On the old site, before the migration, I put a thread up about a website I discovered called GotQuestions.org, which is a Christian apologetics site. There's a nifty little feature where you can submit questions, and they'll reply - with a personalized answer. I promised I'd post the response I got. Here is a link to the old thread.
Here's my question, for posterity's sake:
And, to my tremendous surprise, I got a personalized response, a mere four days later. They wrote back with FIFTEEN HUNDRED motherfucking words! With citations! I think that if we can get enough people to submit difficult enough questions, we may be able to swamp 'em. Here's the reply, in full.
My response/criticism/deconstruction to follow.
Here's my question, for posterity's sake:
My atheist friend says that his disbelief in God is not so that he can clear his conscience. He says that he doesn't believe in God because there is no empirical evidence for God. He also says that morality arises from the need to maintain societies. He says that humans, as social animals, had to develop rules that would allow them to work together for the greatest common good, and that these rules change as society changes. Isn't the Bible the source of all of our morals?
Yours in Christ,
Steven McCool {This isn't really my name}
I LOVE GOD!
And, to my tremendous surprise, I got a personalized response, a mere four days later. They wrote back with FIFTEEN HUNDRED motherfucking words! With citations! I think that if we can get enough people to submit difficult enough questions, we may be able to swamp 'em. Here's the reply, in full.
I'm sure your friend is sincere, but his (or her) comments fly in the face of what the Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Rome: "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:19-21). The Bible clearly teaches that God is plainly evident in creation, but that natural man rejects this revelation (called General Revelation by theologians) because of sin (i.e., as a result of the fall). Furthermore, in his letter to Corinth, Paul tells his readers that the natural man (i.e., the unbeliever) does not understand the things of God because they are "spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
The situation that you have is this: Because of the fall, mankind is born rejecting God by default. Now there are various forms of rejection. Someone who rejects God doesn't have to be an atheist. A person can be a deist (God creates the universe and then lets it run its course), a pantheist (everything that exists is in some way, shape or form, God), or even a theist (a non-Christian who still believes in a transcendent and imminent God). Atheism is just one form of rejection of the God of the Bible. Because of this natural drift to reject God, we will do anything and think anything that allows us to continue rejecting God. My own personal experience with my own behavior and the behavior of others demonstrates to me that human beings have an enormous capacity for rationalization. So while your friend may sincerely believe that his rejection of God is based on the lack of empirical evidence, I would be willing to bet there is some deep-seated rationalization that is at work here.
How do I know this? Because the common misconception in debates with atheists is that there are competing 'sets of evidence.' In other words, Christians have their evidence that supports the existence of God and atheists have their evidence that denies existence of God. The truth of the matter is that there is only one set of evidence available to both the Christian and the atheist. For example, the atheist looks at the DNA similarities between human beings and primates and concludes common ancestry; whereas the Christian looks at the same similarities in the DNA between primates and human beings and concludes common design. What accounts for the difference? The differences are differences in interpretation of the evidence which is a result of different world-views and preconceptions that each individual has. The atheist comes to the debate with an a priori materialism (the dominant philosophy of atheism) that shapes his or her interpretation of the world. The Christian comes to the very same debate with an a priori belief in God, which shapes his or her interpretation of the world. To demonstrate this argument, consider the following quote from Richard Lewontin, a geneticist who is also an atheist and a proponent of evolution:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, 1997)
Essentially what Lewontin is saying is that as an atheist, he is philosophically committed to a materialistic world view no matter how absurd its conclusions are; to think otherwise is to allow God into the conversation. The only difference between Dr. Lewontin and your friend is that Dr. Lewontin is being intellectually honest; he is acknowledging his materialistic bias. Likewise, I acknowledge my own bias -- I am a Christian who believes in the absolute authority of the Bible. Therefore, I bring certain presuppositions to the debate. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging one's biases and preconceptions. This not only sets the stage for an honest debate, but it also allows one to be able to think objectively; it is the person with unacknowledged biases that will have trouble being objective.
Let's address your concern regarding morals. Your atheist friend is of the opinion that morals are the result of of mankind's need to exist peacefully in social groups. In other words, morals are pragmatic. When they no longer serve the need in which they were created, the rules change to fit the current circumstance. Essentially your friend is arguing against the Biblical view of morality. Biblical morality is objective. God is the Moral Lawgiver who has established what it right and what is wrong. I want to point out something your friend said that undercuts his entire argument. He says, "that humans, as social animals, had to develop rules that would allow them to work together for the greatest common good" (emphasis added). What is the 'common good?' If morality is merely a social construct, as your friend argues, then there is no 'common good.' Good is reduced to the pragmatic -- i.e., what works. By referring to the 'common good,' your friend is arguing for an objective standard by which social rules are judged. In other words, your friend is trying to have it both ways. Either morality is completely subjective and relative or it is objective and absolute.
The atheist has a real problem when trying to argue against objective moral standards because they end up arguing against something they instinctively know is right. Most atheists I know are genuinely good people. They don't go around committing murder or theft. In other words, they operate as if right and wrong were objective realities. The intellectually honest atheist would realize that if morality were truly subjective and relative, then 'good' is what I make it to be. There is no standard that is objective to me, so I can decide on my own 'good.' In a society, 'good' is decided by the person with the biggest stick, and you essentially have Nietzsche's Will to Power. Here again you have the atheist wanting it both ways. They want to claim that morality is pragmatic and subjective, but they are unwilling to take that premise to its logical conclusion, which is anarchy.
Your final question -- "Isn't the Bible the source of our morals?" -- is essentially true. The Bible is where our morals are codified in written form. God is the source of our morals. The Ten Commandments are, in essence, God's own moral standard. According to the Apostle Paul, God's law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15). What this means is that God has 'hard wired' us with a conscience. We instinctively know what is right and wrong. Despite our fallen state, we still know the difference between right and wrong. Against the notion that morals are merely pragmatic rules to promote civil society, is the notion that each human being, in some way, shape or form, has God's law written on their hearts. This accounts for the fact that despite differences in geography, time and culture, each society has some prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, and lying. Similarly most cultures place a high value on the family as elemental to the health of a society. We are all human beings with the same nature -- created in the image of God. The differences in cultural rules are for the most part reserved to minor secondary issues (e.g., diet, clothing, etc.).
In the end, remember that you cannot argue someone into the kingdom of God. Your friend operates with a spiritual blindness, and only the Holy Spirit can remove that. In your discussions with your atheist friend, always keep things civil and remember to reflect the love of Christ to him (or her). While we need to always be ready to give a defense (1 Peter 3:15), it is by being 'salt and light' that people take notice of our witness and glorify God (Matthew 5:16).
---------------
We highly recommend the "Quest Study Bible." - http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=28042
---------------
If you need more help on this issue or need clarification, please submit another question at our site: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Questions.html, giving your question number if possible. You can also look through our Frequently Asked Questions Archives at -http://www.gotquestions.org/archive.html or search our site at - http://www.gotquestions.org/search.html
Thank you and God bless!
The Staff at GotQuestions.org
---------------
GotQuestions.org seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing Biblical answers to spiritually-related questions. To continue in this mission, we need your support! For more information, please visit https://gotquestions.org/support.html.
My response/criticism/deconstruction to follow.
