Atheism Feedback 1-18-10

Another response from our cordial atheist named Gerry follows below:
*********************************************************
Dusman, despite your valiant efforts, I will remain “... in (my) intellectual autonomy, ..”; it can be no other way. When I stated that this exchange had reached a stalemate, I was correct.

With all due respect, you are not correct. This is nowhere near a stalemate. You have still missed the point as we'll see again below.

My view of natural selection does not, cannot, rest to any degree whatsoever on the notion that the “ ‘scientific method’ is impossible in the first place because God is the one who provides the things needed to correctly understand the world.”

Your reliance on the procedures of natural science to acquire a better understanding of the physical world relies completely on the existence of the God of the Bible, regardless of your statements to the contrary. This is because your view of reality (naturalistic materialism) contradicts itself since it denies in principle the very things it requires in practice. For example, the materialist scientist uses logical laws and other immaterial universals, concepts, and abstractions to do his job, even though he believes there are no immaterials. Thus, every time he argues against the existence of immaterial entities he uses them to make his case and in so doing contradicts himself. You are doing the same thing, you either don't realize it or don't want to admit it. Again, from whence comes abstract, immaterial concepts like logical laws, the general uniformity of nature, the reliability of the senses, etc., if all that exists is matter? Worse, why should I assume that that future instances of the uniformity of nature will continue the same way as it has in the past? As stated in my last two blog posts answering your objections, I noted that this is the classic "Problem of Induction"; a problem rooted in the logical fallacy known as begging the question. To assume that the future is going to be like the past based upon past instance of the future being like the past is to beg the question. Even former atheist turned deist Antony Flew recognized that atheism is unable to ground it's most basic assumptions. See his newest book here and an overview of Flew's general ideas in that book here.

With that being said, if you continue to reject the Creator God, you will continue to contradict yourself and be illogical (hence, irrational). Such are the sinful results of intellectual autonomy (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Regarding natural selection, it never has nor could it ever produce the macroevolutionary changes that Dawkins and the other "New Atheists" preach about. Such ideas constitute blind faith in a materialistic fairy tale. See Muddy Waters: Clarifying the confusion about natural selection.

Your evidence for a god-created universe is firmly rooted in the bible, a book that I studied as a youngster but put aside when the messages and meanings my religious teachers insisted were there never materialized.

My evidence for the God-created universe does not rest on special revelation alone (i.e., the Bible), but also includes natural revelation as evidence for the Creator (Romans 1:20). What follows are scads of articles that demonstrate the truth of Romans 1:20; namely, that the existence of creation necessitates a Creator: Design Features Questions and Answers.

In those days, I believed in God simply because, as a child, I had been taught to believe. And it wasn’t for the want of trying; I prayed fervently and waited for some kind of connection, but nothing ever clicked.

I'm not sure what you were looking for to validate the Bible nor am I aware of the specific situation you are referring to, so I cannot specifically comment on this. I would need more specific information about what you "prayed fervently" for and what you mean by "trying" and "wait[ing] for some connection, but nothing ever clicked."

However, I will make some general comments based upon my past experience in interacting with atheists. First, what were you expecting? In other words; lets say you were looking for some subjective experience or an answer to prayer to validate the truthfulness of the Bible. However, a lack of subjective experiences and unanswered prayers are not proofs for atheism; they are proof of a lack of subjective experiences and unanswered prayers. Just because a person never experiences what they think is necessary to "validate" the existence of the God of the Bible doesn't necessarily mean that He doesn't exist. Second, the Bible never tells people in the New Covenant era to determine truth solely by such methods. The manner of determining truth in this age is guided and determined by the mind of God as revealed in the word of God. Anything other than this inevitably leads to relativism.

Eventually, my religious inclinations declined and rationality flourished.

No they didn't, you became irrational after becoming irreligious. Here's how (1) you rejected the very thing you needed to ground the preconditions for rationality when you rejected God [as mentioned briefly above and shown here and here] and (2) you inevitably do the very thing you chide Christians for: appealing to a type of mysticism in order to justify your rationality, the very thing you work so hard to avoid. See my detailed discussion of this in these articles: Dialectical Tensions and Dialectical Tensions II.

When I croak, which I expect will happen sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, my life, my existence, my time as a living creature will end. My brain will close down as will my existential relationship with my mind. I do not expect a spiritual existence after death. My bones will disintegrate into atoms which will be recycled through trees, birds, and rocks, and which will, in some five billion years, be blasted back into the universe from which they came. If I am wrong, I will be surprised.

You are wrong and have embraced a fairy tale. If you fail to repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ, you will be surprised (Hebrews 9:27). Physicalism is another self-refuting lie.

If I am wrong, you and I might then meet, chat, and have a cup of tea.

My friend, you are wrong, and if you don't repent, then this life is the best it gets for you. Should you fail to heed the command of Jesus to repent and believe the gospel, we will not be chatting, there will be no tea, and you will remember these conversations . . . forever (Matthew 25:46).
I on the other hand will be worshipping Jesus and you will be suffering your just penalty in Hell for the reasons mentioned in the previous articles. Listen, I am here to help you by (1) telling you the truth about the gospel of Christ and (2) showing you that your worldview contradicts itself, thus it can't be true.

If you want to be truly rational, then repent and believe the gospel of Christ (Proverbs 1:7).