Christians, which the world is not expected to obey, and that Jesus’ teaching on divorce fits in this category. In other words, when Jesus said, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9), he was teaching something unbelievers were never obligated to listen to. Therefore, unbelievers are free to marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, and remarry again (ad infinitum) and, if they ever decide to become Christians, they can be baptized and keep whatever spouse they have at that time. Only after baptism do they become accountable to Jesus’ teaching, and they are expected to obey it from then on.

We believe this second view is fraught with error (not least of which is that Jesus’ original comments in Matthew 19 were directed to unbelieving Pharisees, not Christians). Consider but two brief arguments showing the second view to be wrong.

Argument #1

The combination of two simple verses should conclusively settle the matter. “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Those words were initially spoken to unbelieving Jews (should they have replied, “Jesus, we’re sure glad you’re not talking to us!”?). Whatever else the New Testament says about divorce does not contradict what Jesus here plainly taught. All Scripture harmonizes with itself. Here is the second passage: “The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day” (John 12:48). Notice Jesus’ words are specifically said to be what judges those who refuse to receive them. What will judge the unbeliever? Jesus’ words will. And, Jesus’ words include what he taught about divorce! Put in logical form, the argument reads:

  • All unbelievers alive today are people who will be judged by Jesus’ words (John 12:48).
  • The words of Matthew 19:9 are Jesus’ words.
  • Therefore, all unbelievers alive today are people who will be judged by the words of Matthew 19:9.

Any Christian or church that believes pre-baptism marriages can be washed away, or that a pre-baptism unscriptural marriage can be turned into holy matrimony by baptism, has got to ignore this argument, or else try to falsify it. Yet, we see no way it can be successfully disproven.

Argument #2

Any position which implies an untruth is itself a false position. God is the God of all truth, and truth is consistent with itself. No Bible teaching implies error. No error can be proven by the Bible. And, any position implying an unbiblical conclusion cannot be true and should be abandoned.

The view that unbelievers are not accountable to Matthew 19:9 (etc.) implies error. How? Suppose Mike (a Christian) marries Jane (also a Christian). All sides agree Mike and Jane are bound to abide by Matthew 19:9 (since both are Christians). Suppose that Jane divorces Mike because he is too much into sports. All would agree that this divorce is not authorized by Matthew 19:9, and is contrary to what Jesus there taught. Now suppose that Jane marries Bill (an unbeliever). What would Jane and Bill’s relationship be? On Jane’s side, she is a Christian who had no right to divorce her first husband, and thus, had no right to marry Bill. Per Jesus’ teaching, she is now in adultery. But what about Bill? Those who insist that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to Bill (an unbeliever) must say one of two things. Either (1) Bill is in a God-sanctioned marriage to Jane, or (2) Bill is not in a God-sanctioned marriage to Jane.

If (1) Bill is in a God-sanctioned marriage to Jane, then that would imply that Matthew 19:9 does not even apply to the believer (Jane), in which case Jesus’ teaching on divorce applies to no one today. Any position which implies Jesus’ teaching on divorce is not applicable to anybody is a false position.

If (2) Bill is not in a God-sanctioned marriage to Jane, then what is it that would make Bill’s marriage wrong, since Bill’s marital status is allegedly not dependent on being in harmony with Matthew 19:9? If it is true that unbelievers are not under Jesus’ teaching, then no one can appeal to Jesus’ teaching to either justify or condemn an unbeliever’s marriage. If Bill and Jane’s marriage is adulterous, then Bill (an unbeliever) must be amenable to Matthew 19:9. But, if Bill and Jane’s marriage is not adulterous, then Jane (a believer) must not be amenable to Matthew 19:9. Either way, the belief under review runs aground, smashed on the rocks of inconsistency. That which implies error is itself error.

“What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). A marriage is real only if God does the joining, and a divorce is actual only if God does the separating, and God joins and disjoins only according to his will, which is revealed as the New Testament! Does God join Bill to Jane (since he is an unbeliever), but not join Jane to Bill (since she is a believer out of harmony with Jesus’ teaching)? Are we to believe that Bill and Jane’s relationship is half adultery (i.e. on Jane’s part) and half holy matrimony (i.e. on Bill’s part)? Scripture knows nothing of such a hybrid marriage monstrosity. Every marriage is either adulterous or non-adulterous; there is no half-and-half. We can state a formal argument thus:

  • Any doctrine implying that a marriage can be simultaneously adulterous and non-adulterous is a false doctrine.
  • The view that unbelievers are not under Matthew 19:9 (etc.) is a doctrine implying that a marriage can be simultaneously adulterous and non-adulterous (see above).
  • Therefore, the view that unbelievers are not under Matthew 19:9 (etc.) is a false doctrine.

Far more can be said on the issue, but if the view under consideration can be falsified by one or both of the above arguments, then that is sufficient. A doctrine need not be disproven from multiple angles before we give it up. All it takes is one sound argument. And, if there is a single sound argument proving that a position is wrong, then the position is wrong, no matter what else may be marshaled in its defense. There seem to be far too many congregations who think Jesus’ teaching (at least on divorce) does not apply to people until after conversion. Yet, we have shown that to be error. If society had not drifted so far away from biblical teaching, the church might not be divided on this issue. But society has drifted. And the devil wants to take the church along with it. If we believe John 12:48, then we must believe that Matthew 19:9 will judge the unbeliever. It is that simple. If we do not believe Matthew 19:9 will judge the unbeliever, then we trample John 12:48. What will it be? “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Heb. 13:4).

Posted in Apologetics, Old Testament

Which Way the Shadow?

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Hezekiah, king of Judah 700 years before the birth of Christ, received one day a most distressing message from Isaiah the prophet (2 Kings 20:1-11). The king had become deathly ill and the Lord sent his prophet to inform Hezekiah that he needed to make ready because death was imminent. Hearing that, the king wept bitterly and prayed to the Lord for mercy, speaking to God of the faithful life he had lived. God heard the prayer and saw the tears and sent Isaiah back to Hezekiah with news that the king would be healed, another fifteen years being added to his life.

The king then asked Isaiah what sign God would give to prove he would, indeed, be healed. God, through Isaiah, gave Hezekiah a choice, letting him pick his own sign from Heaven. Hezekiah could choose either that the shadow went forward ten steps, or that the shadow went backward ten steps on the sundial of Ahaz. In an age before clocks, this was a means of keeping time. The normal event was for the shadow to move forward as the day progressed. An obvious miracle would be required to move the shadow backward ten steps, and Hezekiah chose this for his sign (noting that this would be the more difficult of the two choices). In other words, God’s causing the shadow to move backward would give the appearance of time moving in reverse. Isaiah then prayed to God and the requested sign was given.

In reading this account, we usually focus on the miraculous nature of the second option—the sign that Hezekiah chose. But, have you ever considered that the first option would have been just as much an act of God as the second? As a day wears thin and shadows lengthen, it is, after all, God who controls the process. True, time moving in reverse would be a miracle. But, when time moves methodically forward, day in and day out, how many of us chalk it up to “Mother Nature”? In fact, there is no such thing as “Mother Nature.” Nor is nature itself either controlling events or propelling itself forward. Those ideas rob the true force—God—of glory he is due. Rather, the biblical concept is that God is running things, and very much so. Specifically, every element in the universe is currently being held together by none other than Christ himself (Colossians 1:17).

We may fail to recognize the Lord’s power in a raindrop on the cheek, blooming flowers in spring, the hoot of an owl, the tick of a clock, the cool of a breeze, or an evening shadow. But that is only because we are not looking at things through biblical lenses. Which way the shadow? In point of fact, either way a shadow moves is proof enough that God moves it. The shadow moving backward was a clear sign to Hezekiah’s eyes. But let us not forget that the shadow moving forward should be no less the working of God in our eyes today. What we perceive as “nature” is really the continuous product of divine supernatural activity, sustaining the world till the time God has chosen to bring all things to an end. In the meantime, perhaps we should sing with greater reflection the lyrics of Maltbie Babcock—

This is my Father’s world, the birds their carols raise,
The morning light, the lily white, declare their Maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world: He shines in all that’s fair;
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass;
He speaks to me everywhere.

Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Existence of God, Metaphysics

The Impoverishment of Atheism

Posted on by Mac Deaver

The Bible plainly teaches that the evidence for the existence of God is so plain and available that a man is a fool who reaches the conclusion that God does not exist (Psa. 19:1-4; Acts 14:17; Psa. 14:1; 53:1). Whether or not this man ever expresses his conviction to anyone else is irrelevant to his own miserable condition. If he says to himself that God does not exist, then the God who wrote the Bible declares this man a fool.

And yet some who reach the unenviable position of such irrational foolhardiness evidently, because of the way that they advocate their conclusion to others, think that there is some positive benefit to be had by subscribing to it. It is one thing to see in atheism only a curse. It is another thing to think that atheism somehow is a blessing. It would seem that depressed atheists would be more open to persuasion to the opposite viewpoint since it would lift their spirits. On the other hand, atheists who revel in skepticism would seem harder to convince that their doctrine is absurd.

Just here I want to make a few brief observations that indicate the absolute worthlessness of atheism. It has no value. It is not simply that it has a little of something good to offer; it has nothing. It is not simply a negative view that is wholly innocent in its nature, but it is seriously destructive in its complete makeup. And when men begin to publicly advance it not only as possibly helpful but as absolutely essential to human improvement and happiness on earth, the perverted use of such nonsense needs to be exposed.

The points that I will make will not be elaborated. They will simply be observed with but few comments, but the points are worthy of much consideration.

First, atheism provides no meaning or purpose to human living. Philosophers have throughout human history been wrestling with the problem of what life is all about. Atheism has absolutely no contribution to make. It is stuck between two impossible intellectual commitments: no Mind is responsible for our existence or that of anything whatever that exists. And at the other end of the spectrum, there is no destiny of the human spirit, because no human spirit exists either! So, everything is meaningless. When the searching spirit cries out for meaning, atheism at best can provide only a temporary fix. It has no answer, because there is no answer except that human life has no meaning.

Two, atheism provides no rational explanation for anything. All is the “product” of fluke, chance, and an impossible ontological situation. Not only is it the case that “out of nothing something comes,” but rather that “out of nothing everything comes!” Somehow, nothing is the grand ultimate provider of something. Philosophically, atheism is bankrupt!

Three, atheism has no explanation for the currently operative “laws of thought.” These “laws” that regulate all of human thinking have been discovered, isolated, and described. The law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of contradiction provide the intellectual capacity for human thought. And the essential thing is, that each law was in operation in every accountable human mind before any one of them was located. It is impossible to think without them, and you can only attack them or deny them by using them! Add to these, the “law of rationality” (the law which says that we ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence) and you have the basic mental framework for the whole of intellectual activity on earth. To deny them is to affirm them and to assail them is to use them! What is the explanation for such an arrangement that makes it rationally impossible to be irrational? Atheism has no answer, because it grounds all mental framework in mindless matter!

Four, atheism has no answer to the question of the origin of the human conscience. The conscience is that intellectual apparatus and feature of human personality that intuits moral law. It is that by which a man is able to grasp a moral distinction between “right” and “wrong.” The significance of right and wrong, to the human, is poised at the position of his conscience. If conscience can’t grasp it, the person cannot become morally accountable. To deny the existence and nature of conscience would be to deny human capacity to enter the domain of the moral. To admit the domain of absolute good and absolute evil is to admit the existence of the conscience. And to deny the absoluteness of moral right and of moral evil is to admit that nothing is wrong in any meaningful sense! And yet, no atheist wants to live in a world where everything is considered morally subjective, at least when it comes to how he himself should be treated!

Five, since atheism is a system that can only allow for subjective ethics, then it can provide absolutely no help in describing the way that humans ought to live. In fact, there is no “ought” to be sought; there is no moral obligation with which men should comply. Everything is “up for grabs.” It is “each man for himself,” in a “dog eat dog” world where no man’s opinion is worth any more than any other man’s opinion as far as an opinion’s capacity to reach the level of moral authority is concerned. An atheist cannot tell anyone how to live or the best way to live, given his atheism as the basis for his suggestion. He can only tell you how he wants you to live. Some atheists think that they can tell what makes for happier people and so ground their ethical suggestions on the metaphysical conclusion that a person should so live as to become the happiest by his course of living. Others might think that a person should so live as to make others happy or to make the greatest number happy. But this is a conclusion not based on atheism, and a conclusion that cannot be discovered as it oozes up out of the mud. A man might follow a course that makes him happy (at least to some degree), but whether or not such basis can be “the” basis of a planned life cannot be grounded in atheism.

Six, since atheism is reduced to the practice of living without meaning, it assails the dignity of man. Man has a nature, and it is complex. According to Scripture, man is composed of body, soul, and spirit. According to atheism, man is not composed. He is only body. His total makeup is like that of a pig. His brain somehow is more highly developed, but again this is all according to chance occurrence and the mindless program of organic evolution. But in the end, whether one has a man’s brain or a pig’s brain, a brain is a brain. And according to nature, there is no value to a man in principle that cannot at the same time be ascribed to a pig. We are all bound for death and that will end us all. Five dollars is, numerically speaking, greater than one dollar. But all dollars are still only dollars. The Bible teaches us of our kinship to God. That is what explains our rationality and our conscience and our purpose and meaning. Man, because of God, has value and dignity. Atheism attacks God and so attacks man. Even atheists who attempt to suggest a kind of ethical program in the hope of helping man, do so under the illusion that they are actually helping. Alcohol producers warn us to “drink responsibly” while producing the product that enslaves and destroys. When misguided atheists write books to help us live better, they do not realize what they are doing.

Seven, atheism cannot explain the continuing order of the universe. How is it that there continues to be an atmosphere in which even an atheist can live and move and have his being? Why does the world continue to exist? Why are the “laws” that science seeks to discover and explain constant as regulators of the affairs of this universe? How can science itself as a legitimate field or category of inquiry continue? It is because that certain “laws” are stable and regulative. And these laws continue. How could mindless matter give rise to the development of the scientific laws over the millions of years of suggested evolutionary development? How could chaos give rise to order and mud to mind given the evolutionary view of things? And how could things get “fixed” and settled as ongoing principles or laws of operation? What gives such laws any ontological status in the first place, to say nothing of why they continue, in the second? Atheism again has only the irrational mutterings of a man on philosophical dope. The management of the universe is as foreign to any offered atheistic explanation as is the origin of it!

Eight, atheism has no contribution to make to philosophy of history. Why has history gone the way that it has? Since atheism cannot explain anything, it certainly cannot explain why the course of human history has taken the form that it has. Of course, human history is a broad and complex field for human analysis, but there are certain principles that explain it to some degree. The progress of nations has always historically been based on whether or not the inhabitants followed the dictate provided in Genesis 1:28. Unless there was for some reason the need for personal divine penetration into human affairs, the side of history (progress in advancement in time) has always been on the side of the country or countries whose citizenry attempted to “subdue” the earth. Too, human character has played a part. Righteousness and sin still effect historical development. The rise and fall of nations entails the application of this truth (cf. Psa. 127:1; Prov. 14:34). And of course, according to Scripture, the overall outline of human history has involved God’s management of human affairs so that men can be saved (Rom. 9-11). If atheism has made a contribution to human history, it is only by means of its impediment to its advancement.

Nine, atheism doesn’t know what to do about truth! Truth as a concept is both metaphysical and eternal. It is not meshed into empirical facts but resides in an atmosphere of eternity and is attached to the person of God himself. No God, no ultimate truth! If atheists are correct, truth is of very recent origin. Facts have to do with events and states of affairs, with things that happen. Truth has to do with propositions. We can illustrate this way: It is a fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. The statement that “George Washington was the first president of the United States” is true. This is basically the difference between a fact and truth. The concept of “truth” has to do with accuracy with regard to a claim. Fact has to do with what has occurred or exists in a non-propositional way. Given evolution, truth evolved about six to ten thousand years ago. When man first began to think, truth was created! If I were an atheist, I would spend more time on an explanation for the most recent arrival of “truth” on earth than with obsessing over a relatively “young earth” claimed by some religionists. Truth is a human invention, per atheism. And its value is simply that which humans choose to invest in it! Nothing more! This is why there can never be moral obligation for any man to become an atheist!

Ten, atheism provides no sufficient motivation to what it may consider human progress in morality. When atheists write books that attempt to give moral guidelines to other humans, since men are the highest species yet evolutionarily developed, then man is, in fact, the measure of all things. Shades of the Greek sophist, Protagoras! I would ask, however, which man is the measure of all things? Since all men can’t have their way all the time and live in human society, then who should get to have his way? There is no way for an atheist to prove that one atheistic road is better, morally speaking, than another. If one atheist chooses communism and another humanism, which atheist has the higher ground of authority? At one moment, it could be the one with the gun! At another moment, it might be that the better road (one with greater social appeal) was the one being suggested by the atheist without the gun. But since there is no metaphysical basis for any atheistic authority whatever, the claimant for the “better” moral road is without any evidence! At any given moment in history, either the communist or the humanist might have a message of enormous appeal, given the existing social conditions of the time, but neither kind of atheist could produce rational proof that one kind of atheism is better than another kind at all, ever!

Eleven, atheism has no way to provide for justice. Some atheists, no doubt, would be quite willing to cite the crimes of religion against mankind. And we would have to admit that the history of religion on earth has not always been pleasant to consider. There has been much evil perpetrated on people by religion. But not all religion is right. There is much wrong religion. There are many religions. And there is little right religion being practiced. Truth on earth has been rarely found and more rarely practiced. The religion of the Bible, however, does provide for ultimate justice in that it has a doctrine of accountability and justice. Men do in this life often “get away with murder.” But it is at best only temporary, according to Scripture, for a judgment day is coming. With atheism, however, all of the injustice that men get away with on earth, they get away with, period! Atheism cannot produce nor intellectually defend a system of justice.

Twelve, atheism has no way of really offering any meaningful hope to mankind. Some atheists do see themselves as men trying to “better” the human condition, and they do plan and hope for a “better” life on earth. But, in the final analysis, there is no basis for their suggested improvement and no reason to hope that things will, after all, get “better” for man in any really meaningful sense. And the “better” that they envision, they themselves realize is only “better” for a mere moment. It is true that the best religion can degenerate into awful and oppressive false religion. But atheism in spite of its—at times—“humane” motivation, cannot rise far above its basic evolutionary barbarity. The religion of Christ has been often perverted into enormous religious persecution, it is true, but such is the result of falling away from the truth. When atheism is practiced, however, the Godlessness that it advances undercuts any alleged attempt at making things better on earth. Better for whom? For how long? Even if it tries to make things “better” for all men, it can only attempt to make things better but for a moment. There is no lasting hope to atheism! And remember, there are no atheists after death. If atheism were true, then no atheist could survive death. He would no longer exist. But if atheism were wrong, then an atheist must become a theist when he dies! So, there can only be atheists now—not later. Atheism can only at best be of temporary function. It is no accident of association that atheism and degeneration are conceptually snug.

Thirteen, atheism has no way of satisfying the human spirit to the degree that God desires and to the degree that the properly functioning human spirit desires as well. Consider Isaiah 55:2; John 6:27; Acts 17:27; Matthew 5:6; Matthew 4:4. According to Scripture, man’s spirit flourishes on a certain kind of spiritual diet. And atheism simply cannot satisfy the hunger! The sad thing is that some atheists are still hungry, but they are attempting to fill their bellies with the husks that the swine did eat (cf. Luke 15:16). Some tasks can be performed on such food, but great work cannot be attempted, much less accomplished, on such diet. There is still a “balm in Gilead” and a physician is still there (cf. Jer. 8:22; Matt. 9:12; Luke 4:23). It is a shame when men die of a condition that was operable simply because they refused the doctor and his counsel. And how sad that hungry men will not fill up on that which alone can fill.

Atheism is a poverty stricken viewpoint of long and miserable history. There is no defense for it, there is no improvement by it (only in spite of it), and there is absolutely no future in it. It assails human nature, the nature of truth, the nature of value, the nature of explanation, the meaning or purpose of human life on earth, human morality, and human rationality. It attacks all of these things, and yet some atheists would have us look upon their impoverished offering as helpful insights into the way things really are. How utterly misguided any atheist must be! While we love the atheist, we despise his doctrine. With David of old, we too, declare that we hate every false way, and certainly atheism is a false concept. It is an impoverished concept, and the life it really does undergird is a sad and dangerous way.