 |
Atheism, The Enemy of Civilization
By Dr. W.B. Riley
T
HE subject, "Atheism, the Enemy of Civilization," is an affront, but it states a fact. Infidelity is uniformly egotistical and readily imagines it is the friend of all that is good. It shall be our purpose to show that historically the exact opposite is true. It is as perfectly the enemy of man and the foe of civilization as it is the opponent of God. The sacred Scriptures are in this matter, as in all others, the last word (Ps. 14: 1), "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." History has provided thousands of illustrations of this divinely inspired assertion.
Atheism is the Enemy of Science
This statement runs counter to the boasted claim of infidelity. Unbelievers have ever been enamored of the notion that they are scholarly and even scientific. Their boasts in this matter are to be found upon every page emanating from their pens, and heard in every hall where one of their representatives secures an audience; but in spite of all that, we propose to state clearly and prove abundantly the exact opposite.
The discoveries of science clearly indicate the existence of God. If it be true as Professor Leuba, of Bryn Mawr, contends, that the majority of teachers of science in America are infidels, that is only proof of their superficiality and incompetence. It is not science that has made them so, but rather "a pseudo-science" - evolution; and a false science always makes for unbelief, while a true one eventuates in faith. The outstanding experts in the established sciences of mathematics and astronomy have been outstanding believers, while the representatives of the Darwin speculation have just as unanimously been atheists, agnostics and skeptics of all, sorts.
In the very nature of the case, a study of the works of God impresses one with His personality, power, wisdom, infinity, and from the least speck of material existence to the infinity of the universe, all unite in declaring both His greatness and His glory.
Man used to talk of monads and imagined that they were the smallest particle of matter; such language is now out of date. The monad, so it is claimed, is a world of molecules. The ancient philosopher Giordano Bruno conversed of these as eternal, and declared each. of them a microcosm or mirror of the Deity. Leibnitz regarded the monads as non-spatial units, each one representing the same universe, but presenting that universe from a different point of view, and each attaining its activities through the will of God. There was a time when biology thought of a monad as a simple single-celled organism; that time is past. A molecule was discovered; it was so small that men declared it the smallest part of a substance that could exist separately and still retain its composition and proportion; the smallest combination of atoms that would form a given chemical compound. But alas for the recent deliverances and the instability of so-called science! We are now told that each molecule contains 740 electrons, and no man knows what will be the next deliverance upon this subject. It is evident, however, that the complexity of the simplest things is past the imagination of man. When you rise in the scale of existences and consequently advance in the study of science, you come across the most mysterious secrets in the natural world-secrets so illusive that as yet the mind of the modern man has utterly failed to uncover them. But a few days since the Associated Press carried "For Science Service" an article proving the discovery of heatless light. This suggestion is based on the fact that low forms of life have been found to generate heatless light. The bacteria and fungi that cause rotten wood to glow in the dark, and the mysterious firefly that can, with a wilful or automatic motion in his body, emit a heatless light out of all proportion to the best that man's devices have ever approached; these bugs and bacteria becoming, as the article stated, at once the admiration and despair of scientists, but clearly indicating the acceptance of a mind infinitely above that of man. Man's invention of light involves a slow combustion and always generates heat; not so with the light of the bacteria and the bug; and to date that secret is with God.
God's work, in its simplest form, exceeds the understanding of man, and our amazement grows as we acquire additional knowledge.
The Psalmist said of his body, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works. My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy Book all my members were written, which in continuance were- fashioned, when as yet there was none of them" (Ps. 139: 14-16).
In order to impress this truth one needs only to study physiology a little.
I don't know that I shall even attempt to talk to you about the intricacies and efficiencies of the human eye. I will leave to others the detailed description of its lenses, the intricacies of its muscles, the delicacy and efficiency of its nerves. The eye constantly baffles the imagination and justifies Darwin's statement, "To suppose that the eye with all its illusive contrivances for adjusting the focuses to different distances and admitting different amounts of light, could be formed by natural means, fails in the highest degree. But when it is all analyzed and the mind comes as near comprehending it as the human mind can, one simply stands amazed at the minutest evidences of the Divine, in the eye, and the proposition of an infinity fixed greater credit to the same."
But the eye is not alone. Let some physicist tell you of the 600 muscles in the human body, the one thousand miles of blood-vessels in the human body, the 550 main arteries of the human body, or let him place before you the fact that 1,500,000 sweat-glands spread out on the surface of the same, or that the lungs are composed of 7,700,000 -cells, or that in the 70 years of human life the heart has struck 2,500,000,000 beats and has lifted by its throbs a load of 500,000 tons of blood; and if this does not bewilder you, then let him add that the "nervous system, controlled by the brain, has three trillion nerve cells, while the blood itself is made up of thirty million white corpuscles and one hundred trillion native red ones," and you will be ready to throw up your hands in despair in comprehension of your physical self. And yet, with such an intricate machine, completed perfectly, set in operation, apart from accidents and incidents of danger, known to function from 70 years, the natural limit of a person's life, to 969 years, the longest on record, and who will say that there was no intelligent designer for this competent machine?
But if the study of physiology does not suffice to impress one with all the wisdom and power of an infinite God, then let him lift his face to the heavens above and the stars will speak; and when he has been told that the moon is 240,000 miles removed from the earth and that the sun is more than 90,000,000 miles distant, he will begin to think in terms of space, and then he learns that the sun is, in science, more than a million times as large as our earth.
It is only unused light that leads to spiritual darkness. The naturalist who does not find God in the universe has utterly failed to correctly interpret anything in it, from its greatest central sun to its most insignificant bacteria. To go back to the text, Paul tells us exactly how the process is accomplished. "The invisible things of Him (namely, His wisdom, power, beauty, and grace), from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." And then he tells us how it came about that they failed to so connect the two as to create in their own hearts faith; and he indicts them with moral deficiency, saying:
"When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" (Rom. 1: 21-23).
It would be difficult, indeed, to see in all literature any more accurate description of the degenerating effects of Darwinism than the apostle here pens. For inanity, could anything surpass the combination of infidelity and the acquisition of learning?
Only men whose imaginations are wild and whose foolish hearts are darkened and whose egotism has puffed them up, could ever come to the conclusion of atheism. The portrait shown is impressed in the following words:
"There is no God, the fool in secret said;
There is no God that rules o'er earth or sky.
Tear off the band that binds the wretch's head,
That God may burst upon his faithless eye!
"Is there no God?-The stars in myriads spread,
If he looks up, the blasphemy deny.-
While his own features, in the mirror read,
Reflect the image of Divinity.
"Is there no God?-The stream that silver flows,
The air he breathes, the ground he treads, the trees,
The flowers, the grass, the sands, each wind that blows,
All speak of God; throughout, one voice agrees,
And, eloquent, His dread existence shows;
Blind to thyself, ah! see Him, fool, in these!"
It is only false science that leads to the bestial philosophy of infidelity, Darwinism has never done anything else. Its history of 3,000 years since the days of the Greek philosophers and down to its most modem revival, first by Erasmus Darwin, and later by his grandson, Charles, has accomplished no better ends. Never, in the history of man, has it made one colossal character or eventuated in a single outstanding discoverer of nature's secrets. The established sciences were found out and proved to the satisfaction of the public by believing men. The histories of these individuals are an open page. They were not only men of God, but many of them ministers; men in touch with God, and congruently capable of interpreting the work of God. In the universities the professed scientists of this present day are not scientists. What have they discovered? What contribution have they given to men by their knowledge? Certainly you do not count "The Hall of the Age of Man," by Henry Fairfield Osborne, a contribution, since it is evidently a hypocritical pretense.
Certainly you do not call Charles Darwin a contributor to modem science. His speculation has only succeeded in exciting an endless controversy. Why should you name Conklin or Davenport scientists? All that they have ever done was to mouth over what other men have said; neither has made any discovery! Neither can you add Millikan, since his published discoveries are not yet proved, nor have they received anything like assured acceptance. These men are either open unbelievers or largely advocates of the mechanical theory.
Galileo was an ardent Christian believer; Copernicus, while a Papist, had an unshaken confidence in God and His Word, and was brought up in -the house of a priest. Kepler was a ministerial student of such scientific tendencies as to triumph over the priest, and the works of Sir Isaac Newton show that he combined in one man a search for nature’s secrets and the discovery of the secrets of revelation; and lastly, Mendel, the devoted monk, who, while about his pastoral duties, checked up many facts and discovered more of the laws of nature than all Ms boasted scientific brethren combined. Now let it be forever understood that Atheism is the enemy of science, and Faith its father and friend.
Atheism is the Enemy of Society
God-deniers are not delightful souls! Go where you will throughout the world, when you find them you will not want to abide with them, and it would be difficult for God Himself to brook them.
The first murder that stained the earth with human blood was wrought by a man who refused to recognize the sacrificial atonement as a type of the saving Christ. And when the flood came and wiped the earth with the besom of destruction, it was that it might rid it also of skeptics and atheists - men who had forgotten and denied God.
There has been a stir recently in the circles of education and religion over the wave of suicide sweeping our colleges, and outstanding men have been discussing methods of abating this blot upon civilization. The solution of the problem is not far to seek. When the schools stop teaching an atheistic philosophy, the fruits thereof will not be so openly found, and those fruits are despair, degradation and death.
God-deniers are usually men of reprobate morals. You will seldom find a man who combines in one and the same person the philosophy of atheism and a course of upright moral conduct. "The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism" declares that they "will undertake to abrogate all laws for enforcing Christian morals." Later they add they wish to better civilization by "operating as a wrecking company."
That is what atheism has ever been-an enemy of Christian morals, "a wrecking company," indeed! Had others charged them with this, they would, undoubtedly, have repudiated the charge; but now that they have asserted their purpose, they can hardly complain. Intelligent and thoughtful men will remind them that they are running true to form. The history they make will of necessity be of a sort which atheism has known through all the centuries.
The love of sin is the individual's lowest estate. There are many unfortunate men and weak women who fall into sin, but who positively loathe the same. The adversary's trap takes them; his pitfalls catch them, but they uniformly grieve over their weakness, regret their folly, and plead with God for recovering favor. But Paul says in this text that they come to the point where they not only give themselves up to uncleanness through lust, where they not only change the truth of God into a lie, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, where they not only offend against God, but even against nature itself, being filled with all unrighteousness, but where they actually have pleasure in them that do evil.
That is the character of infidels! "The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism" deliberately publish their pleasure in them that do evil, and express the hope that "one representative from their camp may undo the work of a score of missionaries," and that "a few thousand dollars spent in the circulation" of their infamous literature may offset millions spent by the churches."
The drunkard is not the lowest man; the man who takes pleasure in making other drunkards, is lower still. The harlot is not the lowest of women, but the woman who takes pleasure in teaching her sister harlotry is taking the last plunge toward the pit. The grieved doubter is not necessarily damned, but the man who destroys the faith of his friends and the professor whose teaching wrecks the confidence of students-such are allies of Satan himself!
Atheism
Is the Enemy of the State
Civilization has not been the product of atheism. We challenge "The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism," or any other advocate of this God-denying, soul-destroying doctrine, to show one instance in which their philosophy has built a State, or a single instance in which they have made anything but an evil contribution to the same. In view of this fact is it not amazing to find many school-men-men set in positions of opportunity and responsibility-stealthily poisoning the minds of the young? "The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism" is quoted in the following:
"Dr. Irwin Erdman, of Columbia University, teaches his students that 'man is a mere accident,' that 'immortality is a sheer illusion,' and that 'there is practically no evidence for the existence of God'"
"Everett Dean Martin, Director of Cooper Union in New York City, has the largest class in philosophy in the world. He teaches his students that 'religion is primarily a defense mechanism,' subjective in its organism.
"Professor John B. Watson, of Johns Hopkins, teaches that 'freedom of the will has been knocked into a cocked hat,' and that 'soul-consciousness, God, and immortality, are merely mistakes of the older psychology'."
All across this continent text-books are filled with their vicious work, going under the name of Science, which is being compelled to carry the straining burden of such statements, and society already feeling the consequences of the same, is but reaping the first-fruits of a bitterer harvest that is sure to come.
Witness France and her plunge into atheism and the reign of terror that followed; or, take Russia and her present debauch of infidelity, and the natural disgrace coming in consequence.
Civilization has ever been the product of religion, and false religion will produce poor civilization. Heathen countries have' illustrated this; yet even their religion is helpful, and the wildest superstition has proven more beneficial than the most balanced atheism that ever voiced itself. If you want to know what the condition of any state or nation is, find out what its religion is, and you can readily determine; it is as unerring as the electric needle!
The world has suffered much from religion; Paul charged the people of Athens with being "too religious." Yet perhaps it can be said with absolute candor that none of these are so detrimental to society, so harmful to the state and so destructive to national life, as atheism or "no religion." Christianity has produced the highest known civilization.
There is not an ennobling influence known to humanity that is not the emphasized product of Christianity. There is not a desirable institution existing with any peoples that has not been fostered and favored by the Christian faith. There is not a philosophy that tends to the social, political and spiritual uplift of mankind that may not be found better phrased in the Bible than unbelieving men have ever expressed the same. The Christian faith, with its one and true God and its wondrous and true Book, has brought to the world more light and has given to living men more happiness than all the philosophies of unbelieving men combined; and the crime of the ages is not the murder of individuals, now characterizing and cursing modern society, but it is the sinister, devilish, damnable doctrine, now lurking in the halls of every university in the land and of all civilized lands, and seeking by smooth speech and in the name of "Science," falsely so-called, to destroy the faith of men in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in His revealed Will, the Scriptures!
|
Atheists are people who assert that there is no God. They may say that atoms or their component parts in space makeup the sum total of all reality. Whatever the analysis, these people assert that finite physical reality is all there is—that there is nothing else. There are several divisions in this group. One historically prominent group is the Logical Positivists. By an analysis of language, they conclude that theology is not so much false as it is plain nonsense. To them, speaking of God is like saying that the typewriter is the bluish-green sound of the square root of minus one. Theology is not good enough even to be false; it is simple nonsense. Other devotees of scientism are not Logical Positivists. Their theories are called naturalism or humanism, and they would call theology bigoted falsehood. Various political liberals are atheists, and often their socialistic creed attacks theology as a reactionary hindrance to social advancement.
Pantheism and Agnosticism
It is instructive to distinguish between two forms of atheism, for the second form, pantheism, has the appearance of believing in God very much. It indeed asserts the existence of God, and the theory can be called theology. These people do not want to be known as atheists or as irreligious. But they define God as all that exists. Spinoza used the phrase Deus sive Natura: God, that is to say, Nature. Some may use the term Pure Being, or theologian Paul Tillich’s phrase, The Ground of All Being. Thus God is the universe itself. He is not its Creator. Since they say that God is the All, these people are called Pantheists.
Logically there is no difference between Atheism and Pantheism. To deny that there is a God and to apply the name God to everything are conceptually identical. For example, it is as though I should assert the existence of a grumpstein and try to prove it by pointing to giraffes, stars, mountain ranges, and books: together they form a grumpstein, I would say, and therefore a grumpstein exists. The pantheists point to giraffes, stars, and so on, and say, therefore God exists. Those who deny God—atheists—and those who say God is everything—pantheists—are asserting that nothing beyond the physical universe is real. In Christian language, and in common languages around the world, God is as different from the universe as a star is from a giraffe and more so.
There is actually another variety of atheism, though the adherents themselves might strongly object to being called atheists. Technically they are not atheists, though they might as well be. These are the agnostics. They do not assert that there is a God, nor do they assert that there is no God; they simply say that they do not know. They claim ignorance. Ignorance, however, is not a theory one can argue. Ignorance is an individual state of mind. An ignorant person is not required to prove by learned arguments that he is ignorant. He just does not know. Such a person needs to be taught.
Probably most persons in the United States are atheists of a sort. If one should ask them, they would probably say that they believe in God. But they might as well not believe in God for all the good it does them. Unless someone mentions God to them, they never think of him; they never pray to him; he does not enter into their daily plans and calculations. Their lives, their minds, their thinking are essentially no different from the lives of atheists and agnostics. They are "practicing atheists."
The Atheist’s Argument
The reader of this may expect to find a straightforward refutation of atheism. But he may be disappointed, for the situation is somewhat complicated. In the first place, one might accuse the atheist of never having proved that the physical universe is the only reality and that there are no supernatural beings. This would be satisfactory, if the term atheism means the argued denial of a Deity. But atheists, like agnostics, shift the burden of proof and say the theist is under obligation to demonstrate the truth of his view; but the atheist considers himself under no such obligation. Atheists usually wobble back and forward. Yet, Ernest Nagel, who may be called a naturalist in philosophy, seems to argue: "the occurrence of events [he means each and every event without exception]...is contingent on the organization of spatio-temporally located bodies.... That this is so is one of the best-tested conclusions of experience.... There is no place for an immaterial spirit directing the course of events, no place for the survival of personality after the corruption of the body which exhibits it."
This is an atheistic, not an agnostic, statement. He argues that science has proved the nonexistence of God, but the argument is invalid. No scientist has ever produced any evidence that man’s intellect ceases to function at death. Since his methods have not discovered any spirit, Nagel assumes there can be none. He refuses to question his methods. Atheism is not a conclusion developed by his methods; rather it is the assumption on which his methods are based.
The agnostic, however, is not so dogmatic. He shifts the burden and demands theists prove that an omnipotent spirit has created and now controls the universe. This is quite a challenge, and it is one that the Christian is duty bound to face. No Christian with intellectual ability can excuse himself by claiming theology is useless hairsplitting. Peter has warned him otherwise. The "practicing atheists" are really agnostics, and we must preach the Gospel to them—and that God omnipotent reigns is part of the Gospel. But they answer, "How do you know that there is any God at all?" A Christian who knows no theology is ill equipped to answer this question. How is it possible to know God? Is he just a trance, a hunch, an ecstatic experience? Is he so transcendent that we can neither know him nor talk about him? Is he not so transcendent? Note that the Christian apologete, i.e., the Christian evangelist, must have a decently clear conception of God before he can satisfy his inquisitors. He must be knowledgeable in theology.
The Wrong Reply
Now, the answer to the agnostic’s very pertinent question is rather complex, and the reader must not expect anything simple. Furthermore, the answer given here will appear unsatisfactory and disappointing to some very honest Christians. For these reasons the present reply to agnosticism will begin with an explanation of how not to answer the question. If this seems a cumbersome and roundabout way of going at it, and the impatient non-theologian wants immediate results, it must be pointed out that the initial choice between two roads determines the destination. Choose the wrong road and one ends up lost and confused. Remember Bunyan’s Christian and how he looked down two roads, trying to see which one was straight. Then there came along a swarthy pilgrim in a white robe who pointed out to him, with great confidence, which road Christian should take. It ended in near disaster. Therefore we shall begin by pointing out the wrong road.
Now, I do not wish to say that those who recommend the wrong road in the present matter are flattering deceivers whose white robes are hypocritical disguises. On the contrary, a large number of respectable and honest authors, from Aristotle to Charles Hodge and Robert Sproul, insist that the best and indeed the only way to prove the existence of God is to study the growth of a plant, the path of a planet, the motion of a marble. They support this seemingly secular method by quoting Psalm 19:1— "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork." Therefore we should study astronomy to refute the atheist and to instruct the agnostic. Paul says that God’s omnipotence can be deduced from the way a little boy shoots a marble—a thing that has been made. Some stalwart Romanists boast that Paul foresaw and placed his stamp of approval on Thomas’ Aristotelian argument.
There are two difficulties with this enthusiastic recommendation. The first is not conclusive, but those who approve of the argument must pay attention to it. The difficulty is its difficulty: It is a very hard method. The second difficulty is its virtual uselessness.
The first difficulty—inconclusive evidence and a hard method to prove—can be best addressed with a few examples. Suppose we can get a microscope and examine the internal phloem of the Lykopersikon esculentum. Botany is even worse than theology in its use of long and technical words. We get a clear picture of the internal structure of a plant, but we cannot discover God by a detailed, microscopic look into a tomato. If we carefully observe the motion of the planets, we will see that the squares of their periodic times are proportional to their mean distances from the Sun. If we succeeded in getting this information, we could conclude that God is a great mathematician and that salvation depends on understanding mathematics. Essentially, this is what the ancient Greek philosophical school of the Pythagoreans said. They believed that a happy life after death was the reward for studying arithmetic and geometry.
People hold a somewhat similar view today who think that all the problems of this world can be solved by science. But unlike the Pythagoreans, contemporaries do not believe in a life after death, nor do they think the laws of astronomy can prove there is a God. To change their minds by deducing the existence of God from the laws of science would be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible. If by some other method we first know there is a God, the study of astronomy might show that he is a mathematician. But we would have to know God first.
However, the mere fact that an argument is difficult and complex does not prove that it is a fallacy. Geometry and calculus may drive students to despair, but the theorems are usually regarded as valid deductions. Contrariwise, when one examines the argument as Thomas actually wrote it, serious flaws appear. In another work, I have detailed some of Thomas’ fallacies. One of them is a case of circularity, in which he uses as a premise the conclusion he wished to prove. Another is the case of a term that has one meaning in the premises and a different meaning in the conclusion. No syllogism can be valid if the conclusion contains an idea not already given in the premises.
The conclusion therefore is: The so-called "cosmological argument" is not only extremely difficult—since it would require a great amount of science, mathematics, and philosophy to prove it—but it is inconclusive and irremediably fallacious. This is no way to answer the atheists.
The second difficulty is that even if such an argument were valid, it would be useless. This objection applies more to modern authors than to Aristotle. Aristotle’s notion of god was quite clear: the Unmoved Mover, thought thinking thought; and this metaphysical mind has a definite role in the explanation of natural phenomena. But the god of contemporary empiricists seems to have no role at all; mainly because the meaning they attach to the word God is utterly vague.
As examples of these arguments, one can mention Yale Philosophy Professor John E. Smith’s Experience of God; Frederick Sontag’s How Philosophy Shapes Theology; a few years earlier Geddes MacGregor of Bryn Mawr published Introduction to Religious Philosophy. There are many such books; it is not my intention to discuss any of these individually. My point is: When they try to support a belief in god, their arguments are no better and often worse than those of Aristotle; and if some plausibility is found in them, the reason is that their notion of what god is is so vague and ambiguous that the reader imposes his own definite ideas. In their context, the arguments are virtually meaningless. Furthermore, the vague god of these views is useless. Nothing can be deduced from his existence. No moral norms follow a definition of god; no religious practices are contained in a description of god.
One can have a certain academic respect for an atheist who flatly denies God and life after death. He says clearly what he means, and he uses the term God in its common English meaning. One can have almost as much respect for the pantheist, even though he does not use the term God in its ordinary meaning. At least Baruch Spinoza and others identify god explicitly with the universe. But what can our reaction be to the view of Professor H. N. Wieman? He insisted on the existence of god, but for him god is not even all the universe—he, or it, is only some part of the universe. Namely, god is a complex of interactions in society on which we depend and to whose essential structure we must conform if maximum value is to be realized in human experience. So? How does this definition of god stack up against the Shorter Catechism? Therefore, Christians should be more concerned about what kind of God exists rather than about the existence of God.
The Meaninglessness of Existence
At first it may seem strange that knowledge of what God is more important than knowledge that God is. His essence or nature being more important than his existence may seem unusual. Existentialists insist that existence precedes essence. Nevertheless, competent Christians disagree for two reasons. First, we have seen that pantheists identify god with the universe. What is god? —the universe. The mere fact that they use the name god for the universe and thus assert that god "exists" is of no help to Christianity.
The second reason for not being much interested in the existence of God is somewhat similar to the first. The idea existence is an idea without content. Stars exist—but this tells us nothing about the stars; mathematics exists—but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist. The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. A word, to mean something, must also not mean something. For example, if I say that some cats are black, the sentence has meaning only because some cats are white. If the adjective were attached to every possible subject—so all cats were black, all stars were black, and all politicians were black, as well as all the numbers in arithmetic, and God too—then the word black would have no meaning. It would not distinguish anything from something else. Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information. That is why the Catechism asks, What is God? Not, Does God exist?
Now, most of the contemporary authors are extremely vague as to what sort of God they are talking about; and because the term is so vague, the concept is useless. Can these authors use their god to support a belief in life after death? No ethical norms can be deduced from their god. Most pointedly, their god does not speak to man. He is no better than "the silence of eternity" without even being "interpreted by love." Atheism is more realistic, more honest. If we are to combat the latter, we need a different method.
The Proper Reply
The explanation of a second method must begin with a more direct confrontation with atheism. If the existence of God cannot be deduced by cosmology, have we dodged the burden of proof and left the battlefield in the possession of our enemies? No; there is indeed a theistic answer. Superficially, it is not difficult to understand; but, unfortunately, a full appreciation of its force requires some philosophic expertise. A knowledge of geometry is of great help, but it is seldom taught in the public high schools. One cannot realistically expect Christians to have read and to have understood Spinoza; and Protestant churches usually anathematize plain, ordinary Aristotelian logic.
In geometry there are axioms and theorems. One of the early theorems is, "An exterior angle of a triangle is greater than either opposite interior angle." A later one is the famous Pythagorean theorem: the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle equals the square of its hypotenuse. How theological all this sounds! These two theorems and all others are deduced logically from a certain set of axioms. But the axioms are never deduced. They are assumed without proof.
There is a definite reason why not everything can be deduced. If one tried to prove the axioms of geometry, one must refer back to prior propositions. If these too must be deduced, there must be previous propositions, and so on back ad infinitum. From which it follows: If everything must be demonstrated, nothing can be demonstrated, for there would be no starting point. If you cannot start, then you surely cannot finish.
Every system of theology or philosophy must have a starting point. Logical Positivists started with the unproved assumption that a sentence can have no meaning unless it can be tested by sensation. To speak without referring to something that can be touched, seen, smelled, and especially measured, is to speak nonsense. But they never deduce this principle. It is their non-demonstrable axiom. Worse, it is self-contradictory, for it has not been seen, smelled, or measured; therefore it is self-condemned as nonsense.
If the axioms of other secularists are not nonsense, they are nonetheless axioms. Every system must start somewhere, and it cannot have started before it starts. A naturalist might amend the Logical Positivist’s principle and make it say that all knowledge is derived from sensation. This is not nonsense, but it is still an empirically unverifiable axiom. If it is not self-contradictory, it is at least without empirical justification. Other arguments against empiricism need not be given here: The point is that no system can deduce its axioms.
The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianity’s being based on a non-demonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so can Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be, God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.
HERESIES EXPOSED
A Brief Critical Examination in the Light of the Holy Scriptures of some of the Prevailing Heresies and False Teachings of Today
Compiled by
WM. C. IRVINE
Loizeaux Brothers, Bible Truth Depot
New York
First Edition, 1917 - Fifteenth Edition 1944
Agnosticism
By A. McD. Rewood
THE
natural attitude of a thinking mind toward the supernatural is that of skepticism’ skepticism, not agnosticism. The skeptic halts at the cross-roads, to take his bearings; but at the sight of a cross-road the agnostic gives up his journey altogether. True skepticism connotes intellectual caution, but agnosticism is intellectual suicide." With these words Sir Robert Anderson opens one of his chapters in his In Defence, a book which we commend to everyone who suffers from mental doubts.
What is Agnosticism?
In the words of Professor Alexander Stewart, it is "the name by which those designate their position who do not deny the existence of God, the future world, and other doctrines of religion, but declare that we do not, and cannot, know anything about these subjects, and should therefore leave them out of account." Agnosticism denies that there is a revelation, and therefore denies the Bible. In effect, the agnostic is neither logical nor philosophical, for, whilst he acknowledges there is a God, he will not allow that God can reveal Himself to the creatures of His own bands. "The Agnostic recognizes the facts of nature and the duties of life: of these he admits we have a knowledge sufficient for all practical purposes, though even here there are deep problems which remain unsolved; but because be cannot solve all deep problems with regard to God, he will not admit that we have even a practical knowledge of Him - a knowledge to be gained by inference from the facts of nature and the constitution of man, even if we leave that given by Revelation out of account. Agnosticism is thus essentially inconsistent and untenable whenever it goes beyond the declaration that there is much in relation to God which our intellects cannot apprehend."
Such a half-way position, with atheism on the one side denying the very existence of God, and skepticism on the other side endeavoring to find the way (as Paul says: "If haply they might find Him"), although it be but a feeling one's way in the dark, is surely only possible to those who refuse to know and are wilfully blind. One can have much patience with the honest doubter, the man with sincere intellectual difficulties, who is willing to make use of even a rushlight if it will but lead him in the way of Truth. But no amount of argument will avail for the one who deliberately rejects; his agnosticism is with him a "creed," a "creed" of illogical ignorance.
An Appeal
This article is not so much an exposure as an appeal, and that to the former class. Agnosticism has done its own exposing; it stands self-condemned in the eyes of all honest minds who have themselves made honest search and found the Way. Now, our appeal is-Will you search and find? Christianity declares with no equivocal challenge that "God hath spoken unto us by His Son." The Son Himself has said: "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE." And He has further laid down His principle, and a truly scientific principle at that, fully in accord with the modern scientific method, by which we may arrive at a clear knowledge of Truth, of Himself. This is given in John 7: 17: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself." You are in doubt as to whether God can and does reveal Himself to the human heart; you are in doubt as to whether Christ Jesus is the manifestation of God and His love to man? Right! Then there, in the few words quoted above, you will find a method of testing it for yourself. You believe in the existence of God, somehow, somewhere. Act on that belief. Do His will and you shall know. He has pledged Himself to do His part, if you will do yours. "But," you answer, "what is His will? How shall I find it out?" My answer is this: In nature everywhere we see the evidence of His power and of His workings; but in the Bible we see His will and His love. "But how do I know that?" you ask. Test it. Here is the commandment, the will of God, as given in His Word: "This is the commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ," and again, "This is the will of Him that sent Me (the Son), that everyone which seeth the Son (by faith) and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (1 John 3: 23; John 6: 40). You don't believe the Bible? Never mind, for the moment; test those words practically; receive Jesus Christ into your heart by an act of simple faith, believing Him to be true to His Word, asking Him to open your eyes that you may see and know Him. Keep asking, sincerely and persistently, and - You WILL KNOW! "Really?" Absolutely certain! God does not lie, He is not a gamester, He is God! And He wants you to know and to love Him, for He knows and loves You!
A Testimony
Anybody tried this way before you? Literally thousands, a host innumerable. Here is a sample of one who thus found Christ, taken from J. F. Clarke's booklet, Does God reveal Himself to men?
It tells of the conversion of H. Musgrave Reade, for twenty years, not merely an agnostic, but an out-and-out atheist, nevertheless an honest thinker, as recorded in his own book, From Atheism to Christ:
I read eagerly Strauss' Life of Christ, in which he contended that the Gospel account was on a par with the mythology of ancient Greece and Rome, and that Christ was simply a myth, probably taken from the Hindu God Krishna. Then I readily drank in Renan’s Vie de Jesus, with its beautiful, but soul-destroying picture of Christ, neither divine, nor human, neither the Son of God, nor a truly noble and good man. Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and a host of German metaphysicians then captivated my fancy, and I was soon in the vain imaginings of idealism, transcendentalism, and pessimism, and thus blossomed into a philosophical deist. Auguste Comte, with his Positivist Philosophy, then attracted my attention; his plausible theory of science and religion gained -many adherents, mainly through his attempts to spiritualize free thought into a religion. The Religion of Humanity was the cult, and its devotees were asked to worship an abstraction, that to elevate the idea of the whole humanity, past, present, and to come, into a grand being, to be reverenced and worshipped. Professor Huxley aptly termed it Catholicism minus Christianity. These, in turn, gave way to more extreme critics and opponents of Christianity. Rousseau, Voltaire, Volney, Paine, and others, were eagerly sought for, and the tenets of Christianity were insidiously uprooted from my mind. I became what is termed a Freethinker (why a rejecter of Christianity should have the monopoly of this title I have never been able to understand). The transition from this phase was greatly facilitated by a course of studies in the realm of science, in which I was introduced to the works of Buchner, Haeckel, Darwin, Tyndall, Huxley, etc., and imbibed the doctrines of evolution-this completed the work, and left me a materialistic atheist.
While in this state of mind Reade met Charles Bradlaugh, Mrs. Annie Besant, Dr. Edward Aveling, and other prominent atheists, and became himself an anti-Christian propagandist. In 1882 he became Secretary of a branch of the National Secular Society of which Charles Bradlaugh was president, and in 1892 he was one of the seven men who formed the Independent Labor Party. In 1900 he was appointed by his employers to undertake a long journey in America, and in this connection he visited sixty-two of the largest towns and cities in the United States. The various sights witnessed and the many cities through which he passed deeply impressed him, and formed the first link in the chain of evidence of the existence of God.
An Agnostic Convinced
In his own words the memorable journey and its consequence are thus described: -
All this had its deep influence upon my mind unconsciously, and it eventually resulted in the revelation of God to me as a Personal Being, knowing and loving the creature He had made. The hour of the revelation drew nigh. I was in the train, slowly climbing the wonderful Rocky Mountains. We had reached an altitude of 15,000 feet. We had left Colorado 90 degrees in the shade, and here we were passing through snow-capped pinnacles, where eagles were sweeping past us as the train slowly labored up the heights. The panorama to a city man brought up amidst the bricks and mortar of Manchester, was overwhelming. Here I beheld a wonder cataclysm of nature. The "Royal Gorge" some three miles deep, lay on one side of the rails over which we were passing, and we were now on the edge of a precipice, and again mounting up to another peak until we reached the highest point. At this altitude the train climbed so slowly that all the passengers left the car, and I was alone. I sat in a reverie gazing at the spectacle, whilst I began instinctively feeling about, so to speak, in my mind for an explanation of these wonders. The first defined thought was, Surely all this is not the result of fortuitous circumstances, blind chance, matter and force or, as we glibly say, "a concourse of fortuitous atoms!" Something else than the atomic theory must account for all these wonders. Could "evolution" explain it all? Evolution can give a plausible case to us whilst we are studying nature, in our chamber amongst our books, but the immediate contact with nature herself, in all her rugged beauty, speaks to us of the existence of a higher power than ourselves. Insensibly I found my mind was undergoing a change;. an irresistible feeling of wonder, awe, and reverence crept into my thoughts. I had ever been an honest seeker after truth, and the thought suddenly flashed into my mind-Might I, after all, have been mistaken? I felt I must face the question. I fell on my knees, and cried, "O God, if Thou dost exist, reveal Thyself." I asked for light and it came like a flood I The whole car seemed full of light. It was the veil torn off my mind by the Spirit of God. I felt that I was in the presence of God, and I capitulated without a struggle. I who had resisted so long His gracious pleadings, who had rebelled against His authority so many years, was at last brought into submission. I arose from my knees filled with joy, saying, "GOD IS!" There had come to me "that Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1: 9). There could be no "association of ideas," as some would say, to account for this, for as I fell on my knees I had in my hand one of Ingersoll's books which I had been reading. The sudden change simply meant that the Spirit of God had come into my life, in spite of my resistance, without my seeking, and without the help of man or books, and I knew that I beheld the glory of God and His wondrous works! Oh, what a revelation and a revolution of ideas , what joy and peace to know the unfathomable love of God! Was I dreaming, or ill with the fever? Nay, neither; I never felt better in health than at that moment. It was my first realization of the Personal Presence of God.
But although the great discovery had been made, months passed before he came into possession of the new life.
An Agnostic Converted
On his return to England, a Bible was at length purchased and carefully studied, and the joyful news comprehended that there is a new life or salvation to be had through trusting Christ
The new life brought with it, not only great joy and peace, but an earnest desire to spread the good news to others. Having tasted that the Lord was good I yearned to let other blind souls know this great joy, but I soon found out to my want to know about this "good thing of God." They did not wish to be disturbed, they were in their sin and blindness. I marveled greatly that they could spurn such love, that the blessed news would meet with such a cold response: but I remembered my own sad case, how blind and perverse I had been for twenty years.
Moreover, innumerable witnesses could be produced, not only from amongst those who have written, but from those whom we know.
We have seen changes wrought in the lives of individuals that nothing short of divine power could effect - changes certainly not the result of the cherishing of high ideals, intellectual culture, mesmeric influences, or sentiment. We have seen these changes effected in individuals possessing minds incapable of appreciating the glories of classical literature, or even, to a great extent, the sublimity of nature. We have seen these desirable effects wrought in those with weakened will power, and with records of broken resolutions; and the explanations given by the individual have always been that these results have been consequent upon the committal of themselves and their lives into the hands of Jesus Christ, who has become real to them, and who manifests His saving and keeping power in their lives.
There can be but one explanation-an actual power. If these results are effected-(and they are), to deny them is simply to deny facts-an adequate cause is essential. That cause is God in Christ, revealing Himself through the Bible by the Holy Spirit. Truly, agnosticism is inconsistent and inadequate.
...'Atheism'
|
|
|
| |
Shadows...of...the evening
Morning sun.....all.....erased
Earth...compelled...by something
Revolves....again..in space
Yet.....this..escapes...the atheist
Though..he sees..that sun..ashining
Just......as it was...on yesterday
Still.........a living God...denying
Atheism - A fraudulent...arrogant....self-centered concept..for no one..is..devoid...of..FAITH! One's...every act..is a demonstrated exercise in faith....that...spiritual...belief...in the existence.....of...a
Greater Power. It matters not.....the label!
'JBE'
James B. Earley
|
|
|  |
LOADING