Is Atheism Foolish or Wise? -- Rev. Timothy G. Muse vs. PoodleLovinPessimist

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Rev. Timothy G. Muse and PoodleLovinPessimist on the following question:

Is atheism foolish or wise?

Rev. Timothy G. Muse will argue that atheism is a foolish position and PoodleLovinPessimist will argue that atheism is a wise position to hold. The debate will be set up in the following way, as agreed to from the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1879687&postcount=32):

Part I: The Case for Foolishness
- Rev. Timothy G. Muse opens; PoodleLovinPessimist rebuts
- Rev. Timothy G. Muse defends; PoodleLovinPessimist rebuts
- Rev. Timothy G. Muse concludes

Part II: The Case for Wisdom
- PoodleLovinPessimist opens; Rev. Timothy G. Muse rebuts
- PoodleLovinPessimist defends; Rev. Timothy G. Muse rebuts
- PoodleLovinPessimist concludes

Part III: Concluding Statements
- concurrent posts from each participant

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=102131) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

First, let me thank those responsible for this website who value and provide the platform and means for public debate; those administering the debate, and Poodle Loving Pessimist for entering debate, for those who have taken it upon themselves to publicize the debate, and for you the readers of the debate. Though wisdom tells me it would be wise to wait and first read the comments of the Peanut Gallery, I suppose thanks are even in order there, for I?m confident there will be constructive criticism as well as savory thoughts and comments! I have already benefited from the experience and look forward to the debate, for as GOD (note I reference Him and do not plagiarize) has said in Scripture ?As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.?

The topic of this debate is: The Foolishness of the Atheist Position. By ?Atheist?, I include the belief, the affirmation, the advocacy, and the belief system that positively and dogmatically affirms the denial of the existence of God, recognizing there is a difference between soft or hard atheism. By ?foolishness?, I mean unfounded, unreasonable, insensible, unwise, unholy, irresponsible, unfruitful, unprepared, inexcusable, unpardonable and unhopeful, and therefore un-commendable (Ps 14:1; 1 Cor 1:18-2:16). Note: The debate goes beyond the question of the foolishness of atheism to the question of the foolishness of holding to atheism, but will show respect and remain clear of personal attacks on the persons holding the position of atheism.

First, I argue that Atheism fails to positively and unquestionably establish or provide proof that there is no God. While some would argue that the proof lies on those who espouse belief in God, the atheist affirms not just that one cannot know whether God exists or not (as the agnostic), but that God does NOT exist. This has never been proven. While as John Blanchard puts it and as I intend to show ?all the evidence points in another direction? [1] (my paraphrase), it must be noted that for one to put absolute faith in a belief that remains unfounded is questionable, at best. Simply put, just because discoverers, propagators, and proponents of Atheism put forth philosophical arguments, scientific theories, existential experiences and the like (even those convincing to many in their day), including the various manifestos that have gained so much attention and influenced many; and even though leading atheists have claimed victory, and some like Nietzsche have claimed that ?God is dead? ? doesn?t make it so. The ontological argument remains that if there is a God (transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) who either chose not to reveal himself to man, or chose to reveal himself to some but not to others, or chose to reveal himself progressively, etc., then argument from the lesser to the greater suggests that man could over and over arrive at the conclusion that there is no God, when in fact there is. The same would hold true if instead of God withholding his presence and glory, inabilities or restrictions inherent to the present condition of man (such as his blindness, lack of understanding, powerlessness, or his moral resistance and intentional rejection of the truth) kept him from desiring, receiving, knowing or acknowledging, or affirming the truth. In the former case, it would be like a man keeping his existence and supremacy known from an ant if he chose to; while in the latter case we are all familiar with examples of those who refuse to confront or acknowledge the truth, to take personal responsibility, or to acknowledge the guilt, contemptibility and culpability of their actions. I submit that the deliberate, absolute, utter, unequivocal and unapologetic denial of God is one of the greatest signs of foolishness that man can and does commit. It is joined, if not usurped, by the same adherents, who in total denial, and as if unquestionably place themselves on the throne of life, at the center of the universe, as the final arbiter of knowledge and truth, and last but not least as the final word and judge concerning their own justification and decisions. As Paul writes ?Let God be true and every man a liar.?

I argue that Atheism fails to provide a reasonable or satisfying answer for the origin, existence, and nature of the universe. As John Blanchard points out there are three possibilities for the existence of the universe. Matter is either ?eternal, self-creative, or created by a self-existent God.?[2] The nature, properties and inherent intellect/powers associated with matter (and life as man knows it) deny the first two options. In regard to the nature of the universe and those living in it, to the workings and unchanging overarching governing and guiding principles - such as the orderliness of it, the beauty and harmony of it, the remarkable fact that it continues and that it has been sustained from its beginning such that life, liberty and freedom continue, the advancement and direction of it, etc.; atheism fails to provide adequate and satisfactory proof, reasons, and support. In fact, atheism, when it claims that the universe ?just was? or ?just is? or that such an enormous, detailed, intricate, universe which displays such great depth of wisdom, purpose, intelligence, ingenuity, beauty, and function consists, has arrived, and continues on its own ? is not only an affront to human intelligence but displays an unreasonable and insensible approach to matter and to the evidence that exist.

I argue that Atheism fails to deal genuinely, convincingly, and conclusively in regard to life and humanity. The essence of life itself cannot be explained by the tenets of atheism. As the Scripture points out, life itself must come from beyond the realm of natural and human existence. This is proven even by the fact that matter is not creative nor can it generate life for another. Evidence suggests the world can simply continue, sustain, and propagate life but not be defended as the source or generator of life. For argument sake, no answer can be given as to how life could begin again, if all of life were now to be destroyed. Nor has atheism successfully addressed how life came to being in the beginning. It is of utmost foolishness for man to put his absolute confidence and trust in a belief system or religion that cannot provide answers for its own basic existence and life. Certainly, this special quality of life itself, though humanity has struggled to adequately define it, deserves a better answer than atheism has provided. While it?s one thing to be able to explain such things as reproduction and growth, it?s quite another to define and describe, as well as to prove and explain the source, origin and the essential nature and outworking of life itself. (If this is true on a physical level, then how much more on a spiritual level!) On this same issue, it makes no sense to give one?s allegiance or follow a system that cannot provide suitable answers to the distinction between humanity and the remainder of beings that contain life, or for that matter even from the remainder of the inorganic universe or matter. Certainly atheism has failed to account for such things as the rationale for human existence and life, the miraculous formation of the human body, the reason why the universe works in such a way as to support human life, why humans have life but rocks don?t, etc.; Can one in wisdom truly and fully give themselves to a body of beliefs that fails to give acceptable answers to basic questions and concerns like these? While atheism fails, the teaching which advocates a supernatural transcendent being who possesses life in himself and who has given and breathed life into his creation provides a reasonable solution and answers.

In this same area, atheism fails to give adequate justification for, or satisfactory and sensibly pleasing arguments regarding, the purpose, and solutions or comforts of life. Without a purposeful beginning and without any definitive evidence concerning the end, it is difficult at best to define anything but a short sighted and somewhat trivial answer to man?s existence and purpose. Most often, atheist I?ve encountered have been limited to providing not much more than an individual or man-centered response with some sort of weak but long-shot view of having some comparatively infinitesimally small impact on the future of humanity and the universe by passing on something like one?s personal relationship, experience, skills, or perhaps even just a piece of humor to those who will go on beyond them (to who knows what, and for how long), while they themselves will be left to nothing more than a heap of ashes or molecules. Others resort to the conclusion that humanity must determine its own purpose and reason for existence. What?s interesting here is there seems to not even be general agreement among atheists as to what that purpose is. Others go even further and state that each individual must ?come up with? and define his own purpose. When one considers the universe as a whole, solutions like these wane wildly in the winds of wisdom and appeal. Recognizing that humanism can be distinguished but also associated on one level with atheism, I again quote John Blanchard who says ?The humanist believes that he comes from nothing and is going nowhere, yet insists that the journey itself is of monumental significance. Small wonder that R.C. Sproul calls modern secular humanism ?one of the stupidest beliefs ever concocted.??[3]

Likewise, even though Atheism uses the case of evil (and misery, pain, etc.) as one of its most favored defenses, Atheism itself fails to provide satisfactory reasons, solutions, counsel, and hope in these areas and experiences. Just describing the evils and pains of this world as the way it is, and offering only more or less the counsel to deal with it and cope or get over it ? in the end fails to provide reason enough for one to reasonably accept or stay with Atheism as a means of explaining, and enabling one, in this world (Certainly our beliefs ought to be more of a help to us!) In the end, the teachings of Atheism, instead of proving to be the best help (as truth should) they prove in the end to lack sufficiency, to be harsh, and to offer answers that leave one in denial of the truth or paralyzed in question, unresolved anger, helplessness, etc.

I argue that Atheism provides less that satisfactory and comforting answers concerning the future. While it is true that if there is no God and afterlife, then it is better for man to face that truth than give false hopes to something better; it is also true that the thought of death bringing one?s life to a final end is not appealing to many, no matter how one spins it. This truth, combined with the fact that evidence provides some hope of life after death, forms a compelling reason for atheist or those considering atheism to look further. For example, even in the agricultural world, evidence shows that a seed must die that new life might come. As 1 Cor 15:35ff ?But someone may ask, ?How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?? How foolish! What you so does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.? The point is that if this is true when it comes to something as insignificant as a seed, then should it not give some measure of hope that the same might be true concerning human beings, even if the fulfillment and consummation is delayed to a time in the future, like that declared in Philippians 3:20-21 ?? And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.? in John 6:39 ?And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.? (Again, if this is true on a physical level, then how much moreso on a spiritual level! Jn 11:25 ?Jesus said? ?I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.??) This means even more, when even though Atheists deny that God ?has put eternity in the hearts of men?, that all reasonable men desire life and more of it, while at the same time death is clearly an enemy, bringing separation and destruction.

I argue that Atheism as a belief system fails historically and socially to provide an incentive for embracing it.

First, as one method of apologetics suggests, it is helpful at times to take the argument of one?s opponent to its logical end. There you will see what it value it really holds and what it is really like. For Atheism, this is not a hard task, for while many Atheist would claim atheism is just a personal belief, the truth of the matter is that it is also forms a world view that has demonstrated on several occasions an attempt to exalt itself as the premier truth and to rid the world of other belief systems, sometimes going to extreme lengths and even bloodshed to bring this about. As Etienne Borne writes ?Modern Atheism? is a mass phenomenon, and its stern tolerance means to rule over the whole future of mankind; not simply one philosophy among others; it is more than that. It is a culture, a way of living; it has actual existence, ? for [Communism] exerts a tyrannical authority over a whole people, their behaviour and their laws, their work and their leisure, their arts and their public life. It seeks the dissolution of Christendom, the secularization and growing autonomy of science, art and politics, all tend to make a world which is a-theist in the literal sense of the word, that is, godless.?[4] While one must distinguish between Atheism and other ?isms? such as naturalism, skepticism, humanism, rationalism, empiricism, romanticism, nihilism, determinism, communism, etc.; existentialism, secular humanism, materialism, etc.; the latter have real associations with Atheism and in some cases have been adopted by world leaders and put into practice with less than stellar critiques in the end. For example, atheism served as a major component of the regimes led by Lenin and Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and the governments of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, but few today would desire living under such rule and conditions. When God is removed from government and society, it opens the door in varying degrees according to the situation to abuse of power, to oppression of the beliefs of others, and in some cases to brutality. While it is true that abuses like these have also taken place in the name of other religions (whether they were actually in keeping with the tenets of the faith or not), the historical record of societies built around the premise of atheism is not good. It has lead to leaders without a heart, to countries without compassion, and to peoples without hope and reprieve.

Second, Atheism offers no real answer for the historical evidence concerning the religious nature of man. All around the world, in every age, there have been those who have sought, as well as those who have testified to finding rest in a divine being. Even in places where radical steps have been taken to eliminate and eradicate the presence and practice of worship to a divine being (including brainwashing, social oppression, political pressure, torture and even the threat and administration of death), these measures have not been successful. If religion is only a crutch for the weak, then how can one explain the continuance and proliferation of belief and practice of worshipping a divine given such attempts and situations. Not only is this so, but the religious nature of man is found among Atheists themselves. While Atheists, like one on this website, may be quick to claim there is ?not a religious bone in his body?, history shows that all men will worship or serve something, whether a divine being, or something or someone they substitute for him. As Etienne Borne puts it ?Even when atheism is really atheist, rejecting all transce3ndence and mystery, it cannot escape another most serious and most significant ambiguity. When it replaces what it destroys, substituting for the God of traditional religious consciousness dome absolute which is rationally knowable, such as the humanity of the positivists or the history of the Marxists, is it still truly atheism??[5] The Israelites turned to objects of wood or stone. Modernists worship self, or time, or material wealth, etc. Experience shows all one has to do is go without food and see what upsets them when they don?t get something or things don?t work out and the object of their worship will reveal itself. Another way is to ask: What is it that would upset me most if it was taken from me or I was denied it. Be it position, privilege, power, etc., all men will worship something! I would suggest that nothing in this universe merits or is worthy of our worship, therefore when Atheists deny belief in the divine, they force themselves to do that which does not make sense.

I argue that Atheism monopolizes on a method that doesn?t make sense. While there are numerous segments of Atheism, one method of argumentation that is common in many of the forms is that ?if something cannot be proved by science, or by experience, or by the senses of man, then it must be false? [my paraphrase] First, as many apologists have pointed out, this very statement cannot be proven true by its own standard. Additionally, the very question of whether there is a God or not extends beyond the limits of this standard, for science, as I understand it, is based on the order and unchanging nature and laws of the universe. The very idea or question of the existence of a transcendent, intervening, and wonder working God by definition departs from the idea of everything always working according to the subordinate laws governing the universe. I stand amazed at how many Atheist use this argument as a battle cry for the defense and offense of their position.

I argue that Atheism does not substantively and reasonably provide answers to the paradoxes in life. In life, we often find it is the lowly that are lifted up, the weak who prove strong, we gain by giving away, we live by dying to self and our desires, a person can possess nothing but have much, etc. These truths make no sense from an atheistic perspective, but in experience prove valuable to the one who practices them.

I argue that Atheism fails to speak and to do justice when it comes to matters of truth, justice, law, ethics, morality and the like. Without transcendent authority, absolute truth, a law giver, and laws that transcend time and experience, it makes no sense to talk about morality and immorality, righteousness and wickedness, evil and good, right and wrong, truth and lies, just and unjust, guilt and innocence, accountability, or the responsibility to act responsibly even if others are unaware? for the world would be without rule and standards and every situation would be arbitrary. One could not talk of the offense of killing. But the atheist would argue that ?all (or most) humans would agree that killing is wrong?, but the question remains - Where does that conviction or knowledge come from? What makes it right?as opposed to the views of those who hold the opposite? Why is there a right and a wrong when it comes to killing? Is there then a transcendent law that has been written on the hearts (or consciences) of men? If so, then where did that law come from?

The atheist provides no acceptable answer to the victim of one suffers at the hands of an evil perpetrator who for all practical purposes seems ?to get away? with their crimes here on earth. Every normal conscience screams out this is not right, and there ought to be some way of justice being eventually achieved and carried out. For example, for the victims and families of the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center, what recourse or answers does Atheism provide when those who committed the crimes seem to have done so without justice being served? While Atheism provides no satisfactory answer, the teaching that posits that there is a supreme judge who though he delays will bring every evil thought, attitude, and action into account provides a solution that is not only intellectually sound, but provides solace that in the end justice will be served. Here again, issues such as these form some of the most difficult situations to humans to deal with, but atheism provides no satisfactory answer!

The atheist does not deal thoroughly either with the acknowledge experience and evidence of guilt. While one could say it is enough to apologize and ask forgiveness from the person you have done wrong, on what basis has it been determined that you have done them wrong. Is it simply on the basis that you determined (or both of you agreed) that it was wrong. If both of you agree that it is wrong, and most (though probably not all) of humanity agrees that it is wrong, then is there not an eternal law or transcendent law in place? If so, is it not possible there is also a law giver, and therefore you have not only violated your obligation to your neighbor, but more importantly, could it be said that you have violated your obligation to the supreme law giver? For that matter, does Atheism have an acceptable answer for why man acts against what his conscience tells him is wrong, or why man fails ?to do what he wants to do? but ?does what he hates? (Rom 7)

Finally, given the innate understanding and sensibility of ultimate justice as well as the guilt of man (which atheism cannot fully explain or explain away); the foolishness of atheism is seen in that it chooses to deny the implications that do not conclusively prove but point to a future judgment, one which Atheism provides no consideration as to preparation and provision. While one might argue Pascal?s wager, given the above arguments, a general judgment with great consequences to those who stand as law breakers is an issue that deserves serious consideration.

SOURCES

1 John Blanchard, Does God believe in atheists? (Auburn: Evangelical Press, 2000) 17-18, 357.

2 John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Lecture at First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS, 29 Nov. 2000.

3 John Blanchard, Does God believe in atheists? 179.

4 Etienne Borne, Atheism (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1961) 9, 13-14, 17.

5 Borne 11.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

Introduction

Thank you all, the administration and staff of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board who make this debate possible and the readers who make it relevant. Thanks also to the members of the Peanut Gallery for their support and encouragement. Special thanks to Rev. Timothy G. Muse for devoting his time, energy, and considerable wit and intelligence to the education, edification and "sharpening" of my own mind and, hopefully, the minds of our readers. Thanks also to my spouse for support, advice, editing, and most importantly, forbearance for the time I have and will continue devote to this debate.

The question is whether atheism is foolish. Rev. Muse presents the case that atheism is foolish because it fails to answer many deep philosophical questions. But implicit in Rev. Muse's charges is the implied assertion that theism does reasonably, substantively and satisfactorily answer and explain the questions that atheism supposedly fails to answer. Atheism is thus foolish only if theism gives better answers. So the reasonableness, substance and satisfaction of theistic answers to these questions are equally at issue. Given that many of these questions are important, it would be folly indeed to abandon a position that gives reasonable, substantive and satisfying answers for one that does not. But Rev. Muse has not yet made the case that theism does indeed offer such answers.

Rev. Muse's charges go far beyond the mere position of atheism. Even so, Rev. Muse is correct in one sense: When one chooses atheism, one must necessarily abandon the epistemology of divine revelation, the teleology and eschatology of divine purpose, and the ethics of divine command. And indeed, one cannot merely leave a vacuum where theistic philosophy at least attempted answers. Although ancillary naturalistic philosophies such as scientific materialism, psychology, methodological naturalism and political secular humanism are compatible with some forms of theism, the atheist must turn to them, or something similar, and their reasonableness thus becomes directly at issue.

A full explanation of these philosophies would require more space than our debate allows; indeed, one would need to recapitulate at least five centuries of philosophy. Fortunately, the proposition at issue, "Atheism Is Foolish", can be rebutted by showing that the naturalistic philosophical alternatives have at least reasonable promise for answering the legitimate questions that Rev. Muse raises. For some questions, I will endeavor to show that naturalistic philosophy that atheism must turn to actually improves upon its theistic equivalent.

Therefore I will devote Part I primarily to asking the same questions of theism that Rev. Muse asks of atheism, and critiquing his answers. I will devote Part II to the answers from the atheistic, naturalistic, secular position.

I also wish to point out to our readers that Rev. Muse in his opening statement has added some rhetorical flourishes to the definitions of "atheism" and "foolishness". I will refer our readers to the definitions given in the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1879687&postcount=32) of this debate; I assume that we both are still adhering to the stipulated definitions.


Epistemological Issues

Rev. Muse states that there is no positive or unquestionable proof that there is no God. This is correct in some senses and incorrect in others. When one is talking about a god who is perfectly- or at least well-hidden by nature or by design, no, one cannot absolutely prove the non-existence of such a god. But these are precisely the gods towards whom, by definition, disbelief is justified by the very existence of such a deity and thus not foolish.

We can draw a similar conclusion regarding "a God (transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) who either chose not to reveal himself to man, or chose to reveal himself to some but not to others, or chose to reveal himself progressively." Even under a epistemology of revelation, I cannot have knowledge of a god who does not reveal itself to me, and thus my disbelief is not only justified but compelled. Likewise, "inabilities or restrictions inherent to the present condition of man (such as his blindness, lack of understanding, powerlessness...)" (I'm sure that Rev. Muse includes "moral resistance" and "intentional rejection of the truth" only from pedantic completeness) would justify the belief in the nonexistence of god. To use his own metaphor, if a man keeps "his existence and supremacy known from an ant," one cannot justly call the ant a fool for disbelieving in the man. And what about a god who, like the author of a play or novel, wishes or requires the positive suspension of belief in itself? If we can posit a god who requires belief without proof, we can just as easily posit a god who requires disbelief without or even with proof.

Gods who reasonably engender agnosticism are irrelevant; the only gods for whom disbelief is at all relevant to questions of wisdom or foolishness are the gods to which "all the evidence points," if, of course, such evidence were to actually exist. In these cases lack of evidence, if indeed it is lacking, makes positive disbelief reasonable and justifiable. Since evil exists, I know with certainty that no god exists who has both the power and will to abolish evil as we presently understand it. Since I believe that no god exists, I know with certainty that no god exists who has the power and will to engender my belief. Furthermore, since no universal belief in any particular deity exists, I know with certainty that no god exists with the power and will to engender such universal belief.

The requirement of absolute proof is consistent only with Rev. Muse's rhetorical additions to the position of atheism. If atheism were indeed the dogmatic assertion of any god's nonexistence, if the atheistic belief were "absolute" and "utter" (in the sense of being unchangeable), if the atheist showed "absolute faith", then yes, with anything less than absolute proof, atheism would be foolish indeed. But atheism does not entail such dogmatic, absolute belief. To require absolute proof for any belief entails holding no beliefs, to descend into a paralyzed solipsism. The atheist such as myself, rather, has examined the evidence, and come to the belief to which the evidence points. If new evidence or a new argument comes to my attention--if, for instance, a god were to reveal itself to me--I would change my belief.

Indeed it is the theist who dogmatically believes in god, whose belief is absolute and utter, and from whom absolute faith is expected. By Rev. Muse's own argument, we expect from the theist not merely the preponderance of evidence, not merely one or some or even many subtle arguments, but absolute, unquestionable, undeniable proof of the existence of a god to refrain from calling foolish his absolute faith.

I am curious about Rev. Muse's claim that atheism "monopolizes on a method that doesn't make sense". While the idea that the scientific method does not entirely eliminate metaphysics (as the positivists would like to have done), does Rev. Muse actually ask us to believe that appealing to science, our experience and the evidence of our senses makes no sense? No sense at all? What does theism offer as an alternative? If the answer is divine revelation, to what degree should we rely on revelation? Which revelation? And where does that put those of us, such as myself, who have had no revelation at all?

Rev. Muse does get one thing correct about atheism: "The very idea or question of the existence of a transcendent, intervening, and wonder working God by definition departs from the idea of everything always working according to the subordinate laws governing the universe." It does indeed. I fail to understand only why Rev. Muse is so amazed that atheists use this argument.


The Origin, Existence, and Nature of the Universe

I will expound more on the atheistic and scientific nature of the origin and existence of the Universe in Part II, so that Rev. Muse will have a more specific and thorough position to critique.

Rev. Muse repeats Blanchard's claim that "Matter is either 'eternal, self-creative, or created by a self-existent God.'" What support can Rev. Muse offer for this trilemma? Has Rev. Muse considered the alternatives, such as Hawking's speculation that matter and energy exist in a finite but unbounded space-time[1]? That our universe arose from a fluctuation in a non-spatial/non-temporal vacuum? That matter might be, rather than self-created, self-existent, as the theist god is purported to be? To show that atheism is foolish, Rev. Muse must show not just that these alternatives are not absolutely proven, but logically impossible or empirically disproved.

Rev. Muse asserts that the claim that the universe "just is" is an “unreasonable and insensible approach� towards the "enormous, detailed, intricate universe which displays such great depth of wisdom, purpose, intelligence, ingenuity, beauty, and function." I would certainly agree that the universe is enormous, detailed and intricate; I would also agree that I find it beautiful. And, of course, it does function. But there is no evidence that the universe displays intelligence, wisdom, purpose or ingenuity. And how does this position differ from the theistic position that God--who Himself is purportedly an "enormous, detailed, intricate" being who "displays such great depth of wisdom, purpose, intelligence, ingenuity, beauty, and function"--that such a God Himself "just exists"?

The theistic answer to the origin of the universe, "God did it," just gives a different label to our ignorance. If the atheist does not know how or why the universe exists, the theist cannot tell us how or why god created the universe. Both the theist and atheist can speculate on why there is something (god/the universe) rather than nothing (no god/no universe), but neither can give a conclusive answer. Fundamentally something has to “just exist�; at least we know the universe does indeed exist.

The theistic answers to the nature of the universe are even more unsatisfactory. Leaving the origin aside, why is the universe the way it is instead of somehow different? Why do we have stars, planets, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters? Why an enormous universe instead of a small one? I've seen the theist offer only the wholly unsatisfactory answer, "I guess that's how God must have wanted it."


Life and Humanity

Rev. Muse claims that "the essence of life itself cannot be explained by the tenets of atheism." What is the theistic alternative to the biological sciences? Animistic theories have been long since abandoned; however uncertain we are about the origin of terrestrial life, there is nothing mystical about its existence. Even Rev. Muse himself says that "Evidence suggests the world can simply continue, sustain, and propagate life."

Rev. Muse claims that "it is of utmost foolishness for man to put his absolute confidence and trust in a belief system or religion that cannot provide answers for its own basic existence and life." The only theistic answer that Rev. Muse offers is that, "A supernatural transcendent being who possesses life in himself and who has given and breathed life into his creation." A metaphor is not answers. Why are we mortal? Why do we so often die with such pain and indignity? Again, anyone can speculate; ideas about the "fall of man" and "original sin" are just that: speculation. Can Rev. Muse offer proof? Or even Evidence?

What are Rev. Muse's "satisfactory and sensibly pleasing arguments regarding, the purpose, and solutions or comforts of life"? What answer does theism provide for the purpose of terrestrial life other than to shamelessly flatter some deity? What is the purpose of our suffering? Why can an omnipotent god not simply create us directly in The Big Rock Candy Mountain the theist calls heaven?

Furthermore, I have lost count of the times that I've heard a theist call his god's purposes mysterious, unknown or even unknowable. Calling a purpose mysterious is the precise opposite of a "satisfactory and sensibly pleasing" argument, explanation or justification.

This lack of an answer is even more obvious when the theist moves away from the broadest generalizations. What's the purpose of a child dying painfully from cancer? What's the purpose of the millions killed in earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, famines and plagues? What is the purpose of Bubonic plague, Alzheimer's disease, cancer of the rectum? We ask not only why we so often die in pain and indignity but also what is the purpose of such apparently pointless suffering? What's the purpose of childhood diabetes, gout, arthritis, menstruation? Looking at the world, if there were a god, we might reasonably conclude that its purpose was the sadistic desire to inflict as much suffering on humanity as possible. I would rather believe in no god than the existence of such a malign thug.

What answer does theism offer (aside, that is, from the dubious promise of The Big Rock Candy Mountain) to suffering and pain other than to "deal with it or get over it"? What reasons, proofs or evidence support and justify the answers? For instance, I'm frankly astounded that even a single Christian accepts the "explanation" that Yahweh has inflicted or permitted his or her suffering for the purpose of punishing Adam's sin. Good grief, it's been 6000 years; Yahweh sure does hold a grudge!


The Future

Rev. Muse claims that atheism provides less that satisfactory and comforting answers concerning the future. Indeed, I must again ask about the theistic alternatives. The theist can speculate and spin fantasies about a Big Rock Candy Mountain, but can such speculation be more than empty promises? But neither atheism nor any materialistic science entails logically that there is no life after death. Life itself is an ordinary, naturalistic phenomenon; if there were indeed some "evidence [that] provides some hope of life after death," then ordinary naturalistic science could investigate it. Atheists who believe the finality of death do so because the evidence points to only that conclusion.

So where is the evidence that not only justifies the belief in some form of afterlife, but also justifies the idea of a god being necessarily responsible? Rev. Muse offers his analogy of the seed. But this analogy is inapt. What does it mean that a "seed must die that new life might come"? And even if this is true in some unusual sense, it seems obvious that people are not plants, our "seeds" never die, and the metaphor speaks to reproduction, not to any personal resurrection--not even of the plant itself. This is a slender reed indeed upon which to lay any hope of human resurrection.

I must agree with Rev. Muse: "All reasonable men desire life and more of it, while at the same time death is clearly an enemy, bringing separation and destruction." But where does theism claim death came from? Given an omnipotent god, it could come only from that god. And what has theism done to defeat and ameliorate death? When will god's revelation provide us with a cure for cancer or for aging?

What about the future of terrestrial life? What does religion have to say about this? Buddhism offers nothing; Judaism offers nothing; Islam and Christianity offer only Armageddon; Hinduism offers an endless cycle of suffering at the hands of their gods. If we wish answers to the future of Earth and humanity, what advice does theism offers us besides the vague reassurance that, "Daddy will make it all right in the end"?


History

Rev. Muse claims that, "Atheism offers no real answer for the historical evidence concerning the religious nature of man." I will address the position of atheism and natural science on this point in Part II, but for now I wish to examine the position of theism. What answer does theism offer for the variety and lack of agreement among mankind’s religions? If a god were truly to exist, we would instead expect to see widespread agreement. All people, regardless of culture, agree on what is blue, what is one foot long, what weighs ten pounds--all of these are objectively true. Why do they then disagree so completely, violently and passionately about their religion? Sure, the theist might speculate and fantasize about an all-good, all-just, all-powerful god who completely misleads and fools its creation about such an important issue, but such speculation seems entirely implausible.



Ethics, Justice and Morality

Rev. Muse makes one good point: As Stalinism and Maoism show, atheism is no panacea when tyrannically imposed. I will explore this point more thoroughly in Part II of this debate when I discuss political secularism. In this part, though, I will ask Rev. Muse to address explicitly religious governments. Rev. Muse claims that, "When God is removed from government and society, it opens the door in varying degrees according to the situation to abuse of power, to oppression of the beliefs of others, and in some cases to brutality." But when God is explicitly part of government, the record is no better; oppression, intolerance and brutality appear, sadly, to be part of the human condition.
What does Rev. Muse have to say about the European Middle Ages, a thousand years of tyranny, ignorance, death and disease, ruled and directed by Christianity? What does Rev. Muse have to say about present-day Islam in the Middle East? If democracy is so theistic, why did it require a group of naturalistic deists, atheists and Unitarians to establish the first modern democracy in 18th Century America? Rev. Muse quotes Bourne's charges: "'Modern Atheism' is a mass phenomenon, and its stern tolerance means to rule over the whole future of mankind." Has not this been true of many, if not most, religions?

There are other issues with theistic politics. Why is revelation disallowed as testimony in court? Why does no body of religious writing give us in whole our modern legal system? What happened to the divine right of kings? Why must we bother with legislatures, elections, courts and trials? All of which we've had to work out for ourselves using natural reason with no consistent, explicit guidance from any deity.

I will discuss naturalistic morality in more depth in Part II. My question for this part is, where is this "transcendent authority"? Where is the "absolute truth"? Where are the laws that transcend time and experience"? Every sect of every religion seems to have a different idea about what constitutes the absolute truth from the transcendent deity. Slavery was condoned by good, sincere Christians up to the Civil War[2] and has extensive support in the Christian bible[3]. How can a transcendent authority providing the absolute truth about laws that transcend time and space get such a big issue as slavery so wrong for so long? And slavery is not the only issue; Theodore Drange offers a list of Christian laws that supposedly transcend time and experience.[4]:

We no longer execute people for having the wrong religion or for working on the Sabbath or for a few dozen other (at best) minor offenses. The Bible discriminates against women. We now believe in women's rights, children's rights, and animal rights, all of which are ideas totally foreign to the Bible. God is supposed to have ordered female virgins to be taken as war plunder (Num. 31:18-40) and to marry their attackers if they are seduced or raped (Exod. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29). Such ideas are totally foreign to modern morality. Even the Sermon on the Mount presents us with impossible standards. Jesus tells us there to not resist evil, not defend ourselves against violence, and give away everything that anyone might ask of us (Matt. 5:38-42), but really if people were to follow such advice then they would not survive long in our world. Maybe among the extinct tribes of the world there are some who actually tried to live by the Sermon on the Mount. Anyway, our current conceptions of morality have very little to do with what is written in the Bible. I think that most people who advocate Biblical ethics are simply ignorant about the Bible and unaware of what that ethics amounts to.

Rev. Muse claims that, “Atheism provides no acceptable answer to the victim of one [who] suffers at the hands of an evil perpetrator who for all practical purposes seems 'to get away' with their crimes here on earth." But what comfort does theism give? Perhaps it might comfort the victims to fantasize that the perpetrators suffer eternal punishment, but even an atheist can fantasize. Such abstract comfort does nothing to restore their loved ones nor prevent a future disaster. And the comforting theist would of course not be so tasteless as to mention that, according to many theologies, the victims will be right there in hell next to the perpetrators, having adhered to the wrong religion, died in a state of sin, or just because God's grace had been arbitrarily withheld. And what about those who die of natural disasters? The victims are just as dead, the families are just as bereft, but who precisely is getting away with what?

Rev. Muse charges that "The atheist does not deal thoroughly either with the acknowledged experience and evidence of guilt." But Rev. Muse offers a perfectly reasonable naturalistic response: "It is enough to apologize and ask forgiveness from the person you have done wrong." It is indeed "simply on the basis that you determined (or both of you agreed) that it was wrong." One might speculate further, but why, and on what basis?

Rev. Muse asks if atheism has "an acceptable answer for why man acts against what his conscience tells him is wrong, or why man fails 'to do what he wants to do' but 'does what he hates.'" What evidence is there that people typically or usually act this way? It's been my experience that most people act in concert with their conscience, they do what they want, and they refrain from doing what they hate. It seems that it is, in the main, it is only theists who have such a struggle; and what more explanation is required than that the conflicted theist has needlessly adopted a moral code in conflict with his nature and reason?


Other Issues

I don't understand Etienne Borne's comment that atheism "cannot escape another most serious and most significant ambiguity." Bourne seems to confuse worship with desire. This comment is entirely opaque to me.

I also don't understand what Rev. Muse means when he claims that atheism "does not substantively and reasonably provide answers to the paradoxes in life." What paradoxes? In life, we usually find that the lowly are born lowly, live lowly and die lowly; the weak are exploited by the strong; when we give something away we don't have it any more; when we die, we die; we live by satisfying our self and our desires, and a person who possesses nothing has nothing.

Rev. Muse charges that atheism "chooses to deny the implications that... point to a future judgment." What implications are these?



Conclusion: Reasons for Adopting a Philosophy

Rev. Muse argues that, "Atheism as a belief system fails historically and socially to provide an incentive for embracing it." It must be admitted that historically and socially, theism has indeed found many adherents. Some incentives no doubt exist, but we are justified in considering the nature of these incentives. What does theism appeal to (when it has not been imposed by naked oppression and threat), if not only our fear and ignorance? Why does theism place its inducements, its promises and threats, beyond rational or sensible inquiry?

Before science, it is arguable that theism's supernatural promises had some value as comfort. But now that we have the means to alleviate suffering here and now, theism's anachronistic supernatural fairy tales only retard our progress. What are the reasons for embracing theism today? Today, we have science, technology, philosophies and political systems that seem to be improving the lot of mankind in this world. And these philosophies ignore, deny, marginalize, or give only lip service to revelation and supernaturalism; all of them are entirely compatible with atheism.

I charge that, although theism does attempt to answer the questions posed by Rev. Muse, Rev. Muse has not shown that these answers are reasonable, substantive or satisfactory. Absent such answers it is wise to turn to atheism and naturalistic philosophy if only from desperation.


----------------------

References:

[1] Stephen Hawking, “A Brief History of Time�

[2] Edward T. Babinski, "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/experience.html

[3] Skeptic’s Annotated Dictionary, “Slavery and the Bible�
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/slavery.html

[4] Theodore Drange, "Why Be Moral?"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/whymoral.html

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Rev. Timothy G. Muse,

Please note that the deadline to post your next statement has passed. However, as the rules permit, you'll be granted a 3 day grace period, extending the deadline to Nov. 3.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

The question is “Is atheism foolish?� I argued atheism is foolish on several grounds: (I) theologically - atheism makes a claim it has not proven nor can it reasonably support; (II) philosophically - atheism fails to provide reasonable or satisfactory answers to many fundamental questions; (III) historically – atheism has positively demonstrated itself to be a less than desirable world and life position; and (IV) given that reason and hope lie on the side of theism, atheism serves as an obstruction to wise thought and preparation concerning the future.

In his rebuttal, choosing to delay providing answers for the atheist position, PLP asserted that atheism is not foolish based on the argument that atheism is foolish only “if theism does reasonably, substantively, and satisfactorily explain the questions that atheism supposedly fails to answer� and “if theism gives better answers.� This I intend to show; however, several issues deserve recognition.

First, the questions themselves (of whether theism does “reasonably, substantively, and satisfactorily� explain the questions that atheism fails to answer, and whether theism gives ‘better� answers) are dependent upon the existence of absolute truth and a set of universal values, which (as I have argued and PLP has not made the case otherwise) point in the direction of theism, or the questions themselves are meaningless and have no possibility of being reasonably and verifiably determined. (If there is no God, if the universe came about by chance or accident, if there exists no standard of truth, morality, or ethics, or law, then how can one determine which is “better�? … better for who? Why is it better? On what reasonable standard can one make such a judgment? Why is one view not as good as another?) The logic that lies behind the questions are contradicted by the tenets of atheism. Here theism not only “reasonably, substantively, and satisfactorily explains a question atheism fails to answer�; but atheism fails on this most basic level, which brings everything else in total that it claims or argues into question! As Hoffecker states “…God’s existence and self-revelation give us the absolutely necessary precondition – authoritative truth - for� discerning and accepting truth and values. He writes theistic “epistemology finds in God the ultimate source of both being and meaning, value and interpretation. Those who do not affirm His existence are forced to posit some other source of meaning, or else confess the absence of meaning.� (1)

Second, the positive claims of atheism, the casting of the debate, as well as my opening arguments reveal the primary burden of proof lies with atheism (rather than theism) which positively denies the existence of God, rather than just rejecting beliefs which hold to the existence of God. While it is true that if the reasoning and benefits of a belief system are inferior to another it should be rejected, it is also true that a belief system which fails to provide reasonable and winsome support for its own beliefs, in light of the evidence and reason should be considered foolish and rejected. The burden of proof of any belief system lies with itself, not other belief systems. While the question of this debate centers on the foolishness of atheism, the same can be said, though the merits and arguments of theism do come into play on a secondary basis. It doesn’t matter whether - strong or weak atheism - both are belief systems and bear the burden of proof. It may be noted that PLP’s statement “If new evidence of a new argument comes to my attention –if, for instance, a god were to reveal itself to me – I would change my belief� borders on agnostic skepticism (in part, a seeker). If the atheist position is not the deliberate and dogmatic denial of the existence of God, but rather is open to the slightest possibility that a sovereign, holy, just, spiritual being exists, then can it be said to be wise to not relentlessly, openly and undeniably seek every opportunity to discover that being, and seek righteousness, rather than intentionally living all of one’s life in such a way that one’s whole mindset, attitude, and practices are in total opposition to such. While one might claim Pascal’s Wager on this, evidence (revelation, natural, logic) points to the reasonable possibility of such a god, who is good(life as a gift, rain falling on the fields of the just and unjust, etc.), just (even atheist asks the question: If God is powerful enough to create the universe why do we see so much suffering & pain [the effects of the curse], etc.

Third, while it may be difficult to show that theism provides “better answers� than atheism since PLP chose to delay giving answers for atheism, the case can be made on the theoretical level given the evidence, the arguments from theism, and the body of beliefs commonly accepted by or associated with atheism..

Fourth, in the following comparisons between theism and atheism, Pascal’s Wager may be often excluded for the following reasons: (1 I present the Christian argument ast providing “one� reasonably, substantively, satisfactorily solution whereas atheism provides “none�; or (2) following John Blanchard, who in defining God as “a unique, personal, plural, spiritual, eternally self-existent, transcendent, immanent, omniscient, immutable, holy, loving Being, the Creator and Ruler of the entire universe and the judge of all mankind� (2) Christianity is shown to be theism (as defined here) and all other belief systems not only fail at some point to fall into this category, but thereby prove a-theist in the sense given.


Epistemological Issues

The Knowledge of Verification
On the most basic level, reason shows that the only means of obtaining any measure of reasonable certainty on the issue of the existence or non existence of God lies with theism. Unless there is an absolute regarding truth, then one can never know if the evidence, as well as his reasoning, and conclusions are true. It’s senseless to talk of proof unless it can be shown there is absolute truth. The question then, is: Does absolute truth point more in the direction of Theism or Atheism? Fitchett writes “Looked at as opposing creeds, it will be seen that Christianity [Theism] and atheism are, at this point, parted by one profound difference. Christianity [Theism] is a theory of the world which, reason declares, ought to be acted upon as if it were true, until it is disproved. It is a creed which the sane man must wish to be true.� (3) Theism provides “A� solution where atheism does not. Theism provides a basis of coming to any form of reasonable certainty, whereas atheism presents no reasonable argument that the question or the answer is valid. As John Frame writes it can be shown that “rationalism begets irrationalism�; that “empiricism fails in the areas of verifiability, deception, scientific method, and its inherent limitations; and that subjectivism fails in the areas of inter-subjective truth, consistency, as well as facts and criteria “ (my paraphrase) (4) “Let it be repeated that atheism is eternally and essentially incapable of proof. It is a guess. And, regarded as a guess, it has every hateful quality. It leaves the reason like a fluttering and dying bird in an atmosphere exhausted of oxygen. It wraps the imagination in darkness. It blackens the heavens. It claims the human race to be Fatherless. It empties the universe of purpose. It empties the universe of purpose. This complex web of unresting energies is a machine, not only without a Maker, but without an end before it, or a mind within it… Who would open his soul to such a creed unless whipped into the acceptance of it by the iron scourge of irresistible proofs? But atheism is a creed necessarily and eternally naked of all proofs.� (5) It’s interesting, implicit in PLP’s premise that atheism is foolish only if theism can provide reasonable answers that atheism has not implies that atheists can reasonably prove the reasonableness or unreasonableness of theist’ answers, something they have no tools to accomplish. The Transcendental argument is not only a great friend of theists, but a disclosure and demise of atheists.

The Knowledge of God
PLP argues that “belief in the nonexistence of god� is justified in cases where God fails to adequately reveal himself or the inabilities or restrictions inherent in the present condition of man prohibit his understanding and belief. There is a difference though between justification based on the ability and the responsibility of man. For example, an ignorant wayward teenager who due to his own rebellion left school and did not gain an understanding of economics may feel (and on one level be…) justified in spending money in frivolous ways, but that does not mean that his position and practices are not foolish. Similarly, while the atheist seeks to put the burden of responsibility and blame on God, how does he know that God is not freely and openly revealing himself in all of creation, but it is man that due to moral resistance and intentional rejection of truth rejects the overwhelming evidence that lies all around? How do Atheists know with certainty that it is not the rebellion of man and his resulting inabilities, rather than the withheld grace of God which keeps him from knowing him? Theism, given its presuppositions (that God is invisible but knowable) offers a ‘reasonable substantive and satisfying answer’ for both the existence of God and the fact that he can be at the same time be known by some but unknown by others (something that matches with the experience of humanity); whereas Atheism fails to provide a reasonable argument as to whether one can even know whether there is a God or not.

PLP argues that since evil exists he knows with “certainty that no god exists who has both the power and will to abolish evil, as we presently understand it.� While an emotional argument, what proof can the atheist provide to show “with certainty� that no god exists who has the power and will to abolish evil? Has he been everywhere? Has he seen everything? While denying the existence of a god with omniscience does he claim it for himself? Is God limited and confined to the wisdom, reason, and desires of the atheist? What positive proof is there that there is not a god who though he possesses the power and one day will show he possesses the will to abolish evil, has allowed evil to exist for a time, while he still rules over it, uses it to accomplish his purposes, and one day will bring it into judgment and condemn it. Does not a football coach say “no pain, no gain�? Do not earthly governors and law officials at times allow the sins of evil men or criminals build up before bringing them to account. Theism (which reasonably includes an epistemology of revelation) provides a solution that reasonably, substantively, and satisfactorily explains the origin, existence, purpose, use, and ultimate end of evil. Atheism on the other hand, … well, I guess we’ll have to wait until Part II. Thus far, I argue without the case being made otherwise, that Atheism fails to satisfactorily explain the presence and problems of evil. Thus, once again, theism provides the “better answer�.

PLP goes on to state “Since I believe that no god exists, I know with certainty that no god exists who has the power and will to engender my belief.� Due to the fallible consequential condition that begins this statement, the absolute knowledge of the latter is questionable. Since PLP believes no god exists, what proof is there the remainder of humanity knows that no god exists who has the power and will to engender our belief? Would not the same apply to the Christian’s belief ? Is the testimony of millions of Christians over thousands of years, many of whom gave their very lives for their heart felt convictions to be completely discounted because PLP believes no god exists?

To PLP’s question concerning scientific method, I argue that while atheist tend to hang so much weight on science , science (reason) stands alongside our sense experience, intuition and authority, all of which must be substantiated by a God, or they prove valueless and unverifyible. The theist reasonably includes revelation, that like the others, must be substantiated and ordered by God. The atheist asks “Which revelation?�, but cannot the same be said concerning science, senses, experience, etc. Do not our senses at times deceive us? Do we always have the right concept of experience? Given absolute truth, true revelation will not contradict but agree with reason, hence incentive to look to the Scripture!

Finally, putting the burden back on Atheist - Does the Atheist have “reasonably, substantively, satisfactorily� arguments to show that the arguments and experiences of theists are worse than those offered by Atheism?

Summary - Theism offers “reasonably, substantively, satisfactorily� explanations that result in man not only being able to come to know his creator, but to know himself; while atheism fails to provide reasonable proof that man can know anything about truth, the creation, himself, or whether or not there is a creator.


The Origin, Existence, and Nature of the Universe
In questioning the trilemma presented in my opening statement, PLP offers Hawking’s speculation as an option? This “speculation� fails to provide details to establish it outside the trilemma. For example, where did the vacuum come from? How did it get there to begin with? What caused the fluctuations? The atheist has no answer. Can the atheist prove the universe had no beginning? I quote “As Hawkins himself admits, as soon as you get back to the real physical universd, the singularity (point of origin of the universe) cannot be avoided!�(6) He goes on to say “When one goes back to real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities … in real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that from a boundary to space – time and at which the laws of science breaks down.�(7) Evidence points not in the direction of the “best� of atheist minds, or scientific speculation, but continues to point in the direction of theism!,

In regards to the origin of the universe, and whether it was supernaturally or naturally (i.e, chance, necessity, etc.) generated, evidence points to Theism. As Blanchard points out, “the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics prove as certainly as science can prove anything that the universe could not have begun itself but that it did have a beginning.�(8) Without God, there is no credible explanation for the existence of the universe or the mystery of life. As the cosmological argument states an effect leads to a cause and as the teleological argument argues design points to an intelligent designer. Blanchard summarizes it well when he states “…the theist can certainly claim that the order, beauty, precision and elegance we see in the world are consistent with the idea of God. The contemporary British author and on-time atheist Robert frost summarizes the alternative: ‘If the scientist prefers to suggest that there is no ‘God’, no ‘Creator’, and no ‘first cause’, what does atheism offer him intellectually? The atheist must, of necessity, believe that matter without mind created reason and logic. Matter without intelligence created understanding and comprehension. Matter without morals created complex ethical codes and legal systems. Matter without conscience created a sense of right and wrong. Matter without emotion created skills and art, music, drama, architecture, comedy, literature and dance. Matter without design created in humankind an insatiable hunger for meaning and purpose.�(9) While PLP argues “But there is no evidence that the universe displays intelligence, wisdom, purpose or ingenuity�, I point out there is more wisdom in the forming and fashioning the human body than all of mankind over all its existence has been pointed out. While engineers have struggled years to produce oil pumps for jet aircraft that work both right side up and upside down, the human heart has been doing so for years and with a lifetime that far exceeds the best man has achieved. Has the Athiest never used a telescope, or mathematics, etc.? The theistic position offers explanations where PLP has only stated “Fundamentally something has to ‘just exist’; at least we know the universe does indeed exist� and that “the theistic answers to the nature of the universe are even more unsatisfactory� without making the case.

Life and Humanity
I begin with the origin and source of life. There is a difference between creation serving as an instrument in “continuing, sustaining, and propagating life� and “generating or creating new life.� Can the theists give evidence that points to a supernatural transcendent being who possesses life in himself and who has given and breathed life into his creation? First, all evidence reveals matter does not create life. While it may be argued that it does not now, but it once may have, no credible evidence exists to show that it did and that a change took place at a specific point in time. If evidence points to matter not creating life, then life have come from somewhere or someone else. The theist position which presupposes a self-existent God, who possesses life in himself and creates and gives life provides a “reasonable, substantively, satisfactorily� explanation for the origin and mystery of life. Can it be proven unquestionably? No, but all humanity can be linked back to the first man and woman. Evidence points to the fact that the life of all humanity derived from the first parents, which is in agreement with the theistic position. If matter produced life, would we not see evidences of it continuing to do so? Again, the atheist cannot offer one reasonable argument from a naturalistic perspective for how life would begin again if all of life would be destroyed.

PLP argues the question “Why are we mortal? Why do we so often die with such pain and indignity? Whereas Atheism offers nothing, theism reasonably proposes that a power outside of the natural realm purposefully created us this way.

Concerning the purpose of life, I argue the glory of God. I refer you to the thread I began on this issue where suggestions from the atheist position were shown to be vanity. On the theist side, man is found to be of infinite value and to serve the highest purpose, but as argued previously the atheist cannot provide a “reasonably, substantively, and satisfactorily� explanation. For the theist, not just an individual’s life but terrestrial live serves the same purpose. While Atheist might argue this is only to “shamelessly flatter some deity�; this is to miss the creator/creature relationship inherent in the theist position. Not only that, but consider the words of the atheist Richard Dawkins who says “We are very lucky accidents� (10) Is it possible to define reasonable purpose for that which begins as “an accident?� Could God perhaps have simply created us directly “in the Big Rock Candy Mountain the theist calls heaven?� Perhaps. But I am happy to let God be God and acknowledge I am not. He, not I determines his pleasure, purpose and will.

PLP raises the question of evil and pain stating “What’s the purpose of a child dying painfully from cancer? What’s the purpose of the millions killed in earthquakes, etc.� The theist position holds that God is sovereign over evil and pain, allows it for his own purposes, uses it for good, and is able to bring his people through it unharmed in the end. This may appear absurd to the atheist, but Christians appreciate the wisdom and beauty of this. My daughter was born with spinal bifida. For a time, I looked at it without a spiritual perspective, and it proved to be the heaviest weight I ever carried. However, coming to see it in light of God’s revelation and truth, I grew more out of this experience than any other, my daughter’s greatest attributes have been formed through her experience of it, and it has enabled us to minister to many who otherwise would have no answers or comfort. Can good come from hardship, and even sin and evil, the answer is yes! A sovereign God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick! Can there be great good that results from a person dying painfully from cancer? Yes! If the individual or another is brought to face his humanity and mortality, is brought to get his life in order, brought to faith in God through which he receives eternal life, then I would argue as Rom 8:18 that “… our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.� For the theist, these suffering are not by chance, but ordained for good; whereas for the atheist suffering is unexplained and leaves one simply a victim of the unpredictable and relentless power of evil and sin. One can argue the evidence and proofs, but simply on the basis of the outcome, judge which is the “better answer.� If Atheist believe the only reason Scripture gives for God allowing suffering is the punishment of Adam’s sin, they have failed to understand the incomparable grace of God, which perhaps explains why they delight in the belief of the non-existence of God. Read on, my friends! There are many chapters which follow Genesis 3 and even the average exegete can show this is not the main point behind Scripture or God’s actions.

The Future
PLP argues that “life itself is an ordinary, naturalistic phenomenon.� The atheist cannot prove this. Even though life exists in nature, can it be proven that life is simply “of nature�? No. Again the atheist has no reasonable evidence to support this. Nor can the atheist prove that life is limited to the natural realm. If the atheist cannot reasonably explain the source of life, then how can he positively limit it’s origin, essence, and end to the naturalistic world?

Concerning belief in some form of afterlife, we find the principle of resurrection is not contrary to nature, and is seen if the example of the seed. Calvin writes “For where do the fruits that we gather from the earth have their origin, but in rottenness? For, once the seed has been sown, nothing will spring up, unless the grains die. Therefore in the fact that corruption is the origin and cause of reproduction, we have a kind of representation of the resurrection.� It follows, therefore, that our appraisal of the power of God is far too spiteful and ungrateful, if we do not ascribe to Him, what is already plain before our eyes.� What grows possesses both continuity and discontinuity with that which was planted, pointing to the fact that what arises can be of a different nature that than which was sown. Is it not reasonable and probable that the same power that is able to effect this change in the seed can do the same with the body that is sown? Not only that, but if here on earth we find evidence of “different kinds� of bodies, then does it not point to the fact that there can be earthly as well as heavenly bodies. The atheist might point out that no evidence has shown there is, but the evidence shows the principle is reasonable.

Theism also offers the hope of renewal and redemption of a new or renewed creation? Is there ultimate hope for a world into which every person being born into it is born a sinner?

History
While evidence shows atheism fails miserably in proving itself as a desirable world and life view, and an argument can be made that governments and societies based on theistic religions also show black eyes at points; it can be shown that in every case where the latter have failed, it has been in areas where those involved failed to keep the universal and transcendent law that is in keeping with the theistic argument I present.

Given the depravity of mankind, the theistic position that encourages accountability to the law giver who provides transcendent law is better than the atheistic position that denies the presence of a universal transcendent law and lawgiver and thereby ultimate accountability for one’s actions.


Ethics, Justice and Morality
PLP asks: Where is this transcendent authority? Where is the absolute truth? Where are the laws that transcend time and experience? Is it not true that all (reasonable) men would agree that disrespect, stealing, unchastity, murder, lying, and envy are wrong? … that their opposites are good? Even though differences exist among theists and at times theists have erred (on issues of slavery, women’s rights, etc.), how can the atheist prove they are wrong unless there is a reasonable universal law? For arguments sake, whose to say that those who uphold slavery and the oppression of women are wrong, unless within those judging there is a law that exists? The question is: where did that law come from? Is it more likely that it formed from a naturalistic universe that itself began as an accident or by chance, or that a law giver exists? (As an aside, the exposition and exegesis of Theodore Drange quoted by PLP leaves much to be desired. The issues of women’s rights, children’s rights, and animal rights are not “totally foreign� to the Bible)

Concerning comfort for those who suffer, theism provides reasonable answers. Given a transcendent law and law giver, there is also the hope of ultimate justice. Atheism provides no hope. Theism provides a reasonable hope. Compare the two. For the victims of evil perpetrators, atheism gives no hope, but say ‘just work to make sure it doesn’t happen again.’ Theism, offers the reasonable hope of eventual justice. For natural disasters, atheism’s answer would be that it occurred by chance, and the victim was unfortunately at the wrong place as the wrong time. Theism reasonably suggests purpose in all things even that of natural disasters. Is it reasonable to suggest that if a God exists who has purposefully created the universe, that even disasters have purpose and can work toward an ultimate good. We often see and experience how good can come from the worst of situations. I often share how my daughter, born with Spinal Bifida, has been one of the greatest blessing to our family. Not only did her situation cause me to face my humanity and limitations, but the most beautiful qualities about my daughter have come through her experience.

PLP’s argument that “victims will be in hell next to the perpetrators� does not acknowledge the sin of the victim as well.

As far as revelation being “disallowed as testimony in court�; I have never suggested this. While our courts do in asking people to swear on the Bible show that the theistic position provides the best foundation for obtaining the greatest measure of truth, it must again be stated that unless there is a universal transcendent law (and thus law giver), justice has no meaning. Only theism offers a foundation for justice, truth, and accountability.

Sin and Redemption
Thanks to PLP for bringing this discussion back to where it began – arising from a thread asking the question “Why does God send good people to hell?� PLP writes “It’s been my experience that most people act in concert with their conscience, they do what they want, and they refrain from doing what they hate. It seems that is, in the main, it is only theists who have such a struggle; and what more explanation is required than that the conflicted theist has needlessly adopted a moral code in conflict with his nature and reason.� Is PLP claiming that ATHEIST never lie, cheat, or steal? Or, does the atheist claim no law such that their conscience does not condemn lying, cheating, and stealing? If atheist always act in keeping with their nature, and they have participated in sin, then what does that say about their nature? If their nature is sinful, then in light of a transcendent law (and lawgiver), does this not suggest it is foolish for atheist to continue on their present course. PLP’s response proves my point. Everyone recognizes that all men fail to live up to the law of our own conscience (which must come from somewhere – not by chance or from a universe created by accident, but from a law giver). However, the atheist is left to either deny his sin, or to claim there is no law (both of which any reasonable person would condemn). Theism offers a solution. Atheism continues to live the lie.

Conclusion: While PLP has yet to produce answers from the Atheist standpoint that reasonable, substantively, and satisfactorily answer the charges made, theism provides them.

While debate has diverted to secondary evidence, one must question why the side of atheism chose not to present straight forward answers and shifted the focus and burden.

I look forward to continued debate.

(1) W. Anderew Hoffecker, Building a Christian World View (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1986) Vol 1, 197
(2) John Blanchard, Does God believe in atheists? (Auburn: Evangelical Press, 2000) 21.
(3) W.H. Fitchett, The Beliefs of Unbelief (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1907) 60.
(4) John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987)111-121.
(5) Fitchett, 57, 58.
(6) Website: Facing the Challenge of our Times (http://www.facingthechallenge.org/hawking.htm )
(7) Website: Facing the Challenge of our Times
(8) John Blanchard, 259.
(9) John Blanchard, 277.
(10) Website: Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc – Interview with Richard Dawkins (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/dawkinsinterview.htm )

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

In his opening Rev. Muse made the debate explicitly about the proposition, "Atheism is foolish because it doesn't answer certain questions." Implicit in this proposition is the premise that theism does answer the questions, and even if atheism answers the questions as well, theism does a better job. Rev. Muse thus concludes that atheism is thus foolish compared to theism.

Rev. Muse, in setting up the debate, has allocated Part II to the case in favor of atheism; it seems only natural to make the case for atheism's answers there. Since Rev. Muse is asking us to compare atheist and theist answers to his questions, at some point we must examine theism's answers. And it again seems only natural, given the format of the debate that Rev. Muse has specified, that we examine the theist's answers in Part I. Rev. Muse presents "the Christian argument as providing 'one' reasonably, substantively, satisfactorily [theistic] solution." I will therefore focus on the Christian answers to the best of my ability and to the extent that Rev. Muse provides detailed answers.

We must examine the theistic and Christian answers somewhere; I do agree with Rev. Muse; "A belief system which fails to provide reasonable ... support for its own beliefs, in light of the evidence and reason should be considered foolish and rejected.... The burden of proof of any belief system lies with itself, not other belief systems." This is as true of theism as of atheism. By Rev. Muse's reasoning, if theism fails to provide reasonable support for its own beliefs then it is wise to choose atheism on the grounds of that failure alone. If Rev. Muse wishes to make the case that one must choose theism only because of atheism's failure, we have an un-excluded middle to consider: agnosticism. But it would seem an odd position for an ordained minister of the Christian religion to argue for the wisdom of agnosticism as opposed to the folly of theism.

Rev. Muse offers few specifics for the answers of theism. So, before addressing the specific points he makes, I want to summarize my understanding of theism and Christianity. What does theism in general have to say about the questions of existence? And what does Christianity have to say?

Theism in general states that the origin of the observable universe is that some god created it. By "god", theism generally speaks about a person, a conscious being who thinks, who has beliefs and opinions, and who has a will and desires. This being is supernaturally powerful, supernaturally knowledgeable, supernaturally good. I use the term "supernatural" rather than "all" to avoid the trivial contradictions with the "omnimax" deity. By "supernaturally" I mean that the god can do things that human beings cannot ever do, know things that humans cannot ever know, and have a conception of good that human beings cannot naturally attain. This is the closest I can come to a statement of theism that is not absurd or logically contradictory on its face.

But how are we then to understand such a deity? We can look at the world around us, and create a natural physics. If we are restricted to a natural physics, though, the theistic proposal (that such a supernatural being actually exists) doesn't add any understanding of the world around us.

Natural physics says, "The observable universe is ten billion years old." Theism says, then, "The god created the universe ten billion years ago." Natural physics says, "Life began on earth four billion years ago." Theism says, then, "The god created life four billion years ago." Natural physics says, "Life propagates using DNA". Theism says, "The god created DNA to propagate life." Natural physics says, "The universe exists." Theism says, thus, "The god created the universe."

But theism has not explained anything. Where natural physics states a fact, theism "explains" the fact by saying that god did it. But any explanation has to say more than just "X came from Y". An explanation must, to be satisfying, say "X came from Y, and therefore Z"; it has to add new knowledge. Without adding new knowledge, the pseudo-explanation merely moves the mystery from X to Y. The universe is ten billion years old, and therefore there's been a lot of time for the universe to evolve. Life propagates using DNA, therefore we can quantify how biological evolution works through mutation and natural selection. Science offers us real explanations, explanations that offer new knowledge, new ideas, new understanding. General theism simply collects the already known and adds "god did it" without creating any new knowledge.

Theism is unnecessary to provide us with incorrigible knowledge in general. Mathematics provides us with incorrigible knowledge: I know that 2+2=4 according to standard arithmetic; I don't need a god to "make it so". Theism is obviously unnecessary to provide us with incorrigible definitional or abstract knowledge.

Theism alone cannot provide us with knowledge about the real world. No statement of physical fact can be entailed from, "A supernaturally powerful god exists and the supernatural god created the universe." More precisely, this construction entails every possible statement of physical fact, including those which contradict our natural observations.

To make theism do any work, to make it meaningful, we must have revelation; we must have statements about the real world that are incorrigibly true beyond what our own observations and our own reason could possibly tell us. We have to introduce some sort of theistic epistemology of revelation; we have to know things by virtue of the god that we cannot know by virtue of our senses and natural reason. Such an epistemology is, perhaps, logically possible, but it does not appear to ever produce results: I'm aware of no case where we have obtained useful knowledge about the physical world through divine revelation. Simply attaching "god made it so that..." doesn't help us. The theist in the time of Newton would have said, "god made it so that bodies attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." And the theist would thus have been just as wrong as Einstein showed that Newton was wrong. Attaching "god made it so that..." to our natural scientific knowledge doesn't render it any less corrigible.

Theism alone cannot provide us with universal (in the sense of objective) values. Since the goodness of this god is supernatural, we cannot, by definition, arrive at the god's conception of good by natural means. We're in the same boat with values as we are with physics. Again, every statement of value, including those that we do not hold, is entailed by "a supernaturally good god exists and created humanity." Again, if we attach "god made it good that..." to our natural values, the god's values are as corrigible as our own natural values. And, again, divine revelation has not been successful at providing entirely incorrigible values.

Christianity fares no better than bare theism. Christianity must call the Christian Bible a supernatural epistemological source to distinguish itself from bare theism. (I'll dismiss as simply too easy the obvious problem of determining which bible in which languages.) Accepting some bible as an epistemological source, though, entails that the bible must be either literally true or foundationally inerrant. The literal truth of the Christian Bible is absurd; it would have us believe that a God created the Earth six thousand years ago and that God created a the first human being by sculpting some dust and breathing life into its nostrils. We must believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, people rising from the dead, a global flood with a tiny ark carrying an enormous sample of all terrestrial life, nine-hundred year-old people, giants, and a host of other ridiculous fairy tales. To accept the literal truth of the Bible for values, we must call "good" slavery, genocide, child murder, incest, deception, rape, and human sacrifice. No reasonable person can do this.

To accept the Bible as foundationally inerrant is a bit softer. We don't need to accept it as literally true; it represents the truth, but we can call some bits allegorical. The problem is that to decide which is literal truth and which is allegory, we must appeal to our natural reason. But if we accept our natural reason as a legitimate basis to interpret the Bible, what does the Bible give us that our natural reason alone does not? Reject the superstition (which must be rejected) and exclude the occasional bit of factual truth available by natural reason; reject the values that are an abomination and exclude the values any ordinary person would hold by natural reason; reject the fabricated history and exclude the history by natural means. Take all this out and what do you have? Nothing. An empty book. Biblical inerrantism is indeed softer than literalism; so soft indeed that it vanishes like a puff of smoke in the breeze of natural reason which must be employed to interpret it.

Theism gives us no "answers" that natural reason (including observation and natural value) cannot give us. When theism is contradicted by natural reason, theism must yield. When theism says something that natural reason does not yet speak to, belief must be deferred until natural reason speaks. When theism says something that natural reason cannot speak to, what it says is literally meaningless.

Rev. Muse asserts that the questions under discussion "are dependent upon the existence of absolute truth and a set of universal values, which... point in the direction of theism." Even if so (and I do disagree), theism doesn't offer absolute (in the sense of "certain") truth. Sure, theists can define themselves to be absolutely certain... but they all disagree! If two certain people disagree, one of them has to be wrong, and they're probably both wrong about being certain. Definitional certainty is at best explicitly removed from reality (as with mathematics) and at worst simply delusional. To maintain his definitional certainty, the theist, especially the Christian, must at best construct elaborate, rococo Ptolemaic epicycles to justify his scripture; at worst he must simply deny the evidence of his senses. As Magellan said, "The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."

Theism does not help us construct universal (in the sense of objective) values. Every theist in history has attached "God wants us to..." to the prevailing moral opinions of the day. When the prevailing opinions change, why, mirabile dictu, God has changed his mind! One day the Christian Bible has us keeping slaves, burning witches, stoning wayward children to death, stoning Sabbath-breakers, stoning people who have poor fashion sense, heck, stoning just about everyone in sight. It's no wonder Yahweh had to come along the next day (in the New Testament) and say, "whoops, got all these 'universal values' wrong! Sorry about that. Here's a new set of universal values. You can eat pork and you don't have to chop off the end of your johnson." But he forgot again to prohibit slavery, establish democracy, or establish equal rights for women. We had to figure these out for our own, and drag the majority of Christians kicking and screaming the whole way.

Rev. Muse (quoting Hoffecker) asserts that, "'God’s existence and self-revelation give us the absolutely necessary precondition – authoritative truth - for' discerning and accepting truth and values." The problem is that it just doesn't work. In practice, each person's "revelation" gives us a different answer; theism just becomes each person loudly and violently asserting his own personal opinion as certain truth. God's existence and revelation is certainly not sufficient for "discerning and accepting truth and values." Why should it be necessary? What does "authoritative truth" mean if it differs from person to person, and can be settled only by slaughtering everyone who disagrees with you?

Rev. Muse attempts to explain the theistic answer to the Problem of Evil by analogy: "Does not a football coach say 'no pain, no gain'? Do not earthly governors and law officials at times allow the sins of evil men or criminals build up before bringing them to account?" But this analogy is absurd. The football coach is not arguing for the goodness of pain, he is merely observing the natural fact that muscles grow when they're damaged[1]. If we could grow muscle without pain, we would. We allow the "sins" of criminals to build up not because it's good in itself to build up sin, but because we require actual evidence to convict someone. When we can convict someone quickly, we do so.

The theistic answer to the Problem of Evil seems to be, "suffering is good." But why? Is it for a greater purpose? If so, what is that purpose? So we can overcome the suffering? But why is it good to overcome suffering instead of not having it in the first place? If suffering is so good, because it allows people to overcome it, why do we not inflict as much of it as we can, so as to give people the benefit of overcoming it? Press a theist for the details of his answer to the Problem of Evil, and you get at best "It's a mystery," which is no answer at all. At worst you get, God is sovereign, and if He wants to torture us for his pleasure, we have no right to complain. That's a satisfying, reasonable, joyful, "winsome" answer?

Rev. Muse asks us about the origin of the universe, but I'll ask him again: What does Christianity say about the origins of the universe? "Yahweh did it." This is not a reasonable, substantive or satisfying answer. We don't know how Yahweh did it; his powers are mysterious. We don't know why Yahweh did it; his purposes are mysterious. When did he do it? What precisely did he create? How did we get from then to now? The best I can figure out is:

Yahweh created the Universe in six days about six thousand years ago.
Yahweh created a two billion billion billion billion billion (that's 2x10^45) kilometer universe to hold a thirteen thousand kilometer Earth.
Yahweh created a billion galaxies each with a billion stars to hold our one star.
Yahweh created billion year old fossils and ten billion year old light in a six thousand year old universe.

Why six days and not in an instant? And why rest? I guess creating a whole universe is taxing for a deity that cannot defeat iron chariots[2]. Why such a huge universe for a tiny Earth? To makes us go "oooh" and "aaah"? A good fireworks show would suffice. Why old fossils and old light? I guess an all-good deity wishes to fool us.

Rev. Muse asks us about the creation of life and humanity. His best "explanation" seems to be, "A self-existent God, who possesses life in himself and creates and gives life provides a 'reasonable, substantively, satisfactorily' explanation for the origin and mystery of life." He dodges the question, though. If a self-existent god possesses life, the theist has not answered the question of the origin of life. He states it "just exists".

And he leaves unanswered the same questions as with the origin of the universe: How? Why? When? What next?

Rev. Muse asserts that, "Not just an individual’s life but terrestrial live serves the same purpose." Ok, what is that purpose? Rev. Muse admits that perhaps, God could have "simply created us directly 'in the Big Rock Candy Mountain the theist calls heaven.'" Ok, why didn't he? Rev. Muse can admit only ignorance: "I am happy to let God be God and acknowledge I am not." Rev. Muse asserts that my speculations "miss the creator/creature relationship inherent in the theist position." Ok, what is that relationship? Rev. Muse can answer only, "He, not I determines his pleasure, purpose and will." Not only can Rev. Muse not provide an explanation, he seems to admit that we don't deserve an explanation.

Rev. Muse talks about his daughter's spinal bifida. Let me say first that my heart sincerely goes out to Rev. Muse and his daughter. I am a parent myself; I can understand all too well the weight of such suffering. Rev. Muse has made a virtue out of necessity, for which I can only admire him.

As much as I admire Rev. Muse's fortitude and love for his daughter, I have to admit that his moral understanding of his position is much different than my own. I believe that Rev. Muse would (as I also would) sacrifice anything, even his own life, to cure his daughter, regardless of the spiritual benefits that he and she might thus forego. Even knowing the spiritual benefits, I cannot believe that Rev. Muse would have chosen to have his daughter suffer so. If he himself cannot conceive of the good of he himself choosing such suffering for his daughter, how can he call "good" the same choice in God?

Rev. Muse says, "Can good come from hardship, and even sin and evil, the answer is yes!" I agree. In a natural universe, there is some good that can come as a response to natural suffering. In a natural universe, there is no agent choosing the suffering; there is no guilt to apportion; suffering is simply a consequence of the blind laws of physics, which we must learn to endure until we can overcome. But this is simply not so under a theistic universe: Suffering is the choice of a deity. We must either hold that deity responsible, or cower as slaves. Rev. Muse says, "A sovereign God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick!" I say, a all-powerful god can and should use a "straight stick". Rev. Muse says, "Can there be great good that results from a person dying painfully from cancer? Yes!" But the question is not: Can good result from suffering? The question is: Does good require suffering? Can the theist show the necessity of suffering without appealing to natural, physical limitations?

Rev. Muse quotes Rom. 8:18: "Our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." What glory? Rev. Muse justifies our impotence and powerlessness with an empty promise. If our present sufferings are trivial, why not simply remove them? Rev Muse asserts that "these suffering are not by chance, but ordained for good." The theist must have faith that these sufferings are ordained for good; not only is there no evidence or argument which can establish this good, evidence and argument entail that it is evil to choose suffering when it can be avoided.

Rev. Muse asserts that the evidence points to a theistic origins of the universe. He quotes Blanchard: "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics prove as certainly as science can prove anything that the universe could not have begun itself but that it did have a beginning." Rev. Muse does not see fit to reproduce Blanchard's argument, so I cannot examine it critically. I can only suggest that neither Blanchard nor Rev. Muse appear to have a good scientific understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, which explicitly state that it is logically possible for an arrangement of matter to move to a state of lower entropy; it is merely physically improbable. One cannot rest a logical, philosophical argument on thermodynamics. In any case, a "beginning" does not point to anything but the most abstract deity. Saying "Some 'god' created the big bang and the laws of physics ten billion years ago and hasn't been heard from since," adds nothing to the statement, "The universe began ten billion years ago."

Rev Muse mentions that, "The order, beauty, precision and elegance we see in the world are consistent with the idea of God." Sure, we do see some order, beauty, precision and elegance. But we also see disorder, ugliness, wastefulness and awkwardness, from the smallest scale of illness to the grandest scale of the collision of galaxies. The order we see is consistent with both god and no god, but the disorder is absolutely inconsistent with god.

Rev. Muse quotes Robert Frost's incredulity: "The atheist must, of necessity, believe that matter without mind created reason and logic," and so forth. But the atheist can express even greater incredulity: The Christian must, of necessity, believe that an all powerful, all knowing, and all good deity created sin, sickness, disease and death; created an enormous universe to hold a tiny Earth; created reason and logic only to hide them from us for millennia; planted evidence to deliberately mislead us; destroyed almost all of humanity once and will do so again; and explains his will in riddles, stories and fairy tales. Better to believe that mind did indeed arise from mindless matter than believe in a deity that is seems either malevolent or incompetent.

Rev. Muse points out that, "There is more wisdom in the forming and fashioning the human body than all of mankind over all its existence." But there is not nearly enough wisdom to justify a deity. It took this alleged "deity" ten billion years to create the human body, and it's riddled with design flaws and missed opportunities. The heart is great, but how about the knee? Our backwards retina? After only a couple of hundred thousand years, from a standing start, human science is close to catching up. We can already do things our bodies cannot do on their own: We can manufacture vitamin C, we can cure bacterial infections with antibiotics, we can perform surgery, we can cure many types of cancer; the list goes on. It's blatant special pleading to point to the good function as evidence of design and the poor function as the evidence of sin; the theist cannot tell us why God choose to "punish" us for sin by eliminating the ability to make vitamin C.

Rev. Muse claims that, "The theistic position offers explanations" where I state fundamentally something has to "just exist". Ok, where are the explanations? Where did Yahweh himself come from? The best that the Rev. Muse can is quote Blanchard's definition: Yahweh is "a unique, personal, plural, spiritual, eternally self-existent, transcendent, immanent, omniscient, immutable, holy, loving Being, the Creator and Ruler of the entire universe and the judge of all mankind." This is a string of adjectives, not an explanation. Yahweh is "transcendent": in other words we don't know. Yahweh is "self-existent", in other words he "just exists". Where's the explanation?

Rev. Muse quotes Calvin: "Therefore in the fact that corruption is the origin and cause of reproduction, we have a kind of representation of the resurrection." This is an utter nonsequitur. Rev. Muse refers to the "fact" that, "What arises can be of a different nature that than which was sown." I don't understand this. If you plant wheat, you get wheat. He asks, "Is it not reasonable and probable that the same power that is able to effect this change in the seed can do the same with the body that is sown?" No, it's not reasonable. He asks, "If here on earth we find evidence of 'different kinds' of bodies, then does it not point to the fact that there can be earthly as well as heavenly bodies?" No, it doesn't. I cannot imagine stretching an analogy farther past the breaking point. If this is a reasonable explanation then so is, "We eat cheese therefore the moon is made of green cheese."

Rev. Muse asserts that, "It can be shown that in every case where the latter [theistic governments] have failed, it has been in areas where those involved failed to keep the universal and transcendent law that is in keeping with the theistic argument I present." It can be shown? Then show it! He goes on, "Given the depravity of mankind, the theistic position that encourages accountability to the law giver who provides transcendent law is better than the atheistic position that denies the presence of a universal transcendent law and lawgiver and thereby ultimate accountability for one’s actions." Even given the "depravity" of human beings (And which is it: Is mankind "depraved", or do we have "infinite value"?) how does this follow?

Rev. Muse asks us, "Is it not true that all (reasonable) men would agree that disrespect, stealing, unchastity, murder, lying, and envy are wrong?" Even if true this assertion contradicts theistic morality on its face. If all reasonable people agree that something is wrong, then we need not appeal to anything more than opinion, evidence, and natural reason to establish right and wrong. The theist can appeal to god only where an assertion contradicts reason, evidence and even prevailing opinion.

The atheist need not prove that "erroneous" laws are objectively wrong to dismiss theistic morality. One need only show that theists change their minds. "I was certain then," says the theist, "that slavery was good. I am certain now, however, that slavery is bad." I can only echo Inigo Montoya's complaint about the use of the word "certainty": "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Rev. Muse says that "concerning comfort for those who suffer, theism provides reasonable answers. Given a transcendent law and law giver, there is also the hope of ultimate justice." But what comfort theism gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. Given the Christian view that we are all sinners, all depraved, and all deserve the torments of hell, if justice is done we're all going to hell. Christian "justice" is no comfort at all; a Christian prays for justice for his enemies and mercy for himself.

Rev. Muse asks if I claim that atheists "never lie, cheat or steal." I claim no such thing. I suggest only that atheists lie, cheat and steal at least no more than theists. In fact, some evidence suggests that, by the standards of natural reason, nontheists act better than theists: Theists are at least 40 times more likely to end up in prison than nontheists.[3] Rev. Muse Theism does not appear to offer any solution to the task of living morally.

In conclusion, Rev. Muse questions "why the side of atheism chose not to present straight forward answers and shifted the focus and burden." I can say only that I am following Rev. Muse's lead. It is he who has given me Part II to present the case of atheism; I will do so. It is he who has made a comparison of answers the theme of the debate; I have asked only that he give us his own answers in his own part to compare. It is he who has said that, "A belief system which fails to provide reasonable ... support for its own beliefs, in light of the evidence and reason should be considered foolish and rejected." But Rev. Muse has not shown us this support; I believe he cannot. Not only must we reject theism and accept atheism because of this failure, I will show how atheism and naturalism do answer the "big" questions in a reasonable, substantive and satisfying way.


[1]The Mystery of Muscle, Scientific American, July 1999

[2]The Christian Bible, Judges1:19

[3]Rod Swift, The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

The question is “the foolishness of Atheism.� Debate thus far has centered around two central issues. First, the failure of atheism to provide reasonable answers to significant philosophical issues; and second, the question of whether theism provides reasonable answers to the same questions that atheism fails to answer.

I will begin with PLP’s response to the answers that atheism provides. Here I intend to show (or conclude) that atheism is a foolish system because not only does it fail to provide reasonable and satisfactory answers, but it is incapable of doing so; and both erects and depends on a paradigm that is illogical and faulty. In this, it will shown that the “God did it� arguments referred to by PLP as presented by theists, though on one level appear to discredit theists as unintelligent and irrational beings who deserve to be disregarded, this is not the case; rather it is either the misunderstanding of atheists or the faulty paradigm used by atheists that should be viewed as foolish and disregarded. Following this, I intend to address the issues PLP raises concerning revelation and show that while discernable and reasonable, revelation provides the theist with answers more reasonable and satisfactory than that of atheism. After this, I will defend the fact that theism provides reasonable answers where atheism doesn’t by clarifying the relationship between evidence and answers and looking to where the evidence points; by refuting the responses made by PLP concerning the answers theism provides, and then providing discussion of the logical end to where the evidence points.


ATHEISM’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ANSWERS
First, the issue of PLP’s response to the answers Atheism fails to provide. In all fairness to PLP and in keeping with the openness, honesty and good nature of this debate, I point out that PLP has been forthright in choosing to reserve his answers from the “atheist, naturalistic, secular� perspective until Part II of the debate. While I still believe the best approach to debate is to provide direct answers to the central issues first, I agree with PLP that the theistic answers are implicit to the charge made. (Besides, if this line of argument had not been followed, I’m not sure it would have left much for PLP to present and for us to argue in the second half of the debate.) Hence, I must wait until Part II to provide extensive review and rebuttal of the atheist arguments.

This does not mean however, that PLP has not presented any answers for the Atheists position. On the contrary, PLP has more than shown his hand at the end of his first response where he concludes by saying “Before SCIENCE, it is arguable that theism’s supernatural promises had some value as comfort. But now that we have the means to alleviate suffering HERE AND NOW, theism’s anachronistic supernatural fairy tales only retard our progress…Today, we have SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, PHILOSOPHIES AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS that seem to be improving the lot of mankind in this world…� PLP’s argument appears to be if not pure scientism, reductionism, or determinism, at least a broad form of them (bringing in the additional disciplines & systems). Hence, he posits that there is no need of faith because man now has (or soon will have) apart from faith all that is needed to both provide all the answers and to meet all man’s needs. I question: Is this the case? I challenge this with the following questions: (1) Does science (& other “natural� disciplines) have all the answers? (2) Is science (and other “natural� disciplines) capable of providing all the answers and solutions?

(1) The point may be made that though science has made incredible and appreciated advances, science et al. does NOT “here and now� have all the answers, even when one is generous in defining “here and now.�

First, when it comes to the mortality rate among man, the figure still stands at 100 percent (acknowledging there are those being kept alive on life support, though no atheist would argue this is what is meant in saying science has all the answers). Man still must prepare for issues surrounding death. Here, the science, philosophies and political systems PLP refers to provide no more answers than that man has no future but that of becoming fertilizer1 or a pile of decayed debris.

Second, when it comes to providing medical solutions, while it must be pointed out that science has come a long way and provides solutions and comfort that were unavailable in the past, it must be admitted that much of what is done today still falls under the category of replacements and replenishments rather than full restoration of the original; i.e, medical professionals can stint, balloon, or replace the valves of the heart, but have not provided reasonable solutions to perfectly and perpetually maintain the original valves of the heart. Sure, science will continue to improve and provide answers, but will it achieve the point of reversing the second law of thermodynamics, reversing the cycle of decay and death? I hardly think so. I suppose, if history is any indicator, the more we discover, the more problems we will uncover and the game will go on. Hence, one can see that science itself does not provide “here and now� all the reasonable answers and solutions, and it can be shown that the combination of hopes atheist rely on do not provide where science alone fails.

Third, concerning man’s nature, behaviors, and freedom, scientism et al. does not provide reasonable and satisfying answers. Sure, when it comes to lusts - science has provided solutions like the “patch� for smokers, and “morning after pills� for fornicators, but these solutions are nothing but a “patch� or band-aid to cover rather that fix the real problem. Sure, secular counseling provides some techniques for dealing with such things, but “atheistic, naturalistic, secular� solutions do not provide a solution to fix the real problem. The science et al. as PLP has thus far referred, not only has failed to deal with the significant number of issues surrounding the nature of man, but even fails to acknowledge there is a need in the system for these issues to be addressed. I point out that PLP admits (does not deny) that atheists (like theists) “lie, cheat and steal.� The ultimate issue is not whether they do so more or less than theists (while I doubt his figures), but what does this say about man’s nature? And does science et al. here and now provide satisfactory solutions for dealing with man’s propensity to sin, the guilt where he violates transcendent law and his own conscience, and the aspects of the sensible need for ultimate justice? When it can be shown that there is transcendent law and hence a law giver and judge, whenever man violates that law, he becomes a criminal. Certainly, it’s foolish for man to trust in a belief system that doesn’t deal substantively with this issue.

When it comes to morality and political solutions, it’s been shown that only a system based on recognizable universal and transcendent law makes any sense and provides a basis for reasonable meaning and life solutions. Ravi Zacharias demonstrates this quoting J.P Stern’s responded to the question “what positive answers Neietzsche could give to life apart from God� where he replied “The answers to that question are, I’m afraid, very unsatisfactory as far as Nietzsche is concerned. His whole attitude towards social questions never does get to far… Nietzsche’s recommendations make living together in some kind of harmony extremely difficult… In a sense we can say that some of the more outrageous political doctrines of our time, some of the fascist politics of the early part of this century are based to some extent – among intellectuals, at any rate – on this view that you must create your own values and live by them, regardless of the consequences. It hasn’t got us very far, as you can see.�2 While PLP states that science et al. more or less provides sufficient answers here and now, I question this particularly as science continues to advance (a good thing, but) providing opportunity for terrorists to increase their lethality and ability to carry out destructive acts more covertly. Does the science, philosophy, and the political solutions PLP refers to provide sufficient answers to the point where we can say it is good there is no God and no possibility of ultimate accountability; to the point where we can feel confident the world as a whole has their sin nature under control; to the point where we believe it’s okay to encourage humanity to deny any thought of transcendent law, etc.? Is there no place for a faith system that draws attention to the law, to the law giver and to one’s accountability? Even the common grace that spills over from a theistic view and serves as a deterrent is shown to be more beneficial that the fullness of atheism et al.

When it comes the philosophical issues originally discussed, has science et al. provided reasonable and satisfying answers to such questions as the origin of the universe, the reason behind suffering and pain, the solution to evil, etc.?

While I wait for PLP’s response in Part II, it can be noted now that the PLP’s science et al. has failed in the “here and now� to provide reasonable solutions to the problems. While science et al. can document that pain and suffering exists, it provides no reason for why it has come to be in the first place, and it certainly has not reasonably done away with it! While science and medicine can sometimes prevent pain, and medically sedate people for comfort, it hasn’t done away with pain or all the causes of it. Then, there’s the issue of emotional pain and suffering, spiritual pain and suffering (feeling dirty, disgusting, and condemnable). Science et al. is here and now far from providing all the answers!

Again, while I wait for PLP’s response in Part II to answers concerning the universe, science actually makes the idea of God easier to accept rather than harder. On the massive scale (discovery of the universe) to the minute scale (intelligent design of the human body, brain, chromosomes, etc.), the evidence points in the direction of an intelligent creator.3

(2) Is Science et al. CAPABLE of Providing All the Answers and Solutions? (or “reasonably� capable)

Science (& other disciplines) has LIMITS. Blanchard lists several of these limits4(dealing with the issue of science only, though it can be shown the entire naturalistic system has limits). For example, while science can to some degree can speak to observable matters, it cannot provide definitive answers to those things that it cannot observe. While science can tell us evidence shows the world exists, it cannot explain its origin or purpose. Science et al. does have all the answers. It is incapable of providing them.

Blanchard summarizes several of these limitations, stating (1) Science is unable to tell us why the universe came into being; (2) Science is unable to explain why there are scientific or natural laws, or why they are so consistent and dependable; (3) Science cannot explain why the universe is so amazingly fine-tuned to support intelligent life on our planet; (4) Science cannot explain why as human beings we are persons and not mere objects; (5) Science can tell us nothing about why the mind exists and functions as it does; (6) Science can add nothing to the inner quality of life; (7) Science cannot define or explain ethical principles; (8) Science is not able to answer life’s deepest questions (Why are we here? How ought we to behave?).5

Here’s where a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE lies between Atheism and Theism! Atheism tends to set science and faith against one another as enemies, whereas theism sets true science and true faith together as friends. (Christianity is a peaceful system, whereas Atheism is not.) What I mean by this is that Atheists either (1) misunderstand theists in thinking that theists believe the purpose of revelation and faith is to serve as a substitute for science – that it is the purpose of faith to provide all the answers that science seeks to provide; or (2) mistakenly believe that Science is sufficient to provide all the answers such that faith is not necessary, hence a paradigm/model that rejects any need for faith, and supposes that apart from faith - science either has or can do all the theists suggest that both faith and science can/should provide.

Theists (I speak for Christianity) do not believe faith is a substitute for science. Rather, we believe that faith and science must work together to provide the answers and solutions for man. For example, the purpose of the Bible was not to answer all the questions that science discovers. However, the Bible provides reasonable answers where science has limits, like the origin and purpose of the universe. Additionally, as has been shown, faith provides the very foundation for reasonable science.

While the Atheist (PLP) asserts that science makes the discoveries and then the theists simply respond “God did it�; the question is not whether science or faith is responsible for discovering the evidence; but whether when the evidence is presented that science discovers, to then determine whether the evidence points to God doing it or to it being done by the mindless, lawless, purposeless, matter that Atheism proposes we must look to as a reasonable solution. (It must be noted that the Christian who works off a presupposition that God created the universe and off a paradigm that suggests that true faith and science will support one another is not being intellectually irrational in stating or beginning with the principle that “God did it�, given that his presupposition and paradigm have never been proven invalid).

To demonstrate this:
PLP says “The universe is ten billion years old, …Life propagates using DNA, therefore we can quantify how biological evolution works through mutation and natural selection.� Just taking one part of this, the issue of DNA. With discoveries about the way DNA works (the intelligence and information carrying capacity associated with DNA6, the fact that a single chromosome may contain information equivalent to 500 million words7, etc.,) – the question is whether this is more reasonably explained by an intelligent designer or by evolution that stems from a mindless, purposeless accident?

PLP states “Theism is unnecessary to provide us with incorrigible knowledge in general. Mathematics provides us with incorrigible knowledge. I know that 2+2=4 according to standard arithmetic.� Here, normativity is assumed. If mathematics works according to a normative law (revealed in nature), then the question is whether the presence of this law points more to a universe created by intelligent design, or by mindless matter. It’s not an issue of whether science discovered it and God did it, but whether it’s more reasonable that an intelligent creator was involved or design by unintelligent accident.

Atheism supports a paradigm that is faulty (and therefore foolish) in that it claims science et al. can provide all the reasonable answers and solutions apart from faith. The better paradigm is to include faith among the other components, in that it addresses and provides reasonable answers to issues where science et al. is limited.

(3) Concerning REVELATION, PLP’s arguments reduce to: (A) Is it possible to discern God’s revelation? (B) Does revelation enable us to know things that we cannot know by virtue of our senses and natural reason? (C) Is it necessary to “know things by virtue of a god we cannot know by virtue of our senses and natural reason�?

A. Is it possible to discern God’s revelation?

Yes. PLP points out the various difficulties such as how one can determine whose revelation is correct, which bible in which languages, and the further problem of disagreement among theists. But I argue – are not the same problems found in the area of science (difficulties at times discerning whose science is correct, is there not disagreement among scientists, etc.), yet we hold that true science is discernable. In asserting that one can determine which science is correct and which philosophies are correct, is it not reasonable that one can also determine which revelation is correct? Are there not ways to test revelation? Can it not be reasonably shown that some methods of interpretation are better than others, just as there are scientific methods that are better than others? Just because there is disagreement concerning revelation, does that prove there is no revelation? No! In the same way, disagreement in science does not prove science itself to be irrational. Additionally, is there anything unreasonable about the Christian presupposition that God, if he exists, in addition to revealing himself in general and special revelation would could send his spirit to accompany that revelation and enable man to discern and understand it? No. It is entirely reasonable!

While it can be shown (though space and the object of this debate do not permit) that the Bible evidences itself to be the Word of God8 while others fail,