The Absurdity of Unbelief - Jeffrey D. Johnson
The Absurdity of Unbelief - Jeffrey D. Johnson
The Absurdity of Unbelief - Jeffrey D. Johnson
Jeffrey D. Johnson
Agnostics and atheists have been making a lot of noise in recent years, in spite of the fact that
their belief systems are flawed. To counter their propaganda we need a flow of books exposing just how
flimsy their arguments are. Jeffrey Johnson has chosen the word absurdity to characterise these, and he
has chosen well. Chapter by chapter he strips unbelief of any vestige of credibility, then shows with
crystal clarity why the biblical case for God stands supreme when contrasted with all other philosophical
and religious belief systems. I predict that this book will be as great a help to many of its readers as it
has been to me, and I commend it warmly.
John Blanchard
Author of Does God Believe in Atheists?
*
The Bible doesnt merely state the atheists creed, it provides us with an assessment of that
creed: The fool has said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1). In his new book The Absurdity of
Unbelief, Jeffrey Johnson ably demonstrates that the Scripture writer isnt hurling insults or engaging in
ad hominem. Rather, as Johnson shows, the Bible is simply telling the truth. To reject the triune God of
Scripture and to replace him with a non-biblical worldview is self-defeating. How does Johnson defend
this thesis (and biblical claim)? First, he argues that human beliefs are not neutral but are in certain
ways biased and preconditioned. Next, Johnson proceeds, by means of reductio ad absurdum, to expose
the irrationality of the worlds major non-biblical philosophies and unbiblical religions. Finally, Johnson
carefully sets forth the arguments and lays out the evidence for the veracity of Christianity, and he
concludes with an earnest and humble appeal to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ, which alone can
restore true meaning to the world and wherein is found true wisdom from God. The Absurdity of Unbelief
will challenge the unbelievers skepticism and will confirm the believers faith. I highly recommend it!
Robert R. Gonzales Jr.
Author of Where Sin Abounds
*
Jeffrey Johnsons new book, The Absurdity of Unbelief, demonstrates the absurdity of most of the
worldviews which parade themselves as truth naturalism, relativism, atheism, existentialism,
pantheism, materialism, and the rest. He clearly examines the premises of each system of thought and
demonstrates their many contradictions. His scholarship and historical understanding of the entire field
of philosophy and the other so-called religions is evident throughout the book. He has done a masterful
job in showing that the Christian worldview is the only system that will meet all the tests of logic and
ethics. He concludes this excellent work with a passionate call to submit ourselves to the God of the
Scriptures who has given us His son, Jesus Christ, who will remove all of our sin and guilt. To trust in any
of the other philosophical or religious positions while refusing to accept Gods gracious offer of salvation
is indeed absurd!
Curtis C. Thomas
Author of Practical Wisdom for Pastors
*
them, fatal difficulties on all systems of thought not built on the foundation of Christ, grounds for holding
to Christian theism, and a passionate call to faith in Jesus. Along the way he examines Christian and
non-Christian thinkers and movements both ancient and contemporary, demonstrating that the principles
underlying a biblical apologetic equally apply to all forms of unbelief. I plan on coming back to this book
again and again.
Joseph E. Torres
Editor and coauthor with John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief, and blogger at
KINGDOMVIEW
*
As Christians struggle to hold onto a semblance of sanity in the midst of the collapse of Western
morality and thought, a sound foundation upon which to stand in explaining our unwillingness to bow the
knee to Caesar is a must. In The Absurdity of Unbelief, Jeffrey Johnson provides a clear and compelling
case for the Christian faith, readable and usable for believer and unbeliever alike.
James R. White
Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries
To my brothers
James & Jason Johnson
Table of Contents
Preface
PART I. The Nature of Unbelief
1. Faith is Not Blind
Separating Reason from Faith
Conclusion
2. Faith is Not Subjectivity
Sren Kierkegaard
Immanuel Kant
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Karl Barth
Rudolf Bultmann
Paul Tillich
Gordon Kaufman
Conclusion
3. Faith is Not Irrational
Faith is Not Irrational
Faith Trusts God
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index of Names
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
V
W
Y
Z
Preface
One cannot deny logical and ethical absolutes without the use of the laws of logic and ethics in
the process. If some say they dont care about logic, then they might as well say that they are okay with
sounding absurd. Why would anyone want to take them seriously? If some do not care about being
ethical, then why would anyone want to trust them when they admit that lying is okay?
Without God, there is no meaning, no truth, no rationality, and no ethical standard. Because
without God and specifically the God of the Bible there is no foundation for logic or ethics to be
utilized in argumentation at all (as we shall see).
In other words, I dont believe in intellectual atheists anymore than I believe in relativists who
take relativism seriously. Sure, there are plenty who call themselves atheists, but deep down, they are
lying to themselves. Sure, there are plenty who hold to relativistic thinking, but this does not mean that
they truly think it is okay for others to cheat, defraud, exploit, or kill them. No matter how postmodern
and open-minded many may think they are, they cannot help but get incensed when others take
advantage of them. So, no, I dont believe in atheists or relativists.
Knowing this is a bold way to introduce a book on Christian apologetics, I would only challenge
you to try to remain honest with yourself as you read this book. If you happen to be a self-proclaimed
atheist, agnostic, or skeptic, see if you can be honest with your conscience and continue to deny the
existence of God.
I hope that all skeptics of Christianity read this book, not because I feel I have written the best
book on the subject, but because I am persuaded by the coherency of the Christian worldview that
Christianity is true. It is the only worldview that is intellectually and practically defensible, for it is the
only worldview that can give a coherent answer to why there are logical and ethical absolutes.
I write with certainty, but that does not mean this book is certain to bring any unbeliever away
from his or her unbelief. Even though I am convinced that Christianity is both right and defensible, I am
not convinced that this is enough to convince unbelieving skeptics.
The problem with unbelief, as I explain in PART 2, is not a lack of evidence or rational warrant;
unbelief is due to a lack of appreciation for the truth. Faith in Christ requires more than just intellectual
knowledge of Christ; it requires a love for Christ that comes only by the illumination of the Spirit (as we
shall see in chapter 26). This is something that goes beyond the reach of apologetics, for only God can
reveal Himself to us in such a way for us to be willing to sell all that we have and follow Him.
Though I cannot be certain this book will be of any eternal value for unbelievers, I can write with
the knowledge that apologetics is a great value to those who already love the Lord Jesus. In some ways,
apologetics is more helpful for believers than for non-believers. This may sound odd, since believers
already have faith in Christ, but just as the gospel is continuously beneficial for believers, Christian
apologetics is helpful in strengthening and encouraging the faith of those who already believe
especially if we have a biblical apologetic, for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God
(Rom. 10:17).
My aim, though, is not to instruct the reader on how to carry out apologetics, or to discuss the
differences between the various apologetical approaches, but to carry out an apologetic. I am not simply
seeking to defend the Christian worldview from outside criticism, but to provide an offensive attack on
Since God cannot be described using any meaningful language, it is best to understand God by
the things that He is not (Via Negativa, also known as apophatic theology). What is God not?
First, according to Dionysius, God is not a person. Man is a personal being; man is personal
because he can be distinguished from other persons. Personhood, therefore, is something that is finite,
something that is separate from the whole, and something that is distinguishable. God, however, is
infinite, simple, and absolute. God transcends all forms of separation; God is Unity. Thus, God is beyond
personhood; He is Super-Personal, as Dionysus often stated.
Second, according to Dionysus, since God is Unity, He is not even a conscious being. Why?
Because consciousness implies a state of thinking, and thinking implies self-awareness. Self-awareness
cannot happen without a thinking object making a distinction between His thoughts and that which is
being thought upon. Thus, there is a separation, at least in the mind, between the thinking subject and
the object of thought. With God, however, there can be no differentiation or divisions.
Third, as we move down the chain of nonsense, God does not even exist. In the words of
Dionysius: He neither was, nor will be, nor hath entered the life-process, nor is doing so, nor ever will,
or rather He doth not even exist.[1.5] Why? According to Dionysius the word existence implies a
distinction between that which exists and that which does not exist. God is beyond all distinctions. God
is Unity.
Fourth, Dionysius went so far as to undermine the foundation of his whole argument. The reason
why God is not a person, a conscious being, or even a being that exists, is that He is absolute Unity.
According to Dionysius, Unity is the one word that best depicted God. God is one, because He is simple,
He is without divisions or limitations. God transcends all boundaries.
According to Dionysius, even the word Unity comes infinitely short in defining God. Although the
word Unity might be the best human term to understand God, it remains inadequate in bringing us to any
true knowledge of the Unknowable. The term Unity fails in that it implies a distinction and separation
from that which is plural or divided. God is neither one nor many He transcends them both. Thus, God
(if He even can be called God at this point) is not even Unity. He is, as Dionysius claimed, Super-Unity.
So, in the end, God is beyond essence, consciousness, life, existence, and unity because He is absolute
and infinite. Yet, because God is ineffable, He is also beyond being absolute and infinite. God transcends
all human words, even the word transcendence.
If Dionysius is correct, what is left? Nothing. Dionysius, in an absurd way, would have us believe
in an unknowable God that does not even exist. Dionysius mystical negation greatly influenced the
medieval mystics, such as Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), Francis of Assisi (1182-1226), and
Bonaventure (1221-1274). For instance, Bonaventure, in his book The Journey of the Mind to God, leaned
heavily on the writings of Dionysius. He began his book with these words:
Wherefore, Dionysius in his Mystical Theology, wishing to instruct us in these
transcendent workings of the soul, sets down prayer as the first conditionBy so praying we are
led to discern the degrees of the souls ascent to God. For, inasmuch as, in our present condition,
this universe of things is a ladder whereby we may ascend to God.[1.6]
How does one ascend to God? After contemplating what is revealed, one must begin
contemplating that which is not revealed:
Do thou, O friend, push on boldly to the mystic vision, abandon the work of the senses and
the operations of the reasoning faculty, leave aside all things visible and invisible, being and
nonbeing, and cleave as far as possible, and imperceptibly, to the unity of Him who transcends all
essences and all knowledge. [1.7]
A few years later, Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) explained the practical way of entering into
mystical experiences of mindless activity. He declared: Should [we] not pray, or read, or hear a
sermon? No!, answered Eckhart, You may be sure that perfect quiet and idleness is the best you can
do. Is it my place to be in the darkness? Eckhart responded, Yes, truly. You could do no better than to
go where it is dark, that is, unconsciousness. [1.8]
Conclusion
Dionysius and the mystics who followed him would have us place our faith in nothing. Mystical
theology removes our need to have faith in the God of the Bible. Faith in the truth claims of the Bible is
not needed. Why? Because God cannot be known by truth claims. The only thing that can connect us with
God, if He can be called God, is an unconscious, mystical experience. This is mysticism, and this is truly
a blind leap into the darkness.
Sren Kierkegaard
We can see traces of such a notion of faith in the writings of Sren Kierkegaard (1813-1855).
Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, had become outraged with the formalism of the Danish
National Church. The Church of Denmark was plagued with two problems. The first problem was that the
church was largely made up of nominal Christians. To receive a birth certificate, to receive a marriage
license, and to receive a burial plot in the church graveyard, a person had to be registered and baptized
in the church. This union between state and church may have enlarged the membership of the church,
but it also filled it with a roster of unbelievers. Though the Bible may have been preached and Luthers
catechism may have been memorized, personal and experiential faith in Christ was no longer required to
be a Christian. Kierkegaard was alarmed at the lack of experiential faith within the membership of the
church.
The second concern for Kierkegaard was the wave of rationalism that had swept across Germany
and Denmark. Rationalism had flooded the universities, and as the wave descended, it ended up seeping
into the church through the back door. The aftermath of the storm robbed the biblical text of all its
supernatural elements. From a rejection of Divine inspiration to a rejection of the recorded miracles, the
rationalism of German higher criticism had neutered the supernatural from the Bible altogether.
The concern for Kierkegaard was that without a supernatural religion, Christians were no longer
required to have a supernatural faith in a supernatural God. Non-believers were added to the state
church without faith, and they were never called to believe in a supernatural God thereafter. The church
seemed to have lost its faith altogether.
Immanuel Kant
How did this happen? In the generation that preceded Kierkegaard, theological professors and
pastors had been greatly influenced by the writings of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
Kant believed that all knowledge begins with experience.
That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it
possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means
of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly
rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare, to connect, or to separate these, and
so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is
called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to
experience, but begins with it. [2.1]
Knowledge begins with experience, but experience is restricted by the limitations of the senses.
For instance, our eyes can only see what they are capable of seeing; our ears can only hear the sound
waves that our ear drums are capable of detecting; our tongue can only taste that which the taste buds
are able to sense; our fingers can only feel the textures that our mechanoreceptors and muscle nerves
are capable of perceiving; and, our nose can only smell the aromas that can be sensed by our olfactory
receptors. What if there are other aromas, sights, and sounds that existed that we are incapable of
perceiving? Who is to say that reality does not consist of other dimensions and properties? Who is to say
that if we had a sixth sense, we would not ascertain additional knowledge of the universe? Each of the
five senses can only perceive according to their abilities, so who is to say that our senses are properly
and fully ascertaining what is real?
In addition to the limitations of the senses, before the incoming sensations are processed, sorted,
and cataloged by the mind, they are merely unorganized and indiscernible bits of stimuli. Like observing
the confusion of a 500-piece puzzle before its put together, bare sensations coming from the external
world make no sense without the mind processing and putting these disorderly pieces together.
Sensations need to be arranged and processed if knowledge is to be obtained. Though knowledge
begins by experience, experience alone does not supply us with knowledge. To construct knowledge, the
mind must supply the priori concepts of space and time to the incoming sensations. As modes of
perception, space and time are not observed by the senses, for they are not properties of the external
world. Space and time are concepts supplied by the mind to sense experiences. Only afterwards, when
the concepts of space and time are applied to sensations, do sensations become perceptions.
Yet, perceptions still do not classify as knowledge, for they still need additional processing.
Disjointed perceptions must be filtered and properly filed through the 12 categories of the understanding
(such as ideas of cause, unity, reciprocal relation, necessity, contingency, etc.) before they form
knowledge.
In short, only after sensations have been processed through the mental concepts of space and
time do they become perceptions, and only after perceptions are filtered through the categories of the
mind do they form knowledge. [2.2]
This implies that the mind is not a passive wax tablet that is waiting to be molded and shaped by
experience, but rather the mind is an active organ that coordinates and constructs the chaotic sensations
(that are gathered by sense experiences from the external world) into ideas. According to Kant, without
the mind thus supplying these priori concepts to experience, knowledge is impossible. [2.3]
But this has its consequences. This means that order and structure are concepts of the mind and
not of the world. The world, as far as we know, is without any order or structure. More importantly, this
means that the laws of nature (such as causality) are merely the laws of thought. The mind supplies
order to the world. In other words, the laws of nature are not in nature but are supplied by the mind.
Though knowledge originates from the external world, knowledge of the external world (as it is
in-and-of-itself) is unknowable. We cannot know the world as it is, but only as our minds interpret the
world. According to Kant, it is impossible to know reality as it really is; all we know for certain is our
perception of reality. Seeing that our internal perceptions are shaped and organized by the priori
categories, the external world remains locked behind an unassailable wall. We can only know, according
to Kant, the things as they appear to us, not as they are things-in-themselves. [2.4]
If Kant was right, then this wall (known as the transcendental wall) separating subjective
perception from objective reality changes everything. If objective objects of the universe, as things-in-
themselves, lie behind the transcendental wall, how much more does an invisible and immaterial God
remain unknowable?
Kant, oddly enough, remained religious, for he claimed that he found it necessary to deny the
knowledge of God in order to make room for faith in God. But faith in God is not based on any objective
knowledge. As Bryan Magee, in his book, The Story of Philosophy, concluded: he [Kant] demolished so
called proofs of the existence of God, and in doing so reduced to rubble much of the philosophizing of
centuriesSince Kant it has been accepted almost universally by serious thinkers that the existence of
God is not something that can be proved. [2.5]
Friedrich Schleiermacher
As you can imagine, the philosophy of Kant had a devastating effect on the church. One such
person who was influenced by Kant was Friedrich Schleiermacher (17681834), the father of Modern
Liberal Theology.
After Schleiermacher left his pietistic home and enrolled in the University of Halle, he began to
study the philosophy of Kant. In the process, Schleiermacher became increasingly skeptical of the
supernatural claims of Christianity. He eventually wrote home to his concerned father with these words:
Faith is the regalia of the Godhead, you say. Alas! dearest father, if you believe that
without this faith no one can attain to salvation in the next world, nor to tranquility in this and
such, I know, is your belief oh! then pray to God to grant it to me, for to me it is now lost. I
cannot believe that he who called himself the Son of Man was the true, eternal God; I cannot
believe that his death was a vicarious atonement. [2.6]
Schleiermacher, in part, bought into the philosophy of Kant. If God and ultimate reality, as thingsin-themselves, are locked behind a transcendental wall, then there can be no absolute knowledge of the
Divine. This means that the Bible could not have had a divine or supernatural origin. Consequently, once
the supernatural is removed from the pages of the Scriptures, then miracles, the deity of Christ, and
every other supernatural element must be removed as well.
Christianity can still operate without the supernatural because, according to Schleiermacher, the
heart of religion is a subjective experience. [2.7] The Bible is still important, not because it is
authoritative in what it says, but because it is a reliable expression of the religious experience(s) of the
ancient church. [2.8] On this humanistic foundation, Modern Liberal Theology flourished. Strangely,
however, Schleiermacher remained a professing Christian and even became an influential pastor. In the
process, he became one of the major contributors to Biblical Higher Criticism, which has had damaging
effects on the Church.
And this brings us back to the life of Kierkegaard. How was Kierkegaard to save Christianity from
a lack of belief in the supernatural? Is not Christianity destroyed when the supernatural is eliminated?
What good is a religion without a supernatural God? Kierkegaard knew that Christianity was supposed to
be more than a name; it was supposed to be a passionate faith. And with the idea that Christianity is
foremost an exercise of passionate faith, Kierkegaard devised a solution that could leap believers over
Kants transcendental wall. [2.9] His solution was not to defend the objective certainty of the historicity
of the Christian faith, but to stress the inwardness of a passionate faith.
According to Kierkegaard, God is the absolute paradox. He cannot be comprehended by human
reasoning, and is completely different from us, so any attempt to understand Him ends in failure.
When trying to explain God, Kierkegaard would augured, we cannot help but make Him in our own image
by erroneously ascribing human qualities to His nature.
God being paradoxical to human reasoning, according to Kierkegaard, does not mean that it is
irrational to believe in God. God being paradoxical, however, does mean that any human conception of
God leads to apparent absurdities or contradictions. This is especially true when we try to make sense of
the incarnation. From our finite perspective, it seems absurd that an infinite and timeless God can be
united to time and space in a human body. Though this may not be a formal contradiction, it goes beyond
the reach of reason.
But where reason comes short, Kierkegaard said, faith takes a leap. Faith transcends reason
and sense perception by providing an existential experience of God. Though reason and sense perception
are incapable of giving objective evidence of the supernatural, faith (as it is supernaturally wrought by
the Spirit) does not need logical reason or empirical proof to believe.
Though objective certainty is unobtainable, objective certainty is not needed for faith. For faith to
take a passionate leap, reason must set itself aside. According to Ronald Green, professor of religion
at Dartmouth, faith for Kierkegaard is a leap beyond knowledge, a leap into the absurd. [2.10]
However, Stephen Evans, a professor of philosophy at Baylor, reminds us that belief in the absurd is not
belief in a logical contraction, but belief in an apparent contradiction a paradox.[2.11] For instance, by
faith Abraham was willing to do something that, humanly speaking, appeared to be completely opposed
to reason all together. He was willing to follow God and sacrifice his son. But Abraham had faith,
Kierkegaard argued, and did not doubt. He believed the absurd.[2.12]
According to Kierkegaard, truth is subjectivity.[2.13] Only in subjectivity is there
decision.[2.14] Only in subjectivity can faith operate. Kierkegaard defined truth as an objective
uncertainty, held fast through appropriation with the most passionate inwardness.[2.15] Objective
uncertainty is what fuels faith: Without risk, no faith. Faith is the contradiction between the infinite
passion of the inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do
not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith.[2.16] In other words, without doubt, faith
is non-existent. According to Kierkegaard, objectivity destroys faith.[2.17] But this is why faith is needed.
By passionate faith, believers can leap over the wall of rational doubt and firmly take hold of apparent
absurdities.
Karl Barth
Karl Barth (1886-1968), arguably the most influential theological thinker of the twentieth century,
agreed with Kierkegaard that the heart of faith is a subjective grasping hold of Christ. For Barth, Christ is
the objective Word of God. But what about the Bible? According to Barth, the Bible is authoritative not
because it is without human error, but because it gives testimony of Christ and the Holy Spirit may
choose to illuminate that testimony to our hearts. Barth claimed: Scripture is holy and the Word of God,
because by the Holy Spirit it became and will become to the Church a witness to divine revelation.[2.18]
In this sense, The Bible is Gods Word so far as God lets it be His Word, so far as God speaks through
it.[2.19]
Therefore, Barth did not view the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as a
relevant question. Not that he denied the historicity of Christ, but that the answer was not germane to
faith. According to Barth, what is germane and important is for the Spirit to reveal Christ, who is the
Rudolf Bultmann
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was even more radical in his attempt to separate faith from reality.
He agreed with Kierkegaard and Barth that the main concern in Christianity is faith in Christ, yet belief in
the historical Jesus was optional. In his demythology, Bultmann attempted to remove the apparent myths
from within the pages of Scripture.[2.20] It is the spiritual truth behind the story that matters, not the
historicity of the story. For Bultmann, the story of the resurrection is not a historical fact as much as it is
a symbolic story that captures the new life and hope believers have in Christ. He promotes that it is
existential faith in the message of the gospel (not belief in the historicity of the gospel) that saves
believers from a life of hopelessness and despair.
Paul Tillich
The theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965), though, finally took existentialism to its logical
conclusion atheism. Like the mysticism of Dionysius, the existentialism of Tillich claimed that God (in
Himself) is unknowable. In his assessment of Tillichs theology, Carl Armbruster claimed that the most
fundamental statement Tillich makes about God is that he is being-itself.[2.21] Armbruster,
nevertheless, went on to say, Negatively, this means that God is not a being, not even the highest
being, alongside other beings.He is beyond essence and existence because as being-itself he does not
participate in nonbeing and finitude. He does not exist. That is, God goes beyond every possible
conception about God.
Though Tillich did not believe that God existed as an independent reality, the term God is still
useful. It is useful not because the term God communicates something real about this ultimate,
unknowable being, but that it symbolizes our ultimate concern. God is the fundamental symbol for what
concerns us ultimately.[2.22] In other words, the term God does not speak of some external reality, but
rather symbolizes that which internally controls us subjectively. If we dont like the term God, then Tillich
said we are free to exchange that term with any other term that expresses the depth of heart or the
ultimate concern of our life:
The name of this infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of all being is God. That
depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it,
and speak of the depths of your life, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps,
in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps
even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You
cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever.[2.23]
Therefore, as this quote above indicates, Tillich did not believe in atheists, for even atheists have
some concern that is ultimate for them. Faith in God consists of this ultimate concern. This ultimate
concern is not based on the reality of the existence of God, but on the fact that all men have an ultimate
concern.
Because our God is our ultimate concern, God has no ontological existence. He only exists within
our subjective thoughts. God is the name for mans ultimate concern. However, this is not to say that
there is first a supreme being who then obliges man to render the homage of ultimate concern.[2.24]
But according to Tillich, It means that whatever concerns a man ultimately becomes god for him, and
conversely, it means that man can be concerned ultimately only about that which is god for him.[2.25]
In other words, God does not demand faith, but our faith, according to Tillich, is a total and
centered act of the personal self, the act of unconditional, infinite, and ultimate concern.[2.26] In the
end, religion exists only because man exists. Therefore, even though Tillich argued against atheism, he
did not believe in a God that existed outside of the human mind.
In this sense, David Hume (1711-1776) was right when he said: Or how do you MYSTICS, [and I
would add existentialists] who maintain the absolute incomprehensibility of Deity, differ from sceptics or
atheists, who assert, that the first cause of ALL is unknown and unintelligible?[2.27]
Gordon Kaufman
The professor of divinity at Harvard Divinity School, Gordon Kaufman (1925-2011), weirdly enough
agreed with Hume:
The central problem of theological discourse, not shared with any other language game,
is the meaning of the term God. God raises special problems of meaning because it is a noun
which by definition refers to a reality transcendent of, and thus not locatable within, experience.
A new convert may wish to refer to the warm feeling in the heart to God, but God is hardly to be
identified with this emotion; the biblicists may regard the Bible as Gods Word; the moralist may
believe God speaks through mens consciences; the churchman may believe God is present
among his people but each of these would agree that God himself transcends the locus referred
to. As the Creator or Source of all that is, God is not to be identified with any particular finite
reality; as the proper object of ultimate loyalty or faith, God is to be distinguished from every
proximate or penultimate value or being. But if absolutely nothing within our experience can be
directly identified as that to which the term God properly refers, what meaning does or can the
word have?[2.28]
It is amazing that there are theologians who dont believe in God. Alvin Plantinga, former
president of the American Philosophical Association, spoke of his own bewilderment concerning this
phenomenon when he said that a theologian who does not believe in God is like a mountaineer for
whom it is an open question whether there are any mountains or a plumber agnostic about pipes: a
beguiling spectacle, but hard to take seriously.[2.29] Atheism, nevertheless, is the logical conclusion of
existentialism. If there is no objective and external reality for belief to attach itself to, then there ceases
to be any concrete warrant for belief.
Conclusion
In all this, we see the various attempts to separate faith from reality. Though there may not be
any objective evidence for the existence of God, this is definitely not a problem for those who think that
a subjective experience is all you need. I dont need evidence to believe, so they say. And if you ask
me why I believe in Christ, I would answer with the words of the hymn I Serve a Risen Savior. I believe
because He lives within my heart.[2.30] In this subjectivity, it is only a religious experience that can
bring faith a religious experience that, unfortunately, can simply not be understood by those who do
not believe. As Blaise Pascal claims: The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.[2.31]
Although Kierkegaard, Barth, Bultmann, and others have sought to divide, to at least some
degree, faith from reason, this is not what the Bible seeks to do. As we will see in the next chapter, faith
and reason are not at war with each other; faith in Christ Jesus is not detached from the logical truth
claims of the Bible. Rather, it is rooted in these objective and historical certainties.
Princeton theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) rightly stated: The assumption that reason and faith
are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be
intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational.[3.9]
cohesively consistent with itself. Why then would I trust in the wisdom of men over the wisdom of God?
If Gods Word proves itself faithful over and over, and if it provides us with the only consistent and
cohesive system of thought, then it is only rational to trust the God of the Bible.
Conclusion
Though Dionysius and Kierkegaard have (to one degree or another) separated faith from reason
(as we saw in chapters 1 and 2), the Bible never disjoins these two things. If rationality is impossible
without the truth claims of Christianity, then we must submit ourselves to them, or otherwise we are the
ones who become irrational. As we shall see, the Christian worldview is the only worldview that is
rationally consistent with itself. Unbelief, in all of its forms, is what is irrational.
All truth, if worked out to its logical end, leads to the God of the Bible. Though this sounds like a
huge leap of logic, its not. Something as seemingly simple as mathematics even, can only be cohesively
reasoned with presupposing the God of the Bible. In fact, all truth, wherever its found, only makes sense
in the Christian worldview. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of logic, mathematics, ethical
values, and our sensory experiences. Therefore, as I seek to show in this book, if we do not believe and
submit ourselves to the God of the Bible, then we will be knowingly and foolishly rejecting the truth in
order to hang onto a life of selfishness and the foolish notion of our own self-autonomy.
4. Shaped by Self-Interest
Lets buy it, dad! These words darted out of my mouth as soon as I saw the yellow truck with its
custom rims and ground effects. Immediately I could proudly see myself driving it to school. Not only was
it cool, but I couldnt believe it was in my price range. This could be mine, or so I thought.
My father responded with the dreaded but predictable words, We need to test drive it first.
Though this sounds only reasonable, you must realize that I was young and poor. My parents promised to
help me buy my first vehicle by doubling all the money I earned over the summer. I worked hard, but only
saved $900.00. And even back in the early nineties, you could not expect much for $1,800.00. The last
thing I wanted was some grandma wagon.
So when I saw this customized truck, I was ready to pull the trigger without any investigation. In
fact, I didnt want to test drive it, for deep down I knew it was too good to be true. If we happened to
discover its mechanical problems, I knew my father would stand in the way of me being cool.
You see, I thought if we bought it before we learned it needed repairs, though more money would
be needed to get the thing running, the most important thing would be accomplished I would have a
respectable looking ride to show off to all my friends.
The truth is, I didnt want to know the truth, for I assumed the truth would stand in the way of my
happiness.
As you can imagine, when we opened the hood, it was missing half of its engine. Yep, too good to
be true. I ended up with my dads old, brown, farm truck dependable but no ground effects.
I realize now that I was willing to overlook all the glaring red flags and knowingly do something
foolish because of my imprudent pride. My emotions, my pride, and my inverted values hindered my
judgment. I was not objective or rational because I did not want to be objective or rational.
Foolishness is living in opposition to what we know to be true. I am afraid this irrational condition
and manner of thinking is universally prevalent in all of us. We are not merely irrational every now and
then. Without God, we live in a state of irrationality.
Only irrational fools would consistently and practically deny that 2 + 2 = 4. Not only is the answer
to this equation a part of common sense, it is easily demonstrable and highly useful. If a postmodern
thinker practically rejects the absolute and universal principles of mathematics, he may applaud himself
for being consistent with his relativistic worldview, but in the process, his checkbook will be a total
mess. Regardless of what we claim we believe about the laws of math, we cannot live practically without
consistently submitting ourselves to them. For this and many other reasons, it is intellectually difficult to
deny the absolute and universal nature of mathematics.
The same is true concerning the truth of Scripture. Scripture does not merely provide a few
isolated, unrelated, and discounted truths; it gives us the only complete and cohesive worldview that
provides meaning and rationale to the universe. As this book seeks to demonstrate in PART 5, only by
presupposing the God of the Bible is ultimate truth possible.
Postmodern thinkers question 2 + 2 = 4. This is because without presupposing the God of the
Bible, there is no basis for universal or absolute truth. 2 + 2 = 4 is only true (universally and absolutely)
because God is true and has convincingly revealed Himself to all of us. Without the knowledge of God,
which we all have, we have no warrant for knowledge at all, such as 2 + 2 = 4. God is ultimate reality,
and God is ultimate truth. Because God is ultimate, rather than seeking to justify knowledge based
merely on human reason or human experiences, we must have knowledge of God to justify knowledge of
everything else. Without knowledge of God, knowledge itself is impossible. In other words, without the
God of the Bible, nothing makes sense in the grand scheme of things. As the Psalmist says, In your light
we see light (Ps. 36:9).
If the Bible provides us with the only cohesive system of thought that allows us to properly
interpret all of reality, why is it so hated and rejected by so many? If the truth claims of the Bible are
logically demonstrable, why is it so despised and ridiculed by some of the brightest and smartest minds?
The truth is, that if people loved the truth, they wouldnt reject the truth. Or, as British historian Malcolm
Muggeridge famously said: People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.
The problem is not that the truth is irrational; the problem is that fallen man is not without his
personal biases and foolish pride. As we shall see in this chapter, people are self-centered by nature,
and their self-centeredness is the controlling influence in how they feel, think, and behave (Rom. 1:18,
25).
people will accept this historical fact with little to no evidence. Who cares, for how does that affect my
day to day life? Yet, when something touches us directly or indirectly, all of a sudden we will show great
interest and concern. Bring up religion, politics, gun control, abortion, sexual orientation, George Bush,
Obama, and other such heated topics, and all of a sudden people get testy. If there is one subject we all
have a heavy and emotional investment in, it would be the grand subject of me, myself, and I.
Just as we naturally seek to avoid physical pain and gravitate towards physical pleasure, we all
hate to be criticized, rebuked, and shamed. We love to be recognized, praised, and honored. This
tendency makes it easier to embrace that which is personally beneficial and harder to accept that which
is personally detrimental. If you tell me I am brilliant, I will not put up an argument, even if there is no
supporting evidence. But if you tell me I am not the sharpest tool in the woodshed, I will become angry,
even if it is evident to all.
Richard Swinburne, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford, recognizes that
humans, such as ourselves, are creatures of limited intelligence and notoriously liable to hide from
themselves conclusions which seem to stare them in the face when those conclusions are
unwelcome.[4.1]
I have sadly seen this first hand. In High School, one of my friends committed suicide. No one saw
this coming, especially the boys mother. I knew denial was one of the steps of grieving, but
I didnt realize how strong this emotion could be. At the graveside, the mother of this boy threw herself
on top of the casket and began to shake it rapidly while crying out, Wake up, wake up, wake up!
Everyone else stood silent. Reality was bitter, and in that moment it was too hard for this mother to
accept. She, for the time being, would not allow herself to believe her only child was about to be buried.
Though the evidence was overwhelming, it was not enough to convince her of something she did not
want to believe. Because she loved her son, she did not love the truth. In this way, none of us are
neutral.
bad had happened to her. How distressed would I feel? It all depends on the level and degree of love
that I have for my mother. Because I value money, I would naturally rejoice to learn that my rich uncle
was going to endow me with a million dollars. It is not that our emotions are controlled by the
uncontrolled changes in our environment, but rather it is our pre-established values that control how we
emotionally respond to the uncontrolled changes in our circumstances. This means our ever-changing
circumstances expose our true nature and our personal values.
If we have emotional problems and all of fallen humanity does it is because we have our
priorities and values out of place. Emotional problems are a direct result of a heart problem. As a bad
tree always produces bad fruit, so a wicked heart will always produce wicked thoughts, feelings, and
behavior. A selfish lifestyle that is consumed with satisfying felt needs and gratifying moment-tomoment expectations will no doubt result in an unstable emotional life. Our emotions are a reflection of
our values and of our nature.
they saw a man raised from the dead, the Bible says they would still stubbornly hold on to their sins and
reject the truth (Luke 16:31). The only thing that can produce faith in Christ is a heart transplant. Sinners
must be born again. They must have the love of God poured into their dead hearts before they will
willingly repent of their sins and run to Christ Jesus for forgiveness. Sin must be hated and Christ must be
loved before sinners will embrace the gospel. Pascal understood this as well:
Do not wonder to see simple people believe without reasoning. God imparts to them love
of Him and hatred of self. He inclines their hearts to believe. Men will never believe with a saving
and real faith, unless God inclines their heart; and they will believe as soon as He inclines it.[4.4]
Though faith in Christ is not blind, illogical, or without empirical evidences, it does go against
ones self-centeredness. You must bow in submission to accept Christ as Lord (Rom. 14:11); and this is
the difficulty. Your rejection and denial of the truth is not because you lack evidence, it is because you
love yourselves and your sins more than you love the Christ who came to die for sinners such as you.
Why do we so often feel guilty? Can guilt be caused merely by an abstract code of morality? Is guilt just
a byproduct of social constructs, political correctness, and parental instruction? Was Edward O. Wilson,
professor of entomology at Harvard, right when he claimed: Human emotional responses and the more
general ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial degree by natural
selection over thousands of generations?[5.1] Did morality evolve? Is the knowledge of right and wrong
only relative?
C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, argued against such a notion. According to Lewis, because we judge
people, cultures, and ourselves, we believe that there is a universal law of fair play. He said this higher
court is evident when two people quarrel:
Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be
no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and
Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul
unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.[5.2]
By saying, Thats not fair, we are not merely saying that the offense we are complaining about
does not please me. We are saying that the offense is contrary to the universal rule of fair play. We are
saying that the other person is wrong because he knows better. It is one thing when someone takes the
seat you wanted at the theater because he got there first, but it is quite another thing when returning
from the restroom, you discover your jacket has been relocated and that a stranger is sitting in the seat
that you had reserved for yourself. The first incident is inconvenient. The second incident clearly goes
against fair play. But why is someone stealing your seat not fair? Who says that this seat-thief should
know better?
When people are confronted with violating the standard of fair play, most often, Lewis says, they
do not argue against the standard. They dont typically say, Who says I cant be selfish and exploit
others for my own personal benefit? Can you imagine anyone ever sincerely saying, The golden rule
(do unto others as you would have them do to you) is wrong? Rather than denying the objective and
binding nature of the universal law of fair play, violators often claim that they did not go against the
standard. If not that, they construct some special excuse or circumstance that happens to exempt them
from the moral obligation to follow the rule of fair play. In other words, people caught in a transgression
typically do not argue against the law but deny, justify, or excuse themselves.
Moreover, if we say that the law of fair play is only a cultural construct, then we have no right to
judge or criticize other cultures for their crimes against humanity. This is evident, says Lewis,
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in
fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more
nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from
either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is
such a thing as real Right, independent of what people think, and some peoples ideas get nearer
to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the
Nazis less true, there must be something some Real Morality for them to be true about.[5.3]
He went on to state that, although other civilizations in different ages might have had subtle
differences in cultural expectations, no civilization has ever believed that selfishness is honorable:
Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man
felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well
try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards to what
people you ought to be unselfish to whether it was only your own family, or your fellow
countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.
Selfishness has never been admired.[5.4]
Self-centeredness is the heart of all sinful behavior. The moral law prohibits selfishness. Each of
the Ten Commandments prohibit a different expression of selfishness and can be summed up with the
one word that is antithetical to selfishness love (Rom. 13:9-10). According to Scripture, love is patient,
kind, sacrificially giving, and does not seek its own interest (1 Cor. 13:4-5). We know intuitively that we
ought to love others and restrain from selfishness. At least it is intuitive that we dont want others to
exploit us for their own advantages. For this reason, guilt does not come from breaking some abstract
principle of living, but from injuring another individual.
According to the Bible, we know right from wrong because the law of God is written on our hearts
(Rom. 2:15). If we did not instinctively know right from wrong, we would not constantly be justifying,
condemning, or excusing ourselves in the things we think, feel, and do (Rom. 2:14-15). There is no
reason to make excuses if there is no such thing as the standard of fair play or if that standard was not
rooted in a personal God. We are either condemning or justifying ourselves in the things that we do
(Rom. 2:15). It is self-evident that we all know right from wrong because we are either proud or
disappointed with ourselves. If there was not a standard of fair play, we would neither feel guilty nor
proud. But, because we know better, our irrationality is inexcusable.
In addition, we all stand in approval of the standard of fair play. I have not met a sane person
who knowingly or willfully wants to be mistreated, taken advantage of, or exploited. With few
exceptions, people agree that love is better than selfishness. The problem is not that there is a standard,
but that we do not fulfill its requirements.
Selfish behavior has introduced us to self-condemnation. Thus, guilt is part of the human
condition. If we deny this, we only incur more guilt because we know that we are lying to ourselves. That
is, if we are honest with ourselves, we cannot deny our shame and guilt. Though there is no empirical
proof for ethical distinctions, we cannot rid ourselves of the external standard. By showing how we ought
to behave, the law reveals how often we fall short of its obligations.
Some truths, such as the law of fair play, are self-evident, which means that some truths are
accepted without proof. In fact, none of us, including atheists, can prove everything that we believe.
There are certain truths that we all naturally take for granted.
For instance, it is nonsensical to think we only believe ideas that can be proven true. If everything
had to be proven through reason or experience, then nothing could be proven. If evidence were needed
for every proposition that we believed, then we would need to believe infinitely more propositions. Even
if we had enough time to answer an infinite regression[5.5] of questions, we would be forced to admit
that our inability to find any ultimate truth leaves us without warrant for any of our beliefs. Even the
committed evidentialist Antony Flew conceded that every system of explanation must start
somewhere.So inevitably, all such systems include at least some fundamentals that are not themselves
explained.[5.6]
Thankfully, there are such things as self-evident truths. Self-evident truths testify of their
truthfulness without needing any extra confirmation, demonstration, or proof. 2 + 2 = 4 and no man is
both married and unmarried are examples of self-evident truths. We dont have to travel to the end of a
bottomless pit and answer an infinite regression of questions, for we can construct and anchor our
knowledge on self-evident truths.
We call these self-evident truths, such as the law of fair play, axioms. An axiom is a premise or
starting point that is taken for granted before acquiring any additional knowledge. Axioms are selfevident beliefs that anchor the rest our beliefs.
Logic is Self-Evident
Another axiom is the law of non-contradiction. For instance, the law of non-contradiction cannot
be proven one way or the other. It states that something cannot be entirely true and entirely false at the
same time and in the same sense. That is, an elephant painted entirely pink cannot also be at the same
time be painted entirely blue. This would be a contradiction. Though we all know this to be true, we
cannot prove it. Using logic to prove the law would be a form of circular reasoning, since we would have
to assume that which we want to prove. The law of non-contradiction also cannot be proven by sense
experience seeing that immaterial laws, such as the laws of logic, cannot be examined or tested by the
scientific method. Yet, without the use of the law of non-contradiction, both deductive reasoning and
inductive scientific experiments are impossible. So, if you believe in the law of non-contradiction, then
you believe in something that cannot be proven to be true. This self-evident axiom must be taken for
granted before any other knowledge can be obtained.
Moreover, those who are foolish enough to try and deny the law of non-contradiction end up
contradicting themselves in the process. Without the law of non-contradiction, a positive or negative
statement can be entirely true and entirely false at the same time and in the same sense. If that were
the case, words and propositional statements would mean nothing. Furthermore, to deny the laws of
logic is to use a logic that is irrational. Thus, to deny the laws of logic is to argue in a self-referentially
absurd manner.
Those who intellectually reject the absolute and universal nature of logic declare themselves
fools from the very start. Thankfully, these absurd thinkers do not carry out their beliefs in the real world.
They still drive on the right side of the road as they seek to avoid on-coming traffic. Those who
intellectually deny the laws of logic prove themselves either ridiculously absurd or blatant liars. If you
happen to meet such a person, who stubbornly refuses to play by the rules, the prudent thing to do is
simply walk away.
God is Self-Evident
Self-evident truths, such as the law of fair play and the law of non-contradiction, must be
accepted before we can rationally believe anything else. With this in mind, the biblical worldview offers
three basic truths that are necessary to a cohesive system of thought. These truths are logic, moral
distinctions, and God.[5.7] These things are inherent because they are necessary conditions
preprogrammed within our thinking so that we can construct meaningful thought and cognitive beliefs as
we interact with the external world.[5.8]
Yes, the knowledge of God is an inherent belief.[5.9] Inwardly, we all know this to be true. All
that is meant, by the word inherent, according to Charles Hodge, is that the mind is so constituted that
it perceives certain things to be true without proof and without instruction.[5.10] As John Calvin cleverly
worded it: Whence we infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to
which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to
forget, though many, with all their might, strive to do so.[5.11]
Therefore, Calvin unapologetically stated: There is within the human mind and indeed by natural
instinct, an awareness of divinity.[5.12] Awareness of divinity, otherwise known as sensus divinitatis,
according to Alvin Plantinga, is a disposition or set of dispositions to form theistic beliefs in various
circumstances, in response to the sorts of conditions or stimuli that trigger the working of this sense of
divinity.[5.13]
It may be true, as indicated by Plantinga, that experience (that is, the perception of general
revelation) is needed for these intuitive dispositions or beliefs to become activated, but, even so, without
these intuitive beliefs we could not make sense of self-consciousness and the world around us.[5.14]
Experience could not be interpreted without these intuitive dispositions or basic beliefs. This means, as
we shall see, that knowledge of certain truths (such as God) must be presupposed before either reason
or experience can function properly.
In fact, the knowledge of a personal God is a necessary condition for all knowledge (as Part 5 will
show). According to Westminster Seminary professor, K. Scott Oliphint, it is a knowledge that is
presupposed by any (perhaps all) other knowledge.[5.15] None of us, according to Cornelius Van Til
(1895-1987), former professor emeritus of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, could utter
a single syllable, whether in negation or affirmation, unless it were for Gods existence.[5.16]
As we shall see in chapter 12, though an atheist may rightly know who won the 1976 World
Series, an atheist cannot explain the origin of the immaterial laws of physics or the origin of human
consciousness. And both the laws of physics and consciousness are a vital part of the game of baseball.
But, more importantly, since an atheist cannot provide an all-encompassing rational system based on a
cohesive worldview (i.e., a grand metanarrative), as I hope to demonstrate in chapter 14, skepticism
cannot help but creep into the cracks of its own mislaid foundation, inevitably destroying the flooring and
revealing the level below nihilism. In other words, if followed through to its logical end, atheism leads
to nihilism, in which historical events, such as the 1976 World Series, are questionable. If the knowledge
of God (which presupposes logic and moral distinctions) were not pre-supplied, the construction of a
cohesive worldview would be impossible.
Specifically, how do we know that these three truths (God, logic, and moral distinctions) are
inherent within us all? We know it not only because these beliefs are confirmed by the inward testimony
of our consciences, but also because without these concepts, as we shall see, nothing makes sense. We
need God, logic, and morality to formulate a cohesive worldview that can be lived out in our everyday
lives. To suppress or eliminate knowledge of these truths leads to absurdity.
These inherent beliefs (God, logic, and moral distinctions), are not wholly independent from each
other though. Since these beliefs are foundational to who God is for He is a God of rationality (logic)
and righteousness (moral distinctions) to have an inherent knowledge of God is to have an inherent
knowledge of logical and ethical absolutes. This is to say, God is the foundation and source of logical
and ethical absolutes.
The law written on mans conscience is not an abstract idea of justice that exists outside of God.
The law is Gods moral character. God is righteous. God is logically consistent with His own nature. He
cannot contradict His character. God cannot be non-God. The laws of ethical living (morality) and the
laws of thinking (logic) are not social constructs or abstract principles independent of God. God is not
underneath the law. He is the law. That is, the law is a reflection of His moral essence. The laws of logic
and morality only exist because God exists.
Conclusion
So what this all shows is that of these three truths, the greatest is God. The sensus divinitatis
includes the knowledge of logic and moral distinctions because these truths are grounded in the
knowledge of God. Without God, laws of behavior and thinking would be non-existent. To put it another
way, our guilty consciences, which stem from our knowledge of the laws of logic and morality,
presuppose God. The converse is true as well. Our knowledge of God presupposes the laws of morality
and logic.[5.17] We cannot have knowledge of the laws of morality and logic without having the
knowledge of God.[5.18] Because these beliefs are inherent, incorrigible, and necessary, the Bible does
not seek to prove these things but accepts them as irrefutable realities. All truth must be built on the
knowledge of God, or, as we shall see, there is no ground for knowledge at all.
6. Shaped by Conscience
Since God is the ultimate truth, He must also be the source of all truth.[6.1] All truth comes from
God and points back to God. Without Gods self-revelation, truth is impossible. Gods existence, says
Don Collett, professor of Old Testament at Trinity School of Ministry, is the basis for all predication,
such that one cannot predicate truly or falsely about anything unless God exists.[6.2]
God, stand or fall together.[6.10] Our awareness of God (sensus divinitatis) is the result of being made
in the image of God. Oliphint claims, by virtue of. . . being created in the image of God, always and
everywhere [we] carry the knowledge of God with [us].[6.11] This knowledge does not come by the
proper and diligent exercise of our cognitive, emotive, or volitional capacities; it rather comes by Gods
own revelatory activity within us.[6.12]
This means that the knowledge of God is intuitive. The knowledge of God is immediate,
according to Oliphint, because it is not gained by way of inference. There is nothing that we do no
demonstration, no syllogism that is the ground for the acquisition of this knowledge.[6.13] It is
implanted (or inserted) knowledge of God.[6.14] Oliphint went on to say that it is, given to us, through
the things that are made, by God himself.[6.15] As Fisher said many years prior: The ultimate source of
the belief in God is not in processes of argument. His presence is more immediately manifest[ed].[6.16]
The knowledge of God is what some philosophers call a properly basic belief. Plantinga says
basic beliefs are not accepted on the evidential basis of other propositions.[6.17] Basic beliefs are
similar to memory or perceptual beliefs. They are not inferred or deduced. We do not need evidence or
rational argumentation to believe in God any more than we need evidence or argumentation to believe in
memories.
According to Plantinga, The sensus divinitatis is a belief-producing faculty (or power, or
mechanism) that under the right conditions produces belief that isnt evidentially based on other
beliefs.[6.18] This capacity for knowledge of God, says Plantinga, is part of our original cognitive
equipment, part of the fundamental epistemic establishment with which we have been created by
God.[6.19]
The Imago Dei endows us with the capacity to know God, but it does more than that it provides
us with an inherent knowledge of God (sensus divinitatis). It furnishes us with moral and logical
distinctions. Though this may not seem immediately clear, we must realize that the knowledge of God
that is implanted in us is not simply a knowledge of an abstract being (which we call God), but it is a
knowledge of a personal, moral, and rational being.
This means that the laws of logic and morality are essential to Gods essence and have been
stamped on us because we are made in the likeness of this God. Being created in the image of God
furnishes us with a rational mind and an ethical standard that ensures knowledge of God, of the world
around us, and of ourselves.[6.20] We know right from wrong. We understand that A cannot be both A
and non-A in the same sense and at the same time because we are made in the image of God.
We were designed to know God because we were made in His image and have been given the
cognitive tools necessary to see God as we observe ourselves and the world around us. We know God
because we were made to be rational and ethical beings.
Consequently, being made in the image of God means that our own self-consciousness is a part
of Gods general revelation. This implies that Gods general revelation of Himself is both internal (within
our own self-consciousness) and external (in the physical universe that surrounds us). And this internal
revelation (sensus divinitatis) endows us with the capacity to properly interpret the message of Gods
external revelation.
More specifically, being made in the image of God gives us the apparatus to see the likeness of
God within ourselves as well as the glory of God in creation. As Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995), former
scholar in residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies, remarked: Man is created
in the image of God to engage in the world in a rational way. Not only is mans mind analogical to Gods,
but it is compatible with the God-created universe because of Gods designing us and our
environment.[6.21] The universe, according to Calvin, is a mirror in which we are to behold God.[6.22]
Calvin said, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him. [6.23] He went on to
state, wherever you cast your eyes, there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern at least
some sparks of his glory.[6.24] For this reason, John Murray (1898-1975), professor of theology at
Princeton and then Westminster, affirmed:
It was of his sovereign will that God created the universe and made us men in his image.
But since creation is the product of his will and power the imprint of his glory is necessarily
impressed upon his handiwork, and since we are created in his image we cannot but be
confronted with the display of that glory.[6.25]
This is echoed by John Frame, one of the leading interpreters of the philosophy of Cornelius Van
Til, who says that we know God by means of the world. All of Gods revelation comes through creaturely
meansThus we cannot know anything about God without knowing something about the world at the
same timeWe cannot know the world without knowing God.[6.26]
Plantinga explains how creation reveals the knowledge of God to us:
It isnt that one beholds the night sky, notes that it is grand, and concludes that there
must be such a person as God; an argument like that would be ridiculously weakIt is rather that,
upon the perception of the night sky or the mountain vista or the tiny flower, these beliefs just
arise within us. They are occasioned by the circumstances; they are not conclusions from them.
[6.27]
The sensus divinitatis ensures that the knowledge of God is always present within us. Even if all
our memories were erased, we would not lose sight of God. Ever renewing its memory, Calvin
remarked, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops.Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of
divinity which can never be effaced is engraved upon mens minds.[6.28] As we interact with the world
around us, our very lives cannot help but continually reveal God to us. Natural revelation speaks to us
even when we do not want to hear its message. It is a constant voice that cannot be silenced. Oliphint
claims that it is a knowledge that God infuses into his human creatures, and continues to infuse into
them, even as they continue to live out their days denying or ignoring him.[6.29]
In addition to the Imago Dei stamping, reproducing, and duplicating within us the knowledge of
God, when it is renewed in Christ and functioning properly, it equips us with the necessary properties to
experientially know God. God made us in His own image because He made us to be rational and morally
upright (Ecc. 7:29).
Before the likeness of God in man was defaced by the fall, it consisted of the rational knowledge
of God as well as the moral uprightness to love and obey God. Calvin went on to say, For we know that
men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they bear the distinction between right and
wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light
does not penetrate.[6.30] Humanity bore this mark because we were created to have more than an
intellectual conception of God. We were made in Gods likeness so that we could enjoy and glorify God
in our lives. We were created to have a personal relationship with God. Before the image of God was
marred by sin in the fall, man was equipped, according to Martin Luther, to love God, to believe God, to
know God.[6.31] In a word, being created in Gods likeness makes it possible for us to live in a mutually
loving relationship with our Creator.[6.32]
We were designed and efficiently equipped to enjoy a loving and a covenantal relationship with
God. Yet, our guilt is evidence that this covenant relationship has been broken. Even without instruction
from another, because we are made in the image of God, we cannot help but immediately and irresistibly
conclude that our failure is a failure against a personal God. Failure to live in accordance with the laws
of right thinking and the laws of right behavior is a failure not only of our own nature, but also a failure
against a personal God who made us in the likeness of His nature.
Guilt testifies of the fact that our relationship with the Creator is broken. For a God that is both
rational and righteous is not merely a supernatural, impersonal force, but a living, thinking, emotional,
and righteous Person One who has the right and power to tell us how to live. By knowing ourselves in
this manner, we cannot help but understand this reality. We immediately comprehend by the testimony
of our lives and the world around us that we are in some analogous relationship with a personal and holy
God.
naturally place our own interests above the interests of God, we would like to think that we are
intellectually self-sufficient. We do not need to submit to divine revelation. In the same way we suppress
guilt, we seek to stomp out our awareness of God. The sensus divinitatis must be rooted out. We want to
determine what is right and wrong, and what is true and false, for ourselves rather than acknowledge
that all knowledge comes from God. This happened when Eve questioned God in the Garden (Gen. 3:4-6).
And ever since then, we have tried to make ourselves the source of our own beliefs.
We are at war with God and ourselves. We hate God but we cannot fully eliminate the stamp of
God within our own consciousness. We struggle against the reality that we are made in the image of
God. As Oliphint rightly claimed: It is this image of God that is the presupposition behind everything
else that we are.[6.33] Thus, we are tormented and seek to run from God because we carry the
knowledge and reflection of God with us wherever we go. We are tormented because we carry the
knowledge of God in ourselves.
We would like to free ourselves not only from the knowledge of God, but also from the laws of
logic and morality engraved on our hearts. Laws are binding and point to a lawgiver. Ethical standards
only serve to reinforce our guilty hearts. No matter how hard we try, we cannot live without the laws of
logic and morality that come from the knowledge of God, because without the knowledge of God, all
knowledge is impossible.
The postmodern thinker may attempt to live without any absolutes, but everywhere he turns he
crashes into an unmovable logical fence that binds him. Man, says Van Til, constantly throws water
on a fire that he cannot quench.[6.34] Man may suppress the truth, but the truth will not die. It cannot
die. Understanding this, Calvin stated:
Finally, they entangle themselves in such a huge mass of errors that blind wickedness
stifles and finally extinguishes those sparks which once flashed forth to show them Gods glory.
Yet that seed remains which can in no wise be uprooted: that there is some sort of divinity; but
this seed is so corrupted that by itself it produces only the worst fruits.[6.35]
To what extent will depraved men go to deface the remaining image of God that is stamped on
their nature? As we shall see in the next few chapters, they will go so far as to deny the universal nature
of the laws of logic and moral absolutes. If rational sanity demands submission to God, man has proven
that he is more willing to embrace intellectual absurdity than to succumb to the knowledge of the truth.
Because sin damaged men would rather accept a lie than submit to the truth, they stand in front
of a mirror scratching, picking, and clawing at their faces in order to remove the image of God that is
staring back at them. They are eager to erect a god fashioned in their own human likeness rather than to
submit to the God who made them in His own divine likeness. They would rather worship an illogical idol
in order to obtain intellectual independence than submit to the God of all wisdom. In so doing, they are
willing to sell their souls for a bowl of soup. Absurdity and a guilty conscience, however, are things that
mankind will never shake until they turn to Christ and bow the knee to His eternal lordship.
Conclusion
Without submitting to these three innate and ineradicable truths (logic, morality, and God), we
cannot think or live coherently. These basic truths are necessary conditions for knowledge. In other
words, to deny the existence of God (which includes the denial of the laws of logic and moral
distinctions) leads to absurdity in ones thinking and behavior. Without God, all things fall apart.
Yet, I will take it one step further in the following chapters. For any of us to have a holistic
worldview that is capable of answering lifes deepest questions, not just any God will do. The triune God
of the Bible is needed. Though not all the truth claims of the Bible are innate, they consist of the only
logical and cohesive framework that is in perfect agreement with the inherent knowledge of logic,
morality, and God. The biblical worldview is the only coherent system of thought. Only when we submit
ourselves to Gods authority may we escape our own incoherent and dysfunctional thinking. Until then, a
guilty conscience and irrational thinking and behavior will continue.
Implicit in all this is the additional point that these beliefs must cohere in some way and
form a system. A fancy term that can be useful here is conceptual scheme, by which I mean a
pattern or arrangement of concepts (ideas). A worldview, then, is a conceptual scheme by which
we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and
judge reality.[7.2]
Greg Bahnsen was a little more pointed in his description of a worldview: A worldview is a
network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience
is related and interpreted.[7.3] This clear definition succinctly states all the major components of a
worldview. A worldview is a set of correlating presuppositions that are not derived by sense experiences
but are necessary to interpret sense experiences.
James Sire, a worldview scholar, reminds us that a worldview is more than just a set of
presuppositions or a conceptual scheme that exists only in the mind. A worldview also consists of the
fundamental commitment of the heart. What we love the most, which has to do with our ethical values,
has more to do with our worldview than with the answers we will give to strange philosophical
questions. What we love the most will determine how we feel about everything, how we make decisions,
and how we behave. Would it not be better, Sire asks, to consider a worldview as the story we live
by?[7.4] Does not the manner in which we live (or seek to live) speak more about what we believe than
what we say that we believe? Sire explains the practicality of this:
I wake up in the morning, not asking myself who I am or where I am. I am immediately
aware of a whole host of perceptions that my mind orders into the recognition that its morning:
Im home, Im crawling out of bed. In this immediate awareness I do not consciously ask or
answer, What is the really real? or, How do I know I am home? or, How can I tell the difference
between right and wrong? Rather, my unconscious mind is using a network of presumptions about
how to interpret for the conscious mind what is going on. In some way all the basic worldview
questions are being answered by the way I am acting and behaving.[7.5]
With this concern in mind, Sire provides an expanded definition of a worldview:
A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be
expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true,
or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently)
about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and
move and have our being.[7.6]
According to Sire, a worldview cannot be separated from a world-and-life-view. And for this
reason, a worldview must not only pass the coherency test, but also it must pass the test of life. Can we
consistently live out our worldview in the real world?
As already stated, the law of non-contradiction cannot be proven by logic or science, but both
logic and science are built on its foundation. Without the law of non-contradiction, nothing makes sense.
Logic is a necessary condition for us to process data and rationally formulate knowledge. Thus, whether
we like it or not, we all consciously or unconsciously utilize the law of non-contradiction as we process
and assimilate new data.
For instance, my five-year-old son, Martyn, is learning the rules of the road. If he had no innate
concept of the law of non-contradiction, then he would not have yelled at me when I took a right turn at a
red light. He shrieked, Stop! The light is red! Who told him red traffic lights always means stop? Why
was he so scared when I turned right? He was scared because a red light cannot mean stop and go at the
same time. Who taught him this basic logical principle? The fact that it is an innate concept allows him
to process new information and sensations with what he already processed in the past. The new data
only makes sense when it is compared with the old data already stored in his memory. In this case, he
rejected the new information because it did not comport with what he thought he already knew. After
explaining that this was an exception to the rule, he was able to readjust his thinking and format a more
complex system of thought.
Conclusion
We all do this because a single belief never stands in isolation from other beliefs. What we
believe about this will consequently affect how and what we believe about that. Truth is not disjointed
from other truths. Everything in the universe (as the word universe implies) is interconnected. Because of
the law of non-contradiction, we cannot help but seek to formulate a cohesive system of thought with
mutually supporting propositions. If there is a contradiction in our understanding of the rules of the road
or a contradiction in our understanding of the complexities of the universe, we know something is flawed
in our thinking.
1. What is Real?
The German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) asked the question, Why is there
something rather than nothing? This question has been viewed as one of the most important questions
in all of philosophy. It comes from inquiring did the universe create itself, or has it always been here? Is
there a God who created the universe? Where do we come from? Did Divine Intelligence (i.e., God)
create matter, or is human consciousness derived from an undirected material process? In other words,
which came first, mind or matter? If there is a God, what is our relationship to Him? What is our
relationship to the universe? What is the relationship between God and the universe? Is God the ultimate
being, or is the universe all there is? Are God and the universe one and the same, or are they distinct?
Ultimately, all these questions can be condensed to this: Is there a God, and if so, is He the cause of
there being something rather than nothing?
There is an entire division of philosophy that is devoted to answering this question known as
metaphysics.[8.5] Though the many complexities of the vast amount of different philosophies and
religious constructs have a way of making things confusing, there are only three possible answers to the
God question naturalism, impersonal-supernaturalism, and personal-supernaturalism. Besides these
three options, there are no other possible answers.
A. Naturalism
Naturalism is the belief that if there is a God, He is entirely unknowable and practically irrelevant.
Thus, naturalists believe the universe is a self-contained, closed system. That the origin and function of
the universe are explained by natural or physical causes, such as the theory of evolution, and that
everything that is real can be reduced to the physical world.
According to the Christian mathematician John Byl, The main underlying theme of naturalism is
that nature is self-sufficient. Nature, it is alleged, exists by itself, deriving all meaning and purpose from
itself. It needs nothing outside of itself to explain it.[8.6] In the famous words of the astrophysicist Carl
Sagan (1934-1996), The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.[8.7] Nature must be able to
explain itself. Those within this group include atheists, agnostics, and deists.[8.8]
B. Impersonal-supernaturalism
Those in this group include Yoda and his followers, pantheists, panentheists, polytheists, liberal
christians, animists, monists, and dualists. These are those who believe that Ultimate Reality is a divine
force that is impersonal and entirely imminent (in one way or another) throughout the universe. Although
polytheists and liberal christians believe in a personal deity/deities, they are included in this category
because as a whole, they believe in an impersonal Ultimate Reality that either God or Morality is
ultimately behind are capability of knowing.
C. Personal-supernaturalism
Personal-supernaturalism is the belief in an all-powerful and transcendent, yet personal God who
both created and imminently governs the universe. Though He is transcendent, He is omnipresent. God
created and governs the universe, but He remains independent and separate from the universe. This
group includes the three major monotheistic world religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
These three different metaphysical answers (A. naturalism, B. impersonal-supernaturalism, and C.
personal-supernaturalism) can be understood and distinguished from each other by the way they seek to
explain the relationship between material and immaterial substances (i.e., consciousness). In other
words, which came first, mind or matter?
Naturalism = Matter Comes before Mind
Impersonal-supernaturalism = Mind & Matter Come Together
Personal-supernaturalism = Mind Comes before Matter
To simplify further that which I have already oversimplified, these three overarching categories
2. How Do We Know?
This naturally leads us to the second branch of philosophy, which is epistemology. Epistemology
is concerned with knowledge. Is knowledge possible, and if so, how do we know what we know? How do
we know if there is a God or not? How do we know if science is sufficient to answer all the questions?
How do we know what our relationship is with ultimate reality, God, and the universe? How do we know
what the relationship is between mind and matter? Though the question of how we know what we know
is a difficult one to answer, there are three major answers that have been suggested historically:
rationalism, empiricism, and existentialism.
A. Rationalism
Rationalists, for the most part, are those who believe ultimate reality (i.e., God) consists of
something that is non-material, such as ideas, mind, rational thought, or an ultimate spiritual being. If
(the cosmic) mind comes before matter, then knowledge is principally derived deductively through the
proper use of reason. Rationalism is the idea that man is capable of ascertaining true knowledge through
unaided (or pure a priori) reason alone, without the assistance of general or special revelation.
The French mathematician Ren Descartes (1596-1650) is considered the quintessential
rationalist. He began his epistemological inquiry by questioning everything. Though he doubted the
existence of everything, he could not doubt that he doubted. Because doubting was the one thing he was
certain of, he concluded that by doubting/thinking, he must exist as a self-conscious being. Thus, he is
known for the phrase I think, therefore I am.[8.9]
Because he could not be sure his body existed, he concluded his existence lay in thinking rather
than in any physical substance.[8.10] By doubting, He also deduced that he could not be perfect, for I
saw clearly that it is a greater perfection to know than to doubt.[8.11] Because he was able to
conceptualize that which is entirely perfect, he determined that the idea of that which is perfect could
not have arisen within himself any more than it is logical for that which is lesser to produce that which is
greater. Hence it follows, he argued, that something cannot come into being out of nothing, and also
that what is more perfect cannot come into being from what is less perfect.[8.12]
Accordingly, since Descartes saw that he was able to perceive not only a more perfect thing, but
the most perfect thing, he reasoned that this conception of the most perfect thing could not have
proceeded or originated out of anything other than God Himself. In this fashion, Descartes logically
deduced that God also existed, and on this rational foundation (based on pure reason), he went on to
deduce the rest of his worldview.[8.13]
B. Empiricism
Unlike rationalists, empiricists, strictly speaking, believe that all knowledge is derived from the
senses. Even though the English philosophers Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and John Locke (1632-1704)
were empiricists who believed in God, most empiricists believe that reality consists of only that which is
physical or material. They tend to be naturalists, for they answer the God question by saying that the
universe is a closed system. Therefore, if matter comes before mind (consciousness), knowledge
originates through experience and experience through the physical senses alone. Empiricism, which is
also unbiblical, is the notion that there are no innate presuppositions or basic beliefs within our
precognitive minds to assist us in the processing and categorizing of all the multiple sensations that are
flowing into our thoughts through lifes experiences.
For instance, John Locke rejected the rationalism of Ren Descartes. Where did those ideas,
which Descartes doubted, originate? Descartes did not come to his conclusions when he was a newborn;
he was a grown man with a life full of experiences. The only thing that connects the mind with the
external universe is the five senses. Therefore, according to Locke, it is only through experience that
ideas can get into the thought process from the outside. Locke believed man was born with no innate
knowledge.
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without
any ideas; how comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has
painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and
knowledge? To this I answer in one word, from experience; in that all our knowledge is founded,
standard of morality, it is the key to fulfilling our purpose and finding personal meaning and fulfillment.
Man was not made to be alone, for man is not self-sufficient. Selfishness is forbidden because it
ruins meaningful relationships. Thus, obeying Gods law is the key to our own personal fulfillment
because it drives us away from self-idolatry into a loving and meaningful relationship with God and other
people.
B. Subjective and Relative Ethical Standards
Those who reject the supernatural and personal God are forced, if they desire to remain
consistent with their beliefs, to reject any absolute ethical standard. With no transcendent God to know,
obey, and love, not only is there no ultimate purpose for life, there is no absolute standard to follow.
With the removal of any objective destination, there is no need for any road maps to chart. Relationships
are left to be governed by what seems right in the eyes of self-seeking individuals.
From a naturalistic standpoint, ethics are constructed for merely pragmatic purposes. At best,
ethics are situational and relative in nature. With no God, there is no universal Lawgiver. If there is no
universal and absolute justice and accountability, then this also means evil men, like Adolf Hitler, got off
easy. In fact, with no universal standard, who is to say Adolf Hitler was in the wrong?
Conclusion
As you can see, the various answers to these three ultimate questions about ultimate reality,
about knowledge, and about ethics are intertwined. How we answer one will heavily influence, if not
completely determine, how we answer the other two questions. The answers to these questions
determine our worldview, and our worldview cannot help but shape what we believe and how we
interpret the world around us.
right in my belief. Its that I hope there is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want the
universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and
that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.[9.4]
Another example of this is found in the writings of Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011). The
arguments he crafted against God were based on his personal disdain for God. He did not appeal to
metaphysics or to epistemology in his argumentation but to ethics; he made a moral case against God.
Hitchens claimed not to be an atheist but an antitheist. According to Hitchens, God is not great.[9.5] In
sum, why we should hate God is how Hitchens made his case for atheism. However, despising the
concept of hell and citing various cases of religious misconduct does not disprove the existence of God.
Likewise, English physicist Paul Davies confesses that he is not emotionally neutral: Theres no
need to invoke anything supernatural in the origins of the universe or of life. I have never liked the idea
of divine tinkering.[9.6] Davies knows that he is not alone in his sentiments, for he believes that many
scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly
admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God.[9.7]
This, however, is not to be taken as something unusual. Quite a few self-proclaimed atheists, so
it seems, are motivated to question the existence of God out of their hatred for Him. Having a holy Judge
who will hold us accountable for all of our thoughts, emotions, and actions is not an easy thing to
embrace. Naturally, none of us want to submit every single area of our lives to a divine authority. Guilt,
divine authority, divine surveillance, and divine accountability seem to be where the conflict really lies.
Therefore, suppressing the knowledge of God is often easier than facing this knowledge with a guilty
conscience.
In this way, if we like it or not, our ethical values (what we like and dislike) have a vital role in
shaping our thinking and beliefs. I think it was for this reason that Frame claimed it is useful to regard
epistemology as a branch of ethics.[9.8]
With this said, how we answer any one of the three ultimate questions of life (God, knowledge,
and ethics) will consequently influence how we will answer the other two. Vern Poythress, professor of
New Testament interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, concludes: In many respects they
presuppose one another. Though we may temporarily focus on only one subdivision within philosophy
[metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics], the others lurk in the background.[9.9]
Because every worldview, at its basic level, consists of the answers we give to (1.) the God
question, (2.) the knowledge question, and (3.) the ethics question, these three questions are both
intrinsically and inextricably interwoven together.
a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is
interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in ones thinking,
being treated as ones least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to
revision.[9.10]
Every worldview, including theism, atheism, naturalism, and empiricism, is based on a few core
presuppositions. These presuppositions interpret lifes experiences but are not derived from lifes
experiences.
For instance, because there is no evidence supporting the foundation for empiricism, empiricists
are forced to make a precommitment to the starting presupposition that every belief to be justified must
be supported by evidence. This precommitment is a leap of faith. Though those who take this leap may
work hard to prove, explain, argue, and provide evidence for everything else that they believe, the
presuppositional foundation for their worldview is simply taken for granted or presumed.
That nothing exists beyond the natural world is the core presupposition behind the naturalistic
worldview. Naturalists presuppose this belief without any scientific evidence. As John Lennox, professor
of mathematics at the University of Oxford, rhetorically queries, So, is naturalism actually demanded by
science? Or is it just conceivable that naturalism is a philosophy that is brought to science, more than
something that is entailed by science? Could it even be, dare one ask, more like an expression of faith,
akin to religious belief?[9.11]
The Hungarian-Swedish biologist George Klein was willing to admit that it was: I am not an
agnostic, I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather faith.[9.12]
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the worlds leading supporters for
evolutionary biology, also confessed that he is committed to materialism even before the investigation
gets started:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructsin
spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we
have a prior 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 priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus
of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.[9.13]
For instance, Richard Dawkins acknowledged that he accepted naturalism as a starting
presupposition without any evidence or proof:
When asked by the Edge Foundation, What do you believe is true even though you
cannot prove it? Dawkins replied: I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all
design anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.
It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design
cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. At the bottom, then,
Dawkinss rejection of an ultimate Intelligence is a matter of belief without proof.[9.14]
Scientists may navely think that they do not bring presuppositions into their investigations. They
may even claim that they do not believe in any metaphysical realities seeing that metaphysics
transcends the scope of scientific investigation. But, saying you dont believe in metaphysics is a
metaphysical statement. Science cannot prove that there are no metaphysical realities, and such an
assertion as I dont believe in metaphysics would not make any sense without the use of logic and
ethics.
Thus, even scientists have presuppositions about God, knowledge, and ethics that they
presuppose and bring with them into their laboratories.
It is not that having presuppositions is wrong, for we all have presuppositions. For instance,
Christians start by presupposing the God of the Bible, and this presupposition provides a worldview that
acknowledge both the existence of supernatural events (such as the miracles and the resurrection of
Christ) as well as the revealing power of science.
There is nothing wrong with scientific knowledge. Christians can thank God for an orderly
universe that allows them to learn from the past as well as plan for the future. A transcendent and
imminent God, whose sovereign rule is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics, provides the
Christian with a perfect foundation for all of their empirical and rational knowledge. An orderly universe
only makes sense when one has an orderly God. Since all truth comes through general and special
revelation, then true scientific and biblical truth cannot be not at odds with each other.
epistemology [what we know].[9.16] In other words, what we know does not determine what is real. The
method of how we know what we know does not establish the existence or non-existence of anything.
This seems obvious. Wishing that unicorns were real does not make it so any more than atheism
eliminates God. Rather, what is really real, such as God and the universe, determines what we know.
This is what Sire means when he says, Ontology precedes epistemology.
Sire is right from an ontological perspective. The reality or non-reality of God, either His existence
or His non-existence, determines everything else. Gods existence is logically primary, as God is ultimate
reality. In fact, without the existence of God, knowledge and ethical distinctions are impossible because
they logical flow out of ontology and not the other way around.[9.17] Therefore, we must presuppose
God if we are to have a reliable epistemological and ethical standard.
Just because knowledge of God does require the existence of God, though, does not mean that
we must always start with the knowledge of God to conclude that He exists. We could start with
epistemology or ethics as well, and eventually conclude with the existence of God, because metaphysics,
epistemology, and ethics are all inter-dependent. They each cannot be rightly understood without rightly
understanding the other.
Thus, of these three core presuppositions, it does not matter if we presuppose God first or not as
we set forth our apologetic argument. All that matters is that we remain logically consistent with the
presuppositions that we have chosen to embrace as our ultimate starting point, because that is what
truly matters consistency. Thus we must always beg the question, do we remain consistent with
ourselves?
Conclusion
In conclusion, all of our beliefs are shaped by our individual worldviews, each of which happens
to be rooted in a few core presuppositions. We cannot think coherently or learn anything new without
filtering information through our conceptual framework that includes our beliefs about God, about
knowledge, and about ethics.
If we are going to be coherent thinkers, however, then we must have a worldview that is capable
of answering all the ultimate questions of life without contradicting ourselves in the process. Therefore,
the ultimate question that we must ask ourselves is this: Are we consistent with ourselves? That is to
say, do our presuppositions coherently support our worldview, or better yet, is how we live consistent
with how we view life?
The objective of the rest of this book is to show that the biblical worldview is the only coherent
and consistent worldview. It is to show that to deny the Christian worldview is to live inconsistently with
our conscience (i.e., the necessary conditions of God, knowledge, and ethics) by willingly accepting an
absurd and self-defeating system of thought. In the words of the presuppositional apologist Cornelius
Van Til: We as Christians alone have a position that is philosophically defensible.[9.18]
presuppositions, if we are going to continue to hold onto those presuppositions, we cannot deny these
starting presuppositions by borrowing capital from an antithetical worldview. This is cheating, and it
exposes an inconsistency in our thinking.
meet these two forms of verification, then it was considered a non-meaningful statement.
Because it is impossible to verify Gods existence through empirical examination, logical
positivists argued, belief in God is nonsensical. In his book Language, Truth, and Logic, professor of logic
at Oxford, Alfred J. Ayer (1910-1989), explained:
There can be no way of proving that the existence of a god, such as the God of
Christianity, is even probable. Yet this also is easily shown. For if the existence of such a god
were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. And in that
case it would be possible to deduce from it, and other empirical hypotheses, certain experiential
propositions which were not deducible from those other hypotheses alone. But in fact this is not
possible.For to say that God exists is to make a metaphysical utterance which cannot be
either true or false. And by the same criterion, no sentence which purports to describe the nature
of a transcendent god can possess any literal significance.[10.6]
Consequently, logical positivists, such as Ayer, took pride in claiming that metaphysical
statements, such as God exists, could not be verified as meaningful, and thus should not be accepted.
Their confidence in their criteria for verification continued until people turned their own verification
principle on them. No proposition is meaningful unless its an analytic or synthetic statement is itself a
proposition that is neither analytic nor synthetic. Logical positivists unwittingly undermined their own
foundation by making the metaphysical statement that only non-metaphysical statements are
meaningful. Consequently, logical positivism self-destructs it is self-referentially absurd.
The inconsistency within logical positivism is not merely a peripheral matter, such as who won
the 1976 World Series; it is rather a fatal flaw in the philosophical system itself. Yet, how about
naturalism, empiricism, and rationalism? Do these core presuppositions uphold a consistent and
cohesive worldview? Can these worldviews support themselves?
honestly do not know. I dont know if there is a God or not. I dont know if ethics are universal. I
dont know if I believe in divine revelation or not. I am skeptical. If agnosticism is your stance to these
all-important questions, then go ahead and answer them in the negative. Go ahead and say that you
dont believe in God. Say that you dont believe in divine revelation or in an absolute code of morality.
Presuppose naturalism (that there is no God), empiricism (that there is no divine revelation), and
relativism (that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong) and then see if you can construct a
cohesive and consistent worldview on the foundation you have chosen.
However, no matter what presuppositions you have chosen, you must remain consistent with
them until the end. It is logically inconsistent to jump from one presuppositional foundation to the next.
We have seen how Bertrand Russell cheated when he critiqued the cosmological argument. He did not
stay true to his core epistemological presupposition empiricism. If you are an atheist, stick to your
guns. Follow through with your presuppositions. Dont build on someone elses foundation. Hold strong
to what you believe. Take Socrates advice and follow the argument wherever it leads.[10.7] If there is
no such thing as a supernatural and personal God, then the consequences must be accepted and
embraced. Cheaters cannot be trusted, and this includes ourselves.
Because we have no choice but to accept a few core presuppositions, the only rational thing for
us to do is examine the validity of our presuppositions and follow them through to their logical and
natural conclusions. If our presuppositions hold up under the weight, then they are worth maintaining. If
we discover our worldview is inconsistent with itself, then we are justified in rejecting it and looking for
another. As in the words of the presuppositional apologist Gordon Clark (1902-1985):
If one system can provide plausible solutions to many problems while another leaves too many
questions unanswered, if one system tends less to skepticism and gives more meaning to life, if one
worldview is consistent while the others are self-contradictory, who can deny us, since we must choose,
the right to choose the more promising first principle.[10.8]
No matter how rational our line of reasoning may be, if our presuppositional foundation is
defective, then the system itself should be discarded. After all, as R. C. Sproul explains:
A scientist who refuses to acknowledge facts that he knows are true can hardly be expected to
arrive at sound conclusions. Any reasoning process that begins with a denial of the known and proceeds
on the basis of prejudice can hardly produce light, no matter how lucid and cogent the argument may
proceed after the initial error is made.[10.9]
Cohesiveness, therefore, is necessary for any worldview. If a worldview cannot uphold its own
weight, but falls into absurdity under the pressure of its own truth claims, then it is not a worldview
worth embracing.
Why would you knowingly build your house on an active fault line? Why then would you want to
build your life on a faulty worldview? In fact, to continue to embrace and defend a faulty and incoherent
worldview is to prove you are willing to embrace the absurd and willfully blind yourself to the truth.
Conclusion
Does the Christian worldview support itself? Can the naturalistic worldview remain consistent
with its basic core beliefs? No philosophical, humanistic or religious system of thought is based on a
single line of thought that leads to an eternal regression without a foundation.
be no energy, no mass, no motion, and no personality.[11.7] I would also add that there would be no
such thing as time or chance. If nothing exists, then time and chance do not exist either. They do not
exist even as concepts without something (such as an intelligence or mass and energy) being in
existence first.
So, did nothing create something? Former Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking and former
Oxford chemist Peter Atkins claim that it did. Hawking explains that because there is a law like gravity,
the universe can and will create itself from nothing.[11.8] Atkins, with less explanation but with more
words, concurs:
In the beginning there was nothing. Absolute void, not merely empty space. There was no
space. There was no space; nor was there time, for this was before time. The universe was
without form and void.
By chance there was a fluctuation, and set of points, emerging from nothing and taking
their existence from the pattern they formed, defined a time. The chance formation of a pattern
resulted in the emergence of time from coalesced opposites, its emergence from nothing. From
absolute nothing, absolutely without intervention, there came into being rudimentary existence.
[11.9]
Do Hawking and Atkins not know that they sound ridiculous? For something to come from nothing,
then something must have created itself. But self-creation is impossible. As R. C. Sproul explains, For
something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same time and in the same
relationship.[11.10] If the law of gravity is an observed property of matter, how did the law of gravity
exist when matter did not exist? How can gravity create anything if it does not even exist?
Bewildered by Hawkings statement, John Lennox states: To presuppose the existence of the
universe to account for its existence sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not
science.[11.11] But, Atkins explanation is not any better. Is it not completely absurd to say, In the
beginning there was nothing, and then go on to say, By chance there was a fluctuation? How can
there be chance when there is nothing to begin with? What is chance in a non-existent universe? It is
absurd to think that we can create something when we add nothing to nothing. Nothing, plus chance
(which is nothing), plus time (which is also nothing) brought about everything. If time and chance are
nothing, it does not matter how much of it there is, it still adds up to nothing. The old maxim of
Parmenides (515-460 BC) principle, Ex nihilo nihil fit, still rings true today: nothing can come from
nothing.
To say otherwise, as we already pointed out in chapter 10, goes directly against the first, second,
and third laws of motion that state every cause must have an effect. To believe that the universe is an
effect or a fluctuation that had no cause is evidence that we would rather deny the existence of God than
remain rationally sane. To say nothing created something is to believe in a divine miracle without
believing in God. What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains, concluded Lennox, even when
talked by world-famous scientists.[11.12]
Well, maybe its impossible for nothing to produce something, but that does not mean the
universe could not be eternal. The cyclic theory of the universe states that the universe is its own eternal
cause. Under this model, from the moment of the Big Bang, the universe will continue to expand outward
in all directions until its own gravitational force is so strong that it pulls everything back on itself,
causing the universe to collapse into a cosmic black hole, which in return provides the energy needed for
another Big Bang. This eternal process of expansion and retraction repeats itself indefinitely.
This, however, only pushes the problem back. Who fired off the first Big Bang to get things
started? An infinite regression of effects does not solve anything. It is an attempt to explain the effects
by a cause, but never willing to answer the question of who or what caused the first effect. Because selfcreation is a logical contradiction, it is impossible for the universe to have gone through multiple selfcreations.
Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics states that the total amount of useable energy in
any isolated system never increases. The design and complexity of a German high-performance vehicle
does not improve over time. If you dont believe me, all you have to do is to ask the mechanic who
continued to be paid for working on my Audi A4. Though it ran with precision the first few years, before
trading it in for a new car, it would not stay out of the garage. But I am not picking on German
engineering, for all things in the universe from automobiles to dying stars fall apart over time.
Because the amount of useable energy in any closed system naturally dissipates, the universe is not selfsustainable. Thus, even if the universe went through multiple self-recreations, the process could not
sustain itself forever. Ultimately, everything would end in maximum entropy (disorder). Without an
external power source, eventually the universe would die with all of its useable energy being fully
depleted. And if there is a definite end to the process, then there could not have been an eternal
beginning. Thus, it is irrational to think the universe is eternal.
Moreover, explosions do not create complex and wonderfully designed infrastructures no matter
how many times they occur. Chance and time will never create the Empire State building with its running
water, electricity, elevators, and nicely fitted glass windows by the random explosion of raw materials.
The massive energy behind the Big Bang just so happened to throw all of the raw materials of the
universe into a precise, mathematical, and uniform framework where it runs with the precision of the
immaterial laws of physics. Are we to believe raw matter was randomly and blindly thrown into perfectly
and mathematically structured galaxies? Even Big Bang supporter James Trefil, professor of physics at
George Mason University, confessed that there shouldnt be galaxies out there at all, and even if there
are galaxies, they shouldnt be grouped together the way they are. He went on to say:
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest
in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldnt be there, yet there they sit. Its hard to convey the
depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.[11.13]
The Big Bang did not merely end with lifeless galaxies, but with a perfectly positioned planet that
is capable of all the vast amount of complexities that are necessary for life to thrive and flourish known
as the anthropic principle. Intelligent Design advocate Jim Nelson Black summarizes the madness in his
book The Death of Evolution:
We also know that the mixture of oxygen and nitrogen in Earths atmosphere must be
exact, within very narrow limits, for us to breathe. In order to sustain life, the planet must be
precisely situated in the solar system to remain in the habitable zone around the sun. If the earth
were to orbit 5 percent closer to the sun, the seas, rivers, and lakes would evaporate and all
carbon-based life would cease to exist. If the planet were 20 percent farther from the sun, the
water would freeze.
Relative to the size of the planet, the outer crust of the earth is paper thin. If it were any
thicker, the process of plate tectonics, which controls the inner temperature of the earth and the
presence of chemical elements essential to life, could not take place. The terrestrial depth also
affects the movement of molten elements beneath the surface of the earth, including the iron ore
responsible for the magnetic field around our planet. The magnetic field, in turn, shields the
planet from dangerous solar winds generated by the sun and keeps the earth in precisely the
right orbit with relation to the sun, moon, and neighboring planets.
These are merely a few of the factors that make the earth just right for life. And there are
many more . . . The chance of all these factors and the hundreds of others that allow life to exist
on earth occurring purely by chance are astronomical the odds are literally trillions to one. The
British mathematician Roger Penrose conducted a study of the probability of a universe capable
of sustaining life occurring by chance and found the odds to be 1 in 1010 123 (expressed as 10 to
the power of 10 to the power of 123). That is a mind-boggling number. According to probability
theory, odds of 1 to 1050 represents Zero Probability. But Dr. Penroses calculations place the
odds of life emerging as Darwin described it at more than a trillion trillion trillion times less than
Zero.[11.14]
Those numbers presuppose that the building blocks to the universe were already in existence. If,
however, nothing comes out of nothing, then there is no chance for the Big Bang to have created the
universe on its own initiative. Black rightly concluded that holding to the Big Bang theory demands a
complete suspension of belief better suited of the readers of fairy tales.[11.15] Even the evolutionist
Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944) conceded that the scientific evidence behind the origins of the
universe, though he thought it was repugnant, pointed to an Intelligent Designer:
The picture of the world, as drawn in existing physical theories shows arrangements of
the individual elements for which the odds are multillions to 1 against an origin by chance. Some
people would like to call this non-random feature of the world purpose or design; but I will call it
non-committally anti-chance. We are unwilling in physics that anti-chance plays any part in the
reactions between the systems of billions of atoms and quanta that we study; and indeed all our
experimental evidence goes to show that these are governed by the laws of chance. Accordingly,
we sweep anti-chance out of the laws of physics out of the differential equations. Naturally,
therefore, it reappears in the boundary conditions, for it must be got into the scheme somewhere.
By sweeping it far enough away from the sphere of our current physical problems, we fancy we
have got rid of it. It is only when some of us are so misguided as to try to get back billions of
years into the past that we find the sweepings all piled up like a high wall and forming a
boundary a beginning of time which we cannot climb over.[11.16]
The mathematical odds are too great to overcome for the universe to have been caused by mere
chance. After knowing the facts, it takes more blind faith to believe that a random universe blindly
created itself than it does to accept an Intelligent Designer.
Moreover, these mathematical odds create another problem for the naturalists. Not merely do the
mathematical odds oppose the possibility of the universe being sparked into existence by an
unintelligent cosmic explosion, an unintelligent explosion cannot provide any explanation for the
existence of the absolute and immaterial laws of math.
The laws of physics operate in accordance to the laws of math. For instance, the acceleration of
gravity can be precisely measured by a mathematical equation (g = 9.81m/s/s). The distance a falling
object travels increases at the square of the time it travels. According to the inverse square law, the
intensity of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance of two bodies. The force of a
magnet will diminish with the cube of its distance away from ferromagnetic materials (such as iron). The
point is that the laws of physics cannot be separated from mathematics. Seeing this connection caused
English astronomer James Jeans (1877-1846) to remark: The universe appears to have been designed by
a pure mathematician.[11.17]
But where do the immaterial and mathematical laws come from? How can mathematics exist
independently of intelligent consciousness? Professor of mathematical sciences at Trinity Western
University, John Byl, explains why this is an awkward dilemma for naturalists:
Naturalism has great difficulty dealing with mathematical objects. Mathematical objects
are abstract ideas. How can matter ever evolve into ideas? How can ideas exist, other than in
some mind? Naturalism alleges that mind evolved from matter. How, then, did mathematics exist
before mind evolved? If the answer is that mathematics did not exist before the appearance of
man, how are we to account for the mathematical structure of the laws of physics, which are
assumed to have held from the start? If mathematical truths are universal and eternal, this seems
to require the existence of a universal, eternal Mind. Yet, if mathematics exists objectively,
beyond the human mind and physical world, how can man gain access to it?[11.18]
This was one of the reasons the long-standing atheist Antony Flew renounced his atheism: The
important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are
mathematically precise, universal, and tied together.[11.19] A self-creating universe is nonsensical
because it destroys the foundation that it is seeking to uphold the laws of nature. Consequently, the
Big Bang theory cannot explain why the world is orderly, symmetrically arranged, and abides by the
mathematical principles of the laws of physics.
Seeing an Intelligent Mind behind the mathematically precise structure of the universe seems
more natural and plausible than thinking that blind chance created and organized the universe out of
nothing. Yet, the New York Times columnist and science writer George Johnson would have us believe
that our minds are playing tricks on us when we automatically assume that such geometrical
organization found throughout the universe was engineered by an Intelligent Mind: When we see such
intricate symmetry, our brains automatically assume there was an inventor.[11.20] But this apparent
design, says Johnson, is merely an illusion. Similarly, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin remarked
that objects of nature only appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.[11.21]
Johnson went on to say that this instinct to see God as the architect must be suppressed if ever
we are to make sense of the universe: Overcoming that instinct took centuries, and it was only then that
the living world began to make sense.[11.22] Biologists must constantly keep in mind, according to
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, that what they see was not designed, but rather
evolved.[11.23]
In other words, though it is not natural for us to believe that the universe created itself, we must
suppress the knowledge of God that is triggered when observing the universe if we are ever to believe
that the world is without design or purpose. And, according to Johnson, it is only when we see the world
as without design or purpose that we can make sense of a senseless world.
Naturalists, such as Eddington, Lewontin, Crick, and Johnson, would have us believe that if we
happened to find a watch in the desert, with all of its interworking pieces collectively operating for a
single purpose with mathematical precision, and the watchmaker was not also visibly present, then we
should not believe the watch had any intelligent designer. If the watchmaker cannot be observed through
Conclusion
A naturalistic explanation of the universe, no matter if it be by a non-supernatural explosion from
a singularity or by some other means, cannot account for the laws of nature that are rooted in the
immaterial laws of mathematics. If there is a universe without a Divine Mind, why is there order and
geometrical structure when chaos is what should be expected?
from other living beings. Though there has been no observable exception to this rule, the same
naturalists who reject miracles, such as the resurrection of Christ that was verified by more than 500
eyewitnesses, claim that we are to believe in a more radical miracle that life evolved from non-life
without even a single eyewitness. Which is more unbelievable, the resurrection of Christ or life being
birthed from a rock? At least the Christian worldview makes room for miracles and the supernatural.
information, like an instruction manual, with chemical subunits that function as alphabetic characters.
The genetic language consists of an alphabet (coding system), correct spelling, grammar (proper
arrangements of the chemical subunits), meaning (semantics), and intended purpose. This genetic
information is translated as it is conveyed to the amino acids, which are assembled into proteins. This
process is amazing. Yet, how did this knowledge emerge? Where did this specific and functional
information come from? Another important question is how did the simplest cell evolve with the ability to
transmit, store, and translate all this information in its replication process?
Human DNA, for instance, contains more than 3.5 billion letters and enough information to fill 12
sets of the 32 volume Encyclopedia Britannica. All empirical evidence and common sense would have us
believe that functional information comes from intelligent minds. DNA, according to the founder of
Microsoft, Bill Gates, is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever
created. Yet, in the same way it seems absurd to think that time and chance could write a complex
computer program, it seems absurd to think that blind chance just so happened to write the genetic code
of life on strands of DNA. It takes a fair amount of blind faith to believe that chance could construct a
marble statue that looks like Abraham Lincoln, but more than blind faith is needed to believe that chance
could write a 385 volume instruction manual and have it neatly stacked on Lincolns lap. Such
information simply cannot be explained by the random and blind arrangement of mass and energy.
This, according to Paul Davies, arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern
science,[12.4] is a major problem for the theory of evolution: The problem of how meaningful or
semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind
and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.[12.5]
It must be kept in mind that macroevolution cannot take place without new genetic information
being added to an organisms genetic code. Without an increase of information, it is impossible for the
simplest organism to have evolved into something more complex.
Yet, there is not one stand of observable evidence that new genetic information can be created.
For instance, microevolution only operates on genetic information that already exists. For proteins to be
capable of building new and more complex forms of life, they would need new and more complex
instructions to follow. Mutations that alter existing traits (e.g., varieties of corn and fruit flies) is not a
formation of new information but the rearrangement of preexisting information. On the molecular level,
something was not created but broken in the mutation process.
If not created, then where does genetic information come from? Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of
the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, explains why we should not rule out an
Intelligent Mind when asking this question:
Scientists in many fields recognize the connection between intelligence and information
and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume that a scribe produces the inscriptions
on the Rosetta Stone. Evolutionary anthropologists establish the intelligence of early hominids
from chipped flints that are too improbably specified in form and function to have been produced
by natural causes. NASAs search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) presupposes that any
specified information embedded in electromagnetic signals coming from space would indicate an
intelligent source. As yet, radio astronomers have not found any such information-bearing
signals. But closer to home, molecular biologists have identified information-rich sequences and
systems in the cell, suggesting, by the same logic, the past existence of an intelligent cause for
those effects.[12.6]
All this genetic information and immense complexity supposedly came from non-living matter
that magically happened to be able to reproduce itself. Unless you believe in magic without a magician,
the engineering marvel of the simplest cell could not have evolved from non-living matter. For life to
begin, the simple cell had to spontaneously appear with all its necessary parts, thrown together in the
proper place, creating the semantic information needed for the living cell to reproduce itself.
Biochemist Michael Behe, in his book Darwins Black Box, goes into great detail not only in
explaining the complexity of the single cell, but also explaining how this complexity is needed, with all of
its diverse parts simultaneously working together, for a single cell to reproduce itself.[12.7] The cell is a
functionally integrated system that only operates when each of its components (processors, power
supplies, and switches) function together.
That is, the simplest cell is irreducibly complex. Behe illustrated this by observing the
components of an old-fashion mousetrap. A mousetrap has six components a platform, a spring, a wire,
a hammer, a catch, and a holding bar. For the mousetrap to work, all of its components must be present
and in their proper place, or otherwise it cannot function. Remove just one of its parts, such as the
spring, and the trap is completely useless. All the different components of the simplest cell likewise are
needed for it to be able to reproduce itself. The cell is irreducibly complex. So, if the unnecessary parts
are discarded in the evolutionary process, the simplest cell had to come together simultaneously. Yet,
the coming together of all these components in a mere spontaneous moment goes against the theory
that things slowly adapt to survive. This means the single cell could not have evolved by reproduction,
for it either came fully intact or it did not come at all.
Darwin assumed that the simplest living cell would consist of a single component (a blob of
protoplasm),[12.8] but we have learned that it is more like a complex factory with a mass
telecommunications network. Understanding this, Dean Kenyon, professor emeritus of biology at San
Francisco State University, states: We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin
for even the simplest of cells.[12.9] This was another reason Flew turned his back on atheism, for he
concluded that the origin of life cannot be explained if you start with matter alone.[12.10] Christopher
Williams, professor of bio-chemistry at Ohio State University, echoed this same conclusion:
Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide
no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic
information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require or did it even have
genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge
information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code
linking nucleic acids to amino acids sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life the foundation
of evolution is still virtually all speculation, and little or no fact.[12.11]
What can be said of the simplest cell can be said of many things, such as sight. Sight could not
have evolved from non-sight because the eye needs all of its working components to function. Even
Darwin admitted: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and
chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree.[12.12]
If the eye must come intact for it to function, what good is 5 percent of an eye in the early
process of the adaptation of the eye? Richard Dawkins seems foolish when he tries to explain:
An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other
than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 per cent visionSo 1 per cent is better
than blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual,
continuous series.[12.13]
Dawkins seems to be missing the point. With only 5 percent of the eye, there is absolutely no
vision. 5 percent, 10 percent, and even 50 percent of the eye equals zero percent eyesight. Vision is
impossible without all of its necessary components, and this indicates that it is impossible for the eye to
have slowly evolved. Because evolution is blind, it cannot create parts that will possibly be needed
thousands of years in the future. Supposedly, the evolutionary process eliminates that which is nonuseful for survival such as 5% of a non-functioning eye. For this reason, eyesight either comes intact, or
it does not come at all.
One of the most cited chemists in the world, James M. Tour, who is also professor of mechanical
engineering and materials science at Rice University, argued that no scientist is able to explain
macroevolution:
Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to
sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until
then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I
have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically
mysterious than evolution. Darwin never addressed origin of life, and I can see why he did not; he
was far too smart for that. Present day scientists that expose their thoughts on this become ever
so timid when they talk with me privately. I simply cannot understand the source of their
confidence when addressing their positions publicly.[12.14]
In a speech given at Georgia Tech, Tour defended his critique of macroevolution:
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to
understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I dont just buy a kit,
and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard
it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Natures tool kit, it could be much easier,
because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these
conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I dont understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, I
dont understand this? Is that all right? I know that theres a lot of people out there that dont
understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot
about making molecules; I dont understand evolution.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy
members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in
public because its a scary thing, if you say what I just said I say, Do you understand all of
this, where all of this came from, and how this happens? Every time that I have sat with people
who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go Uh-uh. Nope. These people are just
so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. Ive sat with National Academy members,
with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, Do you understand this? And if theyre afraid to
say, Yes, they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they cant sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a
chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, Let me ask you something. Youre
a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do
you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of
jelly? We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, Isnt it interesting that you, the Dean of
science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we cant go
out there and talk about this?
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I dont understand. And I
said, I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I wont
argue with you until I dont understand something I will ask you to clarify. But you cant wave by
and say, This enzyme does that. Youve got to get down in the details of where molecules are
built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they
challenged the Atheist Society, Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to
him. Nobody has come! Now remember, because Im just going to ask, when I stop
understanding what youre talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to
believe it. But I just cant.[12.15]
transitional forms:
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary
transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I
will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument.[12.19]
In fact, according to paleontologist David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History, the fossil
records have done nothing to assist Darwins theory of evolution:
We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been
greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasnt
changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even
fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins time.[12.20]
Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History was even bolder when he admitted:
We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change]
knowing all the while it does not.[12.21]
Rather than working in favor of evolution, according to Stephen Meyer, the fossil records provide
evidence for Intelligent Design. He cites Darwins admission that If numerous species, belonging to the
same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of
descent with slow modification through natural selection.[12.22]
Yet, paleontologists around the world have discovered a sudden explosion of fossil records in
Cambrian strata in the sedimentary rock layers without any transitional intermediate fossils connecting
the Cambrian animals to simpler Precambrian forms.[12.23] Moreover, within the Cambrian layer there
is a startling array of completely novel animal forms with novel body plans; and a pattern in which
radical differences in form in the fossil record arise before more minor, small-scale diversification and
variations.[12.24] This, according to Meyer, turns on its head the Darwinian expectation of small
incremental change only gradually resulting in larger and larger differences in form.[12.25]
Such facts as these caused David Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, to claim:
The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to
the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. Among
evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony
faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no
idea what the research literature really suggests.
Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. Thats just
the party line.[12.26]
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 priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus
of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[12.27]
As the quote above suggests, quite a few scientists are convinced of macroevolution not because
of the evidence, but because it is a logical conclusion of naturalism. Thus, macroevolution is more of a
philosophical conclusion than a scientific finding. Lewontin confessed that he, as with other scientists,
had an a prior commitment to naturalism which is a philosophical worldview. Dennett was right when
he claimed that there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose
philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.[12.28] If we presuppose and remain
committed to naturalism, then macroevolution must be embraced regardless of the evidence. As we have
seen, scientists, such as Dawkins and Lewontin, continue to embrace naturalism even when they are
presented with opposing evidence. Because God is unacceptable, macroevolution, even with all of its
inconsistencies, must be maintained.
Naturalism is the framework that these scientists accept by faith and utilize to understand and
interpret their observations and experimentations. They are convinced naturalists even before the
investigation gets started. For instance, after Dennett recapped the thrust of Darwins argument in The
Origin of the Species, without providing any empirical evidence for macroevolution, concludes:
Levelheaded readers of the book simply could no longer doubt that species had evolved over the eons,
as Darwin said they had.[12.29]
Though Darwin only observed slight adaptations taking place in preexisting entities within
preexisting species, Dennett believes that this was enough evidence to logically deduce that all species
(including human consciousness) have evolved from dead matter by natural selection.
Darwin may have produced a large volume full of examples of microevolution, but even if he
included a billion more examples of how bird beaks slowly grow longer or shorter under the right
circumstances, it would not prove that birds have evolved from flying fish. Evidence for microevolution
does not prove macroevolution. Darwin presented no evidence for macro-evolution, but this did not
hinder him from concluding that men have evolved from apes.
Dennett not only believes Darwin convincingly proved his case, he went as far as to say: To put
it bluntly but fairly, any one today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a
process of evolution is simply ignorant inexcusably ignorant.[12.30] It is amazing that such bold
confidence and fundamentalist like fervor can come without any credible evidence.
Dennetts confidence, however, seems to be more heavily rooted in his naturalism than in
evolution. He intentionally or unintentionally revealed his primary commitment when he said: Even if
Darwins relatively modest idea about the origin of species came to be rejected by science yes, utterly
discredited and replaced by some vastly more powerful vision it would still have irremediably sapped
conviction in any reflective defender of the [old] tradition[12.31] that there is a Intelligent Design. In
other words, even if Darwin was wrong, Darwin was right in removing God from any possible
explanation. And this, my dear friends, is the chief concern and commitment for naturalists.
You see, evolution is not one of many possible naturalistic explanations for the origins of the
species; it is the only naturalistic explanation. For this reason, so it seems, naturalists are deeply
committed to evolution. As the Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald (1906-1997), professor
emeritus of biology at the University at Harvard, admitted: We choose to believe the impossible: that
life arose spontaneously by chance.[12.32] Likewise, after the Scottish anatomist and anthropologist
Arthur Keith (1866-1955) said that macroevolution was unproved and unprovable, he confessed, We
believe it only because the alternative is special creation.[12.33]
To abandon belief in evolution would require naturalists to abandon their faith-commitment in
naturalism. No matter how ridiculous the theory may seem, no matter what evidence is lacking, no
matter what kind of internal problems are created, naturalists seem to refuse to give up on evolution
because it appears that the only alternative answer to the origin of life is completely unacceptable for
we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. As Wolfgang Smith, a physicist who helped solve the re-entry
problem for space flight, explained:
I am convincedthat Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a
pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its
support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the
circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived
with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.[12.34]
Wald not only conceded that he chose to believe in the impossible, but he also explained his
motive in doing so:
There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation
arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120
years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life
arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not
want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.[12.35]
At least Wald was honest in his atheism. Consequently, Thomas Nagel is right when he questions
the foundation behind the naturalistic worldview:
Physico-chemical reductionism in biology [i.e., naturalism] is the orthodox view, and any
resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect. But it seems to me
that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of
governing assumptions [presuppositions] that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of
common sense.[12.36]
Nagel went on to remind us that the naturalism that undergirds the theory of evolution cannot
be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a wellconfirmed scientific hypothesis.[12.37] I believe it is for this reason that Nagel went on to say, I find
the confidence among the scientific establishment that the whole scenario will yield to a purely chemical
[physical] explanation hard to understand, except as a manifestation of an axiomatic commitment to
reductive materialism.[12.38]
This axiomatic commitment to the naturalistic worldview, however, takes a blind and irrational
leap of faith. Though show me the evidence may be the slogan for naturalists, naturalists prove that
they are willing to embrace a worldview that runs contrary to the evidence. For this reason, the Dutch
theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) concluded that these materialist explanations of the universe
are not scientific in character but are rather religious worldviews masquerading as science.[12.39]
Conclusion
Naturalism is a worldview that shapes how its adherents interpret the evidence, but its an
inconsistent worldview. As we have seen, naturalism is not only a worldview that fails to be supported by
the evidence, it is a worldview that fails to provide answers for the existence of the immaterial laws of
science the very foundation on which naturalism is ostensibly built. So, ironically, naturalism purports
to be based on the laws of science alone, but in reality it is forced to deny the laws of science in its
explanation of a self-creating universe. It cannot explain how nothing plus nothing created the universe
that is mathematically structured and miraculously fine-tuned to host life on earth. This inconsistency is
not a gap in scientific knowledge. Rather, its a blatant absurdity.
Moreover, naturalism cannot explain the origins of the semantic and functional language that is
written on DNA, or how the complexity of life (even the simplest living cell) emerged from dead matter.
This is not to mention the problem of consciousness. In the end, naturalism is a godless attempt at
explaining everything, but it cannot even explain itself. Thus, naturalism (with all of its postulations of
the origins of mass and energy and life and consciousness) ends in absurdity. To say belief in God takes
a leap of faith sounds ridiculous when we compare it with the absurdity of unbelief.
or any other part of the house, does not mean there is no builder.[13.3] The design and structure of the
building clearly cries out that there is indeed a builder. If God is a transcendent spirit, then we should not
expect to discover Him through our sensory organs of seeing, tasting, smelling, hearing, and touching.
Of course, an invisible and transcendent God is not an object of scientific experimentation. But
that does not rule Him out, as empiricists would have us believe. If we assume that personal experience
is the only way to prove anything, then we will not believe houses have builders unless we meet those
builders in person. If empiricism is our starting presupposition, then we would also have to suspend
belief in logic, in mathematics, and in other minds,[13.4] for no amount of sense experience can verify
these realities.
Science has its limits. It seeks to discover the reason why things work in the universe but cannot
explain the reason why the universe exists in the first place. John Lennox provides us with an insightful
illustration of this:
It is conceivable that someone from a remote part of the world, who was seeing [a Ford
motor car] for the first time and who knew nothing about modern engineering, might imagine that
there is a god (Mr Ford) inside the engine, making it go. He might further imagine that when the
engine ran sweetly it was because Mr Ford inside the engine liked him, and when it refused to go
it was because Mr Ford did not like him. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering
and take the engine to pieces, he would discover that there is no Mr Ford inside it. Neither would
it take much intelligence for him to see that he did not need to introduce Mr Ford as an
explanation for its working. His grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would
be altogether enough to explain how the engine works. So far, so good. But if he then decided
that his understanding of the principles of how the engine works made it impossible to believe in
the existence of Mr Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false
in philosophical terminology he would be committing a category mistake. Had there never been a
Mr Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand.[13.5]
Moreover, and most importantly, what empirical evidence do empiricists, such as Clifford and
Russell, have to support their belief in empiricism? Seeing that there is no evidence to substantiate the
belief that every belief must be supported by evidence, Clifford and Russell unwittingly hold to a
contradictory presupposition. A wise man, said David Hume, proportions his belief to the evidence.
But an even wiser man understands that this is a foolish statement. Because Hume had no evidence to
support this claim in the first place, his statement is self-refuting.
In the same way materialism cannot give an account for the laws of physics and the laws of
morality, empiricism cannot give an account for why the senses are the only means of ascertaining
knowledge. Thus, empiricism is self-referentially absurd.
Consequently, if the laws of nature determine everything, such as the orbit of the planets, they
also determine the chemical reactions within the brain. If physical matter is all that there is, then our
memories, thoughts, and emotions are merely the byproduct of these chemical reactions. As Dawkins
freely admitted: Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of
physical entities within the brain.[13.6] With less elegance, the French physiologist Pierre Jean Georges
Cabanis (1757-1808) stated: The brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.[13.7]
If this is the case, then we do not have a free will, but all of our thoughts are merely the
predetermined results of the laws of physics. The impersonal laws of nature determine and govern all of
our lives, thoughts, and emotions. At least, this was the opinion of the English molecular biologist
Francis Crick (1916-2004), who co-discovered along with James Watson the double helix structure of the
DNA molecule. The notion that causes us to feel like we have free will, according to Crick, is merely an
impression of the brain.[13.8] Crick introduces The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the
Soul with these astonishing words: You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your
sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of
nerve cells and their associated molecules.[13.9]
Crick was an impressive scientist, but a poor philosopher. Crick was right when he linked our
mental activity with the nerve cells and molecules in our brain, but once he added the philosophical
words no more than to his explanation of human joy, sorrow, memories, ambitions, personal identity,
and free will, he stepped out of the realm of science and entered into the arena of philosophy and
theology. Yet, it seems (either by the laws of chemistry or by his own volition) that Crick had his mind
made up even before he got started; he admits that one of his principle assumptions about
consciousness is that it is something that requires a scientific explanation.[13.10] But, is he right in
making such an assumption? Was Carl Sagan right when he said, The Cosmos is all that is or was or
ever will be?
It is beyond the scope and capacity of science to explain metaphysical realities. No amount of
scientific evidence can prove that there is nothing more to human experiences than chemical reactions.
How is it possible for science to prove that there is nothing more to the soul than physical properties
interacting with one another? Some realities go beyond the realm of science. For instance, scientists
must utilize ethics, logic, and their free will in their scientific experimentations, but they cannot place
these metaphysical realities (ethics, logic, and free will) in any laboratory test-tube. In fact, in order for
scientists, such as Dawkins, Crick, and Saga to deny the existence of metaphysical realities (such as
logic, ethics, and free will), they must temporarily leave the scientific field and enter into the
metaphysical arena. But this is self-refuting. It is not wrong for scientists to be philosophers and visa
versa, but once scientists push philosophical and metaphysical realities out the door, they do not have
the right to turn around and make philosophical and metaphysical statements. If science alone can
explain everything, as they say it can, then it should not have to continually rely on philosophical and
metaphysical categories in the process.[13.11]
Determinism, however, is not something proven by science, but is rather a philosophical
worldview deduced when naturalism is presupposed. Yet, like naturalism, determinism is a worldview
that collapses under its own weight. If mind evolved from matter by the laws of physics, then not only
does this undermine any absolute and universal standard for right and wrong, it also undermines
mathematics, for mathematics, as with ethics, are rooted in universal absolutes that exist independent
of the brain. But once the objective and universal nature of mathematics is undermined, then the laws of
physics, which are rooted in mathematics, are undermined as well. Supposedly, the immaterial laws of
physics are the legs upon which evolutionary biology stands. To put it more concisely, determinism is
rooted in naturalism, which is rooted in the laws of physics, which is rooted in mathematics, which is
rooted in logic, which is rooted in absolutes, which is rooted in the immaterial, which undermines
naturalism and determinism.
This leads to another inconsistency. If determinism is right, we are not free to accept or reject the
argument for determinism. Why try to convince people of the validity of determinism if our beliefs are
determined not by rational arguments but by heredity, environment, and what we happened to have
eaten for breakfast. If the laws of nature determine our beliefs for us, then we have no basis for holding
any of our beliefs as true or false and this includes the belief in determinism. C. S. Lewis saw the
irrationality of such an argument:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of
organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident
too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents the accidental by-product of the
movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone
elses. But if their thoughts i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental byproducts, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident
should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.[13.12]
Determinists ask us to do something that we do not have the freedom to accept any more than
they have the freedom to reject. According to British philosopher J. R. Lucas, Determinism, therefore,
cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists arguments as being really
arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes.[13.13]
Moreover, Lewis saw another contradiction with determinism, which he described in his book
Miracles: A Preliminary Study. If our thoughts are controlled by the fixed laws of nature, then there is no
guarantee or even reason to believe that any given thought will truly correspond to a reality outside of
the thinker.[13.14] We cannot be certain that we know anything as it truly is, including the laws of
physics that supposedly control our thinking. Thus, for determinists to argue for determinism is selfstultifying.
If we are what we are, we will do what we will do, and we will become what we will become by
the fixed laws of the universe. So, when a determinist complains about anything, such as the weather or
a moral injustice, he is protesting against the worldview that he is so eager to embrace and to defend.
But, then again, I guess its the laws of physics that force him to complain.
Conclusion
In short, science explains a lot of things, but it cannot explain everything. When science tries to
explain everything, it destroys itself by undermining the objective and universal nature of the laws of
physics, in which science is fundamentally rooted.
To save the world from complete anarchy, Russell claimed that pragmatism should govern our
behavior. Morality is not a transcendental moral code given to us from above, but is a matter of
convenience and practical usefulness. Of course, this is wildly inconsistent with naturalisms denial of
free will, but it appears that some could care less about being rational as long as they are free to do
what they want with their lives.
The British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and his disciple John Stuart Mill (18061873) also sought to rescue mankind from complete immorality by proposing utilitarianism. While trying
to promote moral goodness, utilitarianism aims to bring the most happiness to the most amount of
people. As Mill stated in his famous little book on the subject:
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness
principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the
absence of pain.[14.4]
Likewise, the American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842-1910), based ethics on
expediency. He writes, in his work Pragmatism, The true, to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in
the way of our thinking, just as the right is only the expedient in the way of our behaving.[14.5]
Following this path of reasoning, Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991), an Episcopal priest turned atheist,
became famous for his book Situation Ethics. Applying the pragmatism of James to challenging
situations, Fletcher became one of the leading advocates for abortion, eugenics, and euthanasia.
According to the publishers description of Situation Ethics, lying, premarital sex, abortion, adultery,
and murder could be right, depending on the circumstances.[14.6]
In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, applied
evolutionary ethics to animals. Whereas Fletcher uses evolutionary ethics to advocate the murder of the
unborn, the handicap, and the elderly, Singer uses evolutionary ethics to advocate the protection of even
the simplest of animals.
If man is evolved from animals, what makes man special? According to Peter, man is slightly
more evolved than an ape, while an ape is much more advanced than an oyster. Apes and oysters are
grouped together as animals while humans stand in a class of their own. But why? Singer argued that
any such boundary separating man from animal is entirely arbitrary. If we claim that mans intelligence
separates him from beast, then what about people with Down Syndrome? He calls those who give
preferential treatment to humans as speciesists. According to Singer, we should not do anything to
animals that we would not do to other humans: Just as most human beings are speciesists in their
readiness to cause pain to animals when they would not cause a similar pain to humans for the same
reason, so most human beings are speciesists in their readiness to kill other animals when they would
not kill human beings.[14.7] From this line of argument, Singer went on to condemn chicken farms and
the mass slaughtering of animals and then ended by presenting a case for the ethical value of
vegetarianism.
Moral relativists, such as Fletcher and Singer, often place a greater value on eagle eggs than on
unborn babies. Placing the rights of animals on par with human rights sounds absurd, but if man is
merely an evolved animal rather than a being created in the likeness of God, then who is to say that
animals should not be eaten? But then again, if there is no God, who is to say that we shouldnt eat
them? If there is no God, who is to say Jeffrey Dahmer, the Milwaukee cannibal, was in the wrong for his
crimes against humanity?
If there is no God, then who gets to make the rules? Does the person carrying the biggest stick in
the playground get to tell the children how to behave, even a person such as Hitler? Is it okay for parents
to abuse their children? Does might make right? As Wolf Larsen told Hump in the novel Sea-Wolf: Might
is right, and that is all there is to it. Weakness is wrong. Which is a very poor way of saying that it is
good for oneself to be strong, and evil for oneself to be weak.[14.8] If Hitler is breathing down my neck,
do I have the right to kill innocent Jews? Am I obligated to disobey my superior if he asks me to steal,
exploit people, or commit fraud? If there is no transcendent code of morality, who is to say?
Does the majority rule? If so, who determines the boundaries or scope of who is included in the
census? Is it right for the majority of High School students to pick on the weirdo at school? Is the majority
always in the right? Or, should government be given to a few elite people (oligarchy)? If there is no
absolute standard that governs all people alike, who is to say?
If there is no transcendent Lawgiver who stands above humanity, then humanity is left to itself to
argue and fight over who is in charge. In the end, everything is relative, and relativism, no matter what
form it takes (i.e., utilitarianism, pragmatism, and situational ethics), is self-referentially absurd. To say
that there are no absolutes is to make an absolute statement. Moral relativism has no foundation in a
purely naturalistic worldview. Why should we listen to Russell, Mill, James, Fletcher, or Singer? Who put
them in charge? Why do they get to write the rules for the rest of us?
If there is no God, why not live lives of rank selfishness? Why not do what we want no matter
who gets hurt?
This sounds like freedom. But is it?
If we are going to accept the freedom that supposedly comes with relativism and deny the
existence of absolute truth, then we had better understand the consequences. Relativism not only
destroys the truths we find inconvenient (such as the existence of God), it destroys all truth. Truth, by its
very nature, demands concreteness. Ultimately, something either exists or it does not exist. Something is
either true or false. If something is objectively true, our opinions, feelings, and wishes have nothing to do
with it. If truth cannot be firmly established, however, then we have no right to say that truth exists at
all.
Relativism is not the archer placing his target on a slippery slope, for this implies that the target,
though moving, is still there to aim at. Relativism is removing the target altogether. The target has
slipped off the cliff and is nowhere to be found.
Relativism cannot be satisfied, as a system of thought, until full-blown nihilism has its tentacles
wrapped around every grain of truth. If it encourages us at all, relativism encourages us to aim at
nothing. We get to choose what is true for ourselves. The target merely exists subjectively in our mind.
Seeing that there is nothing objective and external to aim at, just pull back the bowstring and release the
arrow in any random direction you may happen to like.
This supposedly gives us freedom to choose to live however we please. The handcuffs of
restraints and the laws that shackle us are forever removed. We are free to smash store windows, loot,
set cars on fire, and run chaotically through the streets as we see fit.
We are free, but so is everyone else. With all these aimless arrows flying around, however,
someone is bound to get hurt. Let us not be surprised or upset if we find a few of these arrows flying
towards us.
right and wrong, but she, too, hopes that when she walks out of the studio that the law of gravity holds
true and that she doesnt go flying into outer space.
The behaviorist may claim that genetics and the environment are the root cause behind adultery,
but that does not prevent him from getting mad when his spouse of twenty years is caught in an affair
with his best friend. For some reason, he forgets to take out his anger on the laws of nature but instead
places the blame on his wife and friend. No one, according to William Lane Craig, professor of
philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, employs postmodern hermeneutics in reading the instructions
on a medicine bottle.[14.18]Nihilists may mean well, but they cannot consistently live without meaning.
It is true that when Christians behave in a way that is inconsistent with their worldview, they
often suffer the consequences. Though Christians are not exempt from the consequences of their
hypocrisy, nihilists are required to be hypocritical if they want to function at all. If nihilists seek to live
according to their worldview by refusing to submit to absolutes, then they will knowingly jeopardize their
health in the process. In other words, Christians are frustrated when they fail to practice what they
believe, while nihilists are frustrated when they practice what they believe. Because of this, nihilism can
not be a worldview that is intellectually worth accepting.
Conclusion
The circular problem with the naturalistic worldview is that naturalism leads round to
determinism and empiricism, and empiricism says truth is only obtained inductively by sense perception,
and this leads around to determinism, which concludes by coming back around to relativism and nihilism,
which says nothing makes sense. Naturalists start the conversation by saying that the laws of nature
control everything, but conclude by denying that there are such things as universal laws of nature.
Ultimately, the collective system of the naturalistic worldview, with all of its logical consequences, ends
in meaninglessness. It is not that science is defective, but that, if there is no God, science only leads to
despair and irrational absurdity. It is clear that the naturalistic worldview cannot support its own basic
presuppositions; hence it deconstructs under the pressure of its own weight. Without presupposing God,
madness is all that remains.
To understand the absurdity of existentialism, think about the design of a carpenters hammer.
Whoever designed the hammer had a particular purpose in mind pounding nails into things. For the
hammer, its design and intended purpose preceded its existence. Yet, for the existentialist, the hammer,
by chance, just so happens to exist for no particular reason or purpose at all. It just happened to evolve
from nothing. There is no God, thus no designer. The hammer just so happens to exist, and we just so
happen to find it lying on the ground. What is it? It does not matter, we get to decide its meaning for
ourselves. For us free thinkers, existence precedes meaning. We are free to use the hammer however
we please. How about we use the hammer as a bowl? For since we have sold our inheritance for some of
Esaus delicious soup, we need a container in which to store it. Who cares if the hammer is inadequate
and our soup spills on the ground in the process, at least we will not have God telling us what to do.
Moreover, nature itself sufficiently teaches us that design precedes purpose and not vice versa.
The sun, the moon, trees, rivers, snakes, snails, lungs, bones, teeth, and everything else in nature have a
pre-established purpose. These artifacts of nature are good at what they do because they were made to
do what they do. We may arbitrarily say that teeth are not for chewing and lungs are not for breathing,
but we will look silly in the process. We may say that men and women are not created for each other, but
the very design of the human anatomy tells us that same sex couples do not properly fit together and are
unable to procreate. Existentialism is irrational, but man has proven that he would rather do as he
wishes than maintain his sanity.
God is dead, claimed Nietzsche. According to Nietzsche, modern man has finally removed the
need for any supernatural explanation for the universe. The superstitious idea of God, which primitive
man needed to explain such things as lunar eclipses and natural disasters, can no longer be sustained by
modern and liberated thinkers.
Nietzsche understood the high cost of eliminating God from our lives our morals would have to
come from some other source. Since God is dead, we must look to nature for the answers. Once the sin
against God was the greatest sin, Nietzsche claimed, but God died, and these sinners died with him.
To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable
higher than the meaning of the earth.[15.5] What do we learn when we look at nature? We learn the
importance of reproduction, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest.
Nature is often cruel, but the process of evolving is the ultimate goal. Herein, Nietzsche claimed,
lay the meaning for mans existence and his ethical code for living. He argued that civilization has
evolved from the animal world by the assertions of the strong over the weak. Civilization will only
continue to make progress when the noble, wise, strong, and mighty decide to conquer and overpower
the weak and the feeble. Thus, selfish and ambitious desires are not to be considered as evil but good.
Concerning Nietzsches philosophy, historian Will Durant (1885-1981) remarked:
If life is a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive, then strength is the ultimate
virtue, and weakness the only fault. Good is that which survives, which wins; bad is that which
gives way and failsThe ultimate ethic is biological; we must judge things according to their
value for life.[15.6]
To live well, according to Nietzsche, is to allow all your intellectual powers and ambitious
passions to run free from, and unshackled by, any superstitious religious restraints. Remarking on this
ethical framework, Durant stated: The best thing in man is strength of will, power and permanence of
passion; without passion one is mere milk, incapable of deeds. Greed, envy, even hatred, are
indispensable items in the process of struggle, selection and survival.[15.7] Nietzsche declared, I have
often dreamed it must be still more blessed to steal than to receive.[15.8] In his book Beyond Good and
Evil, Nietzsche was audacious enough to say:
To abstain from mutual injury, violence, exploitation, to equate ones will with someone
elsesreveals itself as will towards the denial of life, the principle of dissolution and decaylife
itself essentially consists of dispossessing, injuring, overpowering the foreign and the more
feeble, suppression, severity, imposing ones own forms, annexing and at least at mildest
exploiting.
Even Charles Darwin realized the counterproductivity of hospitals and medical care:
We civilised men do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for
the imbecile, the maimed, and sick.Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate
their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself,
hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.[15.9]
Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who prized Nietzsche as having more
penetrating knowledge of himself than any man who ever lived or was likely to live, bemoaned the
reduction of the infant mortality rate brought about by technical progress of medicine because it works
against the beneficial effects of natural selection.[15.10]
For this reason, Christianity promoted what Nietzsche called a slave morality that legislates
dulling norms of rectitude, thereby fostering herd like quiescence and stigmatizing the highest human
types.[15.11] Rather than Christian virtues, such as pity, compassion, and kindness being helpful, they
are detrimental to the all-important evolutionary process. Christians believe in the dignity of man
because man is made in the image of God. Man is not an animal, thus human life is sacred and in need
of protection. This includes infants in the mothers womb and the elderly who need constant care. In
Christianity, the strong should protect the weak. But, according to Nietzsche, these Christian virtues
topple the mighty and rebel against natures law.[15.12]
In this evolutionary program, social progress requires the strong to willfully, actively, and
forcefully choose to obtain more power, and the only way to do so is to remove the weak and mentally
impotent. In the same way a farmer seeks to weed out his feeble cattle by breeding the stronger cattle,
society ought to weed out those individuals who are deformed and incompetent.[15.13] Nietzsche
claimed that marriage was made for this purpose, Thou shalt not only propagate thyself, but propagate
thyself upward![15.14] He also felt war was a useful means to this end. This might sound contradictory
to the enhancement of society, yet Nietzsche claimed that war should be encouraged. You say that a
good cause justifies war? . . . I say unto you: it is a good war that justifies any cause.[15.15] Superiority
is established the same way apes show their dominance by fighting their opponents. War is natural. War
is good. In the twisted words of this twisted man:
What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the will to power, and power itself
in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that
power is increasing, that resistance has been overcome. Not, contentment, but more power: not
peace, but war, not virtue, but efficiency. The weak and the botched shall perish; first principle of
our humanity. And they ought even to be helped to perish.[15.16]
Of course, this line of thinking was agreeable to Adolf Hitler who said: Those who want to live,
let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to
live.[15.17]
We must fight. If society is ever going to obtain more power, it must first will it. We must
choose power over submission and pity. Nietzsche believed the desire for power was imbedded within all
men by nature. Evolution has instilled this appetite in us all. All men are self-seeking; to deny this, is to
deny reality. On the other hand, to restrain this natural craving is detrimental to the self and to the
collective. Nietzsche asserted, What is most unforgivable in you is having the power to rule and not
wishing to. To will to power is only natural.[15.18]
By choosing (will to) power, individuals not only improve themselves, but they assist in the
creation of a new superior race of beings a race of Supermen (one reason why he is known as
Hitlers philosopher).[15.19] This superior race would improve society (the arts, sciences, literature, etc.).
Yes, this would eliminate the physically weak and mentally feeble, but these people do not contribute to
society anyway. They slow down the natural evolutionary process.
Nietzsche coined the term superman (bermensch, or overman) to explain the next phase of
mans evolution. Man has evolved from apes and that which will evolve from man is yet to appear.
What is ape to man? Nietzsche asked, A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be
just that for the overman (superman): a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your
way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is
more ape than ape.[15.20] Nietzsche went on to say, Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman .
. . What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not the end.[15.21] The end of man is Superman; a
new race of beings superior in every way to what humans are today. Whatever means is necessary to
reach this end must be carried out.
Yet, there is one glaring inconsistency with the existentialism of Nietzsche the superhuman
race will not occur without a cognitive and willful intent (the will to power) within men, but supposedly
past evolution took place without any cognitive planning within the species. It takes intelligent breeders
to match the stronger cattle together and it will take intelligent man to create the superman. Where in
nature was the willful intelligence that brought about the evolutionary process? It could not have been
God, for God is dead. In addition, the blind forces of nature often eliminate the strongest among us
because they do not distinguish between the strong and the weak. But this undermines Nietzsches
foundation. If, as he claimed, evolution does not take place without willful intent, then evolution could
not have occurred in the past without some external, intelligent guidance.
solution. In regards to belief in God, he denounced it: The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign
to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority
of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.[15.22]
Though Freud despised religious faith, he understood that atheism had its consequences: One
can hardly be wrong in concluding that the idea of life having a purpose stands and falls with the
religious system.[15.23] Though Freud did not think any definitive answer could be given for the
meaning of life, he concluded that people will not give up looking for happiness: They strive after
happiness; they want to become happy and remain so.[15.24] Yet, after listing the various unsuccessful
ways people typically try to find happiness, Freud acknowledged: The programme of becoming happy,
which the pleasure principle imposes on us, cannot be fulfilled; yet we must not indeed, we cannot
give up our efforts to bring it nearer to fulfillment by some means or other.[15.25] Though he compels
us to keep searching, he could not tell us where to look. Though he didnt want us to give up, he knew it
was futile to keep looking.
Freud was right about humanitys desire to be happy. It is self-evident that we do not inherently
possess happiness, or otherwise we would not be looking for it. Freud was also right in concluding that
without God, happiness is nowhere to be found. The well-meaning therapist may tell us that we do not
need others to be happy. She may even encourage us to love ourselves more and look within ourselves
for the answers that we are searching for. But this advice becomes foolish to the one who is banished to
a deserted island. If we were left totally alone, we would cling to a volleyball and make him into an
image of a friend and call him Wilson. We could love ourselves all we want, but we would still go mad.
Insanity would overtake us because the despair of loneliness would be overwhelming. The very thought
of living our lives alone is utterly depressing. This is because we were not made to be alone (Gen. 2:18).
We were made in Gods image so that we may have fellowship with God.
Even if we had all the power, fame, and fortune imaginable, we would still be lonely and
miserable without any true friends. We may think that all we need is money to be happy, but even with
unlimited buying power we would still be searching. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear
filled with hearing (Ecc. 1:8). The bodily passions and the cravings of the five senses are never
satisfied. We may love our exotic sports cars, but they will never love us back. There must be something
more to life than just accumulating possessions. Likewise, fame and power do little to meet the deepest
longings of the heart.
When I was younger, I traveled to Europe and toured the Swiss Alps alone. The sights were
breathtaking, but the experience had an empty feeling to it. Who enjoys going to the movie theater or a
nice restaurant alone? We naturally want to experience life with someone else. All of our best memories,
the ones we could not stand to lose, have at least one other person included in them. We are made for
relationships.
A few months ago, I had the privilege of holding my third son, Britain, just moments after his
birth. There is no feeling like it in the world. My own son! For those fleeting moments, the beauty of new
life removed the scales from my eyes and allowed a glimpse into the meaning of life. When we have
found that which is worth dying for, then we have discovered that which is worth living for. Though little
Britain did not know or love me, I could not help but find the greatest joy and happiness in clinging to
him.
As much as I love and find happiness in my baby boy though, such happiness, as unnerving as it
is, will not be permanent. There will be many years where I will sacrifice myself in service to him, while
he in return gives me more defiled diapers. You see, in fatherhood and motherhood, there is a greater
happiness still that lurks, and has yet to be found. It is the child in all of us crying out for a father who
despite our inadequacies, loves us permanently and infinitely, even when we do not deserve it. Because
when we are sacrificially serving and loving our children, we instinctively want and wish for a similar
kind of love ourselves. A loving relationship we know we are all lacking, and if sought after in this world,
truly, will never be found. There is only one who gives everlasting and unfailing love such as this, and it
is God. As George Park Fisher summarizes, There is in the human spirit a profound need for God. This is
grown out of the fact that we are not only finite, but consciously finite, and not sufficient for
ourselves.[15.26]
We were made in His image so that we may have a relationship with Him, but we will not recover
our joy and purpose until that image and relationship is renewed in Christ. For this reason, I agree with
Alister McGrath, professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford, who said: We are created
with an inbuilt yearning for God, famously expressed in the prayer of Augustine of Hippo (354-430): You
have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in you.[15.27]
To treasure Christ and to know that He treasures us is the key to happiness; it is the true meaning
of life. If we were made for Him, then we will never be fulfilled without Him. Gods commandments to
love Him with all of our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves arent given merely to restrict us
from having fun. They are keys to our own personal meaning and happiness.
Nietzsche may have thought that selfishness and lust for power were the keys to life, but in those
last few years of his life he depended on the unselfishness of his mother. After all his friends forsook
him and he went completely insane, he would have died all alone if it were not for his Christian mother
showing him love and compassion.
Existentialists may not want to submit to Gods design for them, but no matter what they choose
to dedicate their lives to, they will remain miserable outside of a personal relationship with God through
Jesus Christ. Frustration only comes when trying to use something for which it was not designed.
Pragmatism may work in the short term, but eventually the shoe will fall apart if we keep using it
as a hammer. In the same way, when I was much younger, I had the clever idea to clean my fish tank
with toilet tissue. As you might suspect, rather than cleaning the tank, the tissue did what tissue is
designed to do dissolve in water in a fairly quick fashion. As I attempted to clean the algae off the
sides of the tank, things went from bad to worse. The tissue broke up into a billion pieces, which clogged
the filter and fogged up the water. Just how the tissue disintegrated and lost all purpose, so too do we
lose our purpose when we do not dedicate our lives to what we were designed to do.
Conclusion
Ultimately, we were created to walk with God. If we evict Him from our lives, we drive ourselves
into captivity. God does not need us in order to be happy. He, as God, is self-sufficient. The Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are eternally happy and glorified with the love that they have for each other from all
eternity. We, on the other hand, will never find purpose, meaning, or happiness without Him. No amount
of power or money will ever satisfy us. Not even ruling and having governance over the universe will
leave us satisfied. We are not self-sufficient. We will never find the love we are looking for apart from
Him. We were not designed to live life without a relationship with God. This is why we need divine
revelation. Thus, we only hurt ourselves when we forsake God and close our ears to what He has said to
us in His Word. No wonder so many people, who are separated from the joy of the Lord, are so
miserable. And they will remain in this wretched state as long as they continue to intellectually and
practically live their lives without Him.
I dont know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not
know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just not to know it. What can a meaning
outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what
resists me that is what I understand. And these two certainties my appetite for the absolute
and for unity and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle I
also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without
bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing?[16.16]
Though life is a bad joke, according to Camus, the only way to get through it was to rebel and
embrace the absurdity of it all. Rather than looking to God, as Solomon once did, Camus suggested we
accept our fate and acknowledge the meaninglessness of life and continue to march up the pointless
mountain. He tells us to defy the truth by strapping that rock on our backs and climbing the mountain of
absurdity because the only other option is suicide.
Though Camus embraced the absurdity of life, other atheists could not bear to succumb to such
despair. According to many atheists, we must create our own way in the world. We must create meaning
for ourselves. For example, the French biochemist Jacques Monod unashamedly put man in the place of
God by dogmatically preaching that we, as autonomous creatures, are free to choose our own meaning:
The ancient covenant is in pieces; man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling
immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged by chance. Neither his destiny, nor his duty
have been written down. The kingdom above or the darkness below; it is for him to choose.
[16.17]
Social theorist Jeremy Rifkin was even more daring when he said:
We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone elses home and therefore feel
obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation
now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world and,
because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our
behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside
ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever.[16.18]
With God pushed aside, external values and meaning are pushed aside as well. How to live and
what to live for are not questions that have external answers. Mankind is left alone to discover or create
these answers. If God is dead, then, Muggeridge concluded, somebody is going to have to take his
place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched
fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.[16.19]
Some existentialists have concluded that the meaning of life is power and others have resorted
to a life of hedonism. But regardless of what answer is supplied, existentialism is finite mans attempt
to create meaning in a meaningless world without a divine dictionary.
Conclusion
Everyones presuppositions about God, knowledge, and ethics determines their worldview. As we
have seen, naturalists begin with a precommitment to the belief that God is irrelevant. When the cosmos
is all that remains, there is neither any epistemic warrant for knowledge nor any ethical foundation for
the purpose of life. And when there is no warrant for knowledge and ethics, then there is no warrant to
believe anything at all. In the end, naturalism is an atheistic and self-contradictory worldview that only
ends in despair.
From the starting presupposition that the cosmos can explain itself without any supernatural
revelation comes materialism, empiricism, determinism, relativism, nihilism, and existentialism. On the
foundation of naturalism, Modernity began with the confidence that man was self-sufficient to discover
an all-encompassing explanation of all things.
The original objective of Modernity was not to kill God as much as it was to explain all things,
including God, without the assistance of God. Modernity was rooted in the self-confidence of mans selfsufficiency.
Yet, after many years of disappointment, when it became evident that a grand metanarrative
could not be discovered from a finite reference point, Modernity has succumbed to Postmodernity. And
Postmodernity has not declared the death of God but the death of truth. Because we are not selfsufficient, this is what we get when we refuse to look to God meaninglessness and hopelessness.
In Hinduism, the Ultimate Being is Brahman, which is something that cannot be defined, for it is
undifferentiated and beyond existence or being itself. Brahman could be nothing as much as it could be
something. To be reunited with Brahman, the soul must be liberated (Moksha) from the wheel of karma
and Samsara (reincarnations) by reaching nirvana through either the Way of Works, or the Way of
Knowledge, or the Way of Devotion. Only afterwards will the soul be free from the pain and suffering
that comes with being chained to a physical and bodily existence.
Jainism
In Jainism the path (Dharma) for the soul to escape its physical bondage is through right belief,
right knowledge, and an ascetic denial of the flesh as listed in the Five Great Vows of renunciation
which are: (1) killing, (2) lying, (3) stealing, (4) sexual pleasure, and (5) worldly attachment.
Buddhism
Nirvana, the release of suffering and binding attachment, is reached in Buddhism not through
extreme asceticism or hedonism, but through a Middle Path of knowledge and enlightenment.
Enlightenment is obtained through the Eightfold Path: (1) Right knowledge acceptance of the four
Noble Truths, (a) believing in the existence of suffering, (b) suffering is caused by our bodily cravings, (c)
we cannot be free without our bodily cravings being extinguished, and (d) bodily cravings are
extinguished by following the Eightfold Path. (2) Right resolves renouncing bodily pleasures and
harboring ill towards any living creature. (3) Right speech cease lying, gossiping, and idle talking. (4)
Right behavior do not kill, steal, or fornicate. (5) Right occupation earning your living without
exploiting or harming others. (6) Right effort resolving to put the proper effort in eliminating our sinful
qualities and increasing our good qualities until we are perfected. (7) Right contemplation being
observant, strenuous, and alert in striving to free ourselves from desire and suffering. (8) Right
meditation once we have abandoned all desires and are free from suffering, then nirvana can be
reached through right meditation. Afterwards, we are one with the Ultimate Being (Brahman).
Other Eastern (Mystical) Religions
Along with Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, many of the other mystical worldviews such as
Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and the New Age movement hold to an impersonal Ultimate Being. These
different worldviews may give different answers regarding how we are to become enlightened or united
with deity, but the one thing they hold in common is that the Divine (what ever its relationship is to the
universe) is utterly unknowable. Ultimate Being does not have properties that are in any way similar to
anything that we know. Ultimate Being is entirely transcendent; it is not a person or even a conscious
being. It is not even a force because a force implies power, and power is something that can be
experienced and talked about. Even the phrase Ultimate Being is merely an empty symbol that points to
something that is beyond being altogether. It is beyond existence or being. What is it? The point is, we
cannot know.
unknowable? Did God tell him? Did the guru see this unknowable God behind a rock? Did he have a
magical encounter with this unknowable being?
Moreover, if a guru says that he has experienced this unknowable God, does he not deny the
unknowablity of God? An experience with God is at least a connection with God. Any connection
demands that there is at least a point of similarity between God and man. To connect with God there has
to be some kind of analogous relationship with God be it ever so slim. Wherever this point of similarity
may lie, it means that God cannot be absolutely transcendent from man. If God is utterly unknowable, it
is a contradiction to claim that there is a path to enlightenment. Is the guru not talking out of both sides
of his mouth when he says, God is unknowable, but here is how you can know/experience him? I guess
that these are the same gurus that enjoy listening to one-handed people applauding their teachings.
Without an authoritative revelation from a personal God, who is to say that mysticism,
contemplative prayers, yoga, asceticism, self-flagellation, Upper Way, Middle Way, or Lower Way brings
enlightenment and union with the unknowable God. Without a God who can communicate, finite and
fallible man is left to grope around aimlessly in the darkness. Man may arbitrarily articulate various
conjectures on how to live, but without any concrete authority, impersonal-supernaturalism (in any of its
forms) is basically no different than the absurdity of naturalism, for knowledge is restricted to only that
which is contained in the visible universe. Thus, because the mystical worldviews are existentialist in
practice believing they must find meaning on their own because their God has restricted access to
them from finding it it is no wonder that many succumb to agnosticism and atheism. For if God is
unknowable, then whats the point in trying to know God. However, once agnosticism and atheism are
admitted, all knowledge ends in relativism and nihilism, which causes impersonal-supernaturalism to be
inconsistent with itself.
absurdity of naturalism.
Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that God and nature are one and the same. Paul Harrison, the President of
the World Pantheist Movement, gives a simple definition of pantheism: All is God.[17.1] Benedict de
Spinoza (1632-1677), the great prophet for pantheism, preached that, besides God no substance can be,
nor can be conceivedHence it follows with the greatest clearnessthat God is one, that is to say, in
nature there is but one substance.[17.2]
The key to Spinozas philosophy is his monism: that is to say, the idea that there is only one
substance, the infinite divine substance which is identical with Nature: Deus sive Natura, God or Nature.
The identification of God and Nature can be understood in two quite different ways. If one takes
Spinozas message to be that God is just a picturesque way of referring to the ordered system of the
natural universe, then he will appear to be an atheist. On the other hand, if one takes him to be saying
that when scientists talk of Nature they are really talking all the time about God, then he will appear to
be, in Kierkegaards words, a God-intoxicated man.[17.3]
Though many pantheists want to hug trees as they worship the universe, at the heart of their
mystical worship is atheism. Because pantheism is simply naturalism with the term God added to their
love of Nature, pantheism partakes of the same inconsistency as naturalism. Why worship Nature, when
Nature cannot give account for its own existence?
Panentheism
Panentheism is similar to pantheism, but rather than God and Nature being one, panentheism
says that nature is separate from but located in God. Rather than being monistic, panentheism is
dualistic. Nature is in God. As the body is the house of the human soul, the universe is the house of the
World-Soul. But what are the properties of the World-Soul? If the World-Soul is impersonal, if it cannot
think or have willful intent, what good is it? Does it even exist? If the World-Soul remains an impersonal
and unknowable force that cannot communicate itself to us, then we still remain alone with no ultimate
meaning and purpose in life.
Polytheism
Many of the polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, are rooted in a mixture of
henotheism and atheistic beliefs. Though this sounds strange, we must remember that there is one
Ultimate Being (henotheism), Brahman, which is completely unknowable and is beyond the idea of being
and existence (atheistic).
Even more perplexing is the idea that this non-existent and unknowable God created or emanated
all that exists in the universe. Because the universe is the emanation of God, God is everywhere in the
universe. The various powers of Nature are manifestations of Brahman. Because these powers are
manifestations of Brahman, they deserve worship and are given proper names. Brahma is the creator of
the universe, while Shiva is the god of destruction. Vishnu is the goddess of preservation. Ganesha, the
elephant-god, is the god of wisdom and knowledge.
These are but a few of the 33 million gods of Hinduism. Yet, these polytheistic gods are not all
together distinct deities as much as they are different manifestations of the unknowable and impersonal
being, which supposedly goes beyond existence and being. Though some of these gods are stronger
manifestations of Brahman, they all remain as expressions of the different attributes of Brahman. This
means that even the weakest idols supposedly have some spark of deity within them. As there can be
many distinctions that can be made in the universe, so there can be many gods who manifest the one
Ultimate Being.
An elephant-man can be created out of stone and placed in a temple to be worshiped. The
worshipers may believe that this idol contains within it the spirit of Ganesha, but they are worshiping a
manifestation of a god that is merely a manifestation of Brahman, which is a god that does not even
exist. Because Brahman is beyond the reach of worship, polytheists worship various emanations of
Brahman. If, however, Brahman is utterly beyond the universe, then how are these polytheistic gods
(Shiva, Vishnu, and Ganesha) emanations of Brahman? Does not an infinite gap between Brahman and
Ganesha still remain? If we can connect with the various polytheistic gods, which somehow are
connected with Brahman, would that not mean that there is a real connection between Brahman and us?
And if there is a real connection between Brahman and us (via the gods), would this not make Brahman
knowable? Is this not a fundamental contradiction?
On the other hand, if God is totally imminent, then these two circles perfectly overlap each other
with no distention between them. If the universe and God are one and the same, then this too makes
Therefore, it is not only a contradiction for God to be both transcendent and imminent, but
without God making man in His own image, it would be impossible for man to know God. For knowledge
of God to be possible, the two circles that represent God and the universe cannot either be totally
separate or be totally overlapping, but merely connecting with each other. In other words, to resolve the
tension, God and man must neither be one and the same nor totally different, but rather analogous to
each other.
Various mystics may claim that we can climb our way to enlightenment and lose our individuality
and bodily passions as we are merged into the Ultimate Reality, but whatever path they suggest we take,
afterwards they are forced to deny the validity of that path when they say that God is beyond knowledge
itself.
The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus (204-270) would have us escape individuality and be united
with the One (Ultimate Being) by first meditating on universal concepts and afterwards having us turn off
all cognitive thought as we take a leap into the darkness. Buddha would have us travel down the
Eightfold Path before we lose consciousness and individuality as we are merged into Brahman as a drop
of water is absorbed into the sea.
The ladder reaching up to God, however, falls apart at the last step. If God is utterly unknowable,
there is no ladder long enough to reach Him. Plotinus may say that universal concepts (such as unity and
oneness) are closer to the One than particular concepts (e.g., a blade of grass and an individual oak
tree), and Hinduism may say that Vishnu is a greater manifestation of Brahman than Hanuman (an ape
like god that assists Rama, who is the seventh avatar of Vishnu), but regardless of which god or concept
is the closest to the Ultimate Reality, there remains an infinite gap between that last step and nirvana.
The gods are merely symbols, and the symbols become even less than symbols because there is
no connection between the symbol and Ultimate Reality. No matter how close together the steps at the
bottom of the ladder are, it will always remain impossible to climb our way to an unknowable God seeing
there is an infinite gap between the last step and the ineffable being. Thus, mysticism, in all of its forms,
undermines its own foundation.
In addition, if we blend Gods transcendence with His imminence, then this impersonal God
becomes the cause of evil. If God is all, or is in all, with no distinction, then this Ultimate Being is also
one with all that is evil. As long as the physical universe is an emanation of God, then evil must also be
an emanation of God as well. Ultimately, then, God is to blame for all the evil and suffering in the world.
It is not that mystical thinkers are not aware of these logical contradictions. In fact, many of them
would argue that logical consistency is merely a Western concern. Though they may say such things,
however, they dont really mean what they say. They value honesty as much as we do. If we travel to the
East, we will notice that even there, 1 + 1 = 2. In the same way that the laws of physics apply to us in the
West, they apply to those living in Asia.
No matter where we travel, we will discover that the laws of logic are universally true. A
contradiction is a contradiction no matter where it is located or who says it.
Conclusion
Like naturalism, impersonal-supernaturalism cannot give consistent answers to the three ultimate
questions of life concerning God, knowledge, and ethics. Rather than saying God is irrelevant,
impersonal-supernaturalists claim that God is unknowable. In both cases, their worldviews end in the
same place self-referentially absurd. For without a personal God who has revealed Himself to man,
there are no grounds for knowledge and ethics; and without just grounds for knowledge and ethics, there
are no grounds to justify their starting presupposition of a non-existent and impersonal God.
God can forgive the unjust is safely and beautifully preserved in the Christian worldview, in which God
has sent His only begotten Son to fulfill the requirements of the law and to endure the justice and wrath
of the law on the cross for all those whom He legally represents.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the
Law and the Prophets bear witness to it the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ
for all who believe . . . It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be
just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:21-26).
God can be gracious and just at the same time, for justice and mercy kiss each other at the foot
of the cross. For the sake of those who believe, God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin, so that in
him [believers] might become the righteousness of God (1 Cor. 5:21). We can do nothing to earn or gain
Gods legal approval, but by faith alone, in Christ alone, we may be forgiven of all our sins. In Christ
alone we may be declared innocent and righteous before a just and holy God.
This is the gospel of free grace, which is the only answer to mans guilt. We can seek to do all the
good we want, but the skeletons in our closest will always remain behind closed doors, for our shame
and guilt cannot be washed away by religious acts of compensation.
Guilt is the problem, and good works are not the solution. We need the offended party to forgive
us. We need a legal substitute to stand in our place, to pay for our crimes, and to merit the
righteousness that we need to stand before a just God. We need God to forgive us, and only the God of
the Bible is able to forgive us while remaining true to His own righteous character. The gospel of Jesus
Christ makes forgiveness possible. For this reason, Christ is the only way to God. The Lord Jesus made
this abundantly clear when He said, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me (John 14:6).
others. If there were no God and only a single person existed, sin and selfishness could not exist. A
single individual in complete isolation could not steal, cheat, gossip, lie, covet, or kill. He also could not
be unselfish or selfish. He could not be bad, but neither could he be good. It takes at least two persons
for morality to exist. In this way, the law and love exist because of relationships.
Thus, the purpose of the moral law is to create and sustain happy and meaningful relationships
with God and with one another. Because we were made for relationships, the key to our happiness is
found in loving God with all of our hearts and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
The Problem of Love
In like manner, though there is only one God, there are three persons in the Godhead. God is one
in nature but three in persons. This, I believe, not only makes God eternally complete and happy in
Himself, but also provides God an avenue to eternally express His love a love that is not inwardly
focused. God the Father eternally loves and seeks the glory of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Likewise, the Son and Holy Spirit eternally seek the glory of God the Father (John 16:14-15). Each
of the three persons know and love each other perfectly. This love is not inwardly focused, for God, by
His very nature, is the ultimate giver. As Michael Reeves points out: If God were just one person, then
love of the other would not be central to his being.[18.1]
Jonathan Edwards also recognized that Gods goodness required for Him to be more than a
monistic being:
It appears that there must be more than a unity in infinite and eternal essence, otherwise
the goodness of God can have no perfect exercise. To be perfectly good is to incline to and
delight in making another happy in the same proportion as it is happy itself, that is, to delight as
much in communicating happiness to another as in enjoying of it himself, and an inclination to
communicate all his happiness; it appears that this is perfect goodness, because goodness is
delight in communicating happiness.[18.2]
Augustine, in his book The Trinity, went a step further and said not only must God not be
monistic, but he must be triune for Him to love.[18.3] Not just two, but three persons are needed for God
to be love because, as Augustine explains, love requires three things: a subject, an object, and an
expression. That is, love involves a person who loves, a person who is loved, and a channel of
communicating love from the lover to the beloved, and that these three requirements, can truly only be
eternally satisfied by the Father who loves the Son through the Holy Spirit, and visa versa.
How does the Father love the Son? He loves by giving Himself. But how does the Father give
Himself to the Son? He gives Himself to the Son by the operation of the Spirit. The Spirit exhaustively
knows the Father (by His co-indwelling in Him) and takes what belongs to the Father and communicates
it to the Son. In other words, God loves by giving Himself to the Son by the means of the Holy Spirit.
The Problem of Relationships
But even though this view is appealing, I remain unconvinced that only a triune could God have
the propensity to love. So really, it is not so much as three persons (as we would recognize the term)
are necessary, but two, for there must be at least two eternal and coequal persons subsisting within the
Godhead, giving and receiving love with each other, for God to be love. According to C. S. Lewis:
All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that God is love. But
they seem not to notice that the words God is love have no real meaning unless God contains at
least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single
person, then before the world was made, He was not love.[18.4]
In reference to this statement, Robert Letham, senior lecturer in systematic and historical
theology at Wales Evangelical School of Theology, states, If he were not love, he could not be personal,
either.[18.5] Letham went on to say:
Only a God who is triune can be personal. Only the Holy Trinity can be love. Human love
cannot possibly reflect the nature of God as a Trinity of persons in union and communion. A
solitary monad cannot love and, since it cannot love, neither can it be a person.[18.6]
Furthermore, Gods glory is not a single attribute as much as it is the radiance of all Gods
attributes. Glory shines forth out of God. Gods glory is the proper value that comes with knowing and
appreciating God, therefore, Gods glory requires an eyewitness. It requires appreciation. These
requirements can only be eternally satisfied by a multiplicity of persons within a Godhead who perfectly
appreciate each other.
So the eternal glory that is shared within the Godhead consists of each of the three persons
giving Himself to the other persons, and the other persons properly admiring the beauty, majesty, and
honor of the other. The glory of God is the infinite value that each of the three persons of the Trinity
place on one another. Or to put it another way, it is this appreciation between the three persons of the
Godhead that allows the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to love and glorify each other perfectly.
This means that the intertrinitarian love is not selfish. The Fathers love does not seek its own,
but rather the glory and honor of the Son, and likewise the desire of the Son and Spirit is to shine forth
glory and honor upon the other persons of the blessed Trinity. In this we see the perfect relationship that
is rooted in love and righteousness.
The Problem of Communication
Love, by its very nature, seeks to give and share. Yet, if God was a single person, the desire to
share and communicate would not be essential to His nature. And if sharing was not essential to Gods
nature, why would He share and reveal Himself to us? For this reason, Michael Reeves asks:
If God is a single person, and has always been alone, why should he speak? In the
loneliness of eternity before creation, who would he have spoken to? And why would he start
now? The habit of keeping to himself would run deep. Such a God would be far more likely to
remain unknown.[18.7]
In other words, if God was not essentially a relational and personal being, there would be no
inherent motive to share, love, and communicate Himself to us. But God is love because God is
trinitarian. Thus, it is inherent within His nature to communicate and share Himself.
Because God is love, the Father loves by communicating and sharing the greatest object of His
affection His Son (Matt. 16:17). The Son, in turn, loves us by revealing the Father (John 14:6), and the
Spirit loves us by sharing the Father and the Son (1 Cor. 1:30). Each person, it is seen, finds pleasure in
revealing the glory of the other persons. Therefore, we can know God because God is triune and He
naturally gives, shares, and communicates Himself to others something that could not be said about a
monistic deity.
Moreover, when God communicates love and joy to us, according to Jonathan Edwards, He is not
simply conveying the concepts of love and joy, but rather He communicates in such a way that he
bestows the affections of love and joyfulness.[18.8] Philosophers and theologians can seek to explain
the theoretical meaning of these concepts, but they cannot actually give the experience of love and joy
to their readers. God, on the other hand, because He is the source of all love and joy, can bestow these
things by giving us Himself. God is love and in Him is unspeakable joy.
Therefore, to the degree we know and experience God will be the measure in which we will know
and experience love and joy.
God delights in communicating happiness to others as much as He delights in enjoying happiness
for Himself. For God enjoys sharing the enjoyment that He enjoys, and since God finds enjoyment in
Himself, He thus loves communicating Himself to others.
So what is Gods love? It is the three persons of the Trinity investing their happiness in the
happiness of each other by seeking to share their happiness with each other so that they remain united
together in a single happiness. As we like to share our favorite things with the people we love the most,
each person of the Godhead loves to share their life, glory, love, and joy with each other. Because God
loves the Son, He loves to share His Son with the Spirit. They each love to share themselves and each
other. And this is how God loves us. God shares His life, glory, love, and joy with us so that we too can
be satisfied in the life, glory, love, and joy that comes from a saving knowledge of Him (John 17:22).
In other words, the loving relationship that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share with each other
from all eternity is the relationship that God has freely chosen to share with His people (John 17:26). The
Father gives His Son to His people. The Son, as the eternal Word, reveals the Father. And the Spirit brings
believers into communion with the Father and the Son. The greatest gift of all has been offered to
mankind an invitation to join in and experience the glorious joy and unending love found only between
the Mosh High Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, this is love!
Without the Trinity, morality and love would only be an abstract concept in the mind of God.
Allah may be a god who can command obedience, but his commands would not be rooted in love. As
single-person god, Allah is inherently selfish. In eternity past, Allah may have admired himself, but he
could not have enjoyed or loved anyone else. Allah is left to his own self-consciousness.
Self-appreciation is warranted if you happen to be God, but self-appreciation alone does not
warrant an eternal morality, for it lacks any meaningful relationship since there is no essential and
inherent desire to personally communicate and share with others. So indeed, since Allah cannot account
for his own eternal righteousness, he fails to be a god of love.
Conclusion
Gods law, Gods love, Gods personhood, and Gods communicativeness are essential and
eternal because God is triune. Only the God of the Bible can explain why there is an universal moral
standard and only the God of the Bible is able to justly forgive all those who come to Him in repentance
and faith through the work of His Son dying on the cross. In short, no other worldview, philosophy, or
religion has a coherent answer for mans guilt.
Ultimate reality is both unity and diversity, such as we discover in the doctrine of the Trinity. The one
and the many are equally ultimate as there is only one God who subsists in three distinct persons. We
can have both unity and diversity as ultimate because we have a triune God who is ultimate.
The equal ultimacy of God is important, even vital, for a cohesive worldview. Though some argue
that the Trinity is a contradiction, it is the doctrine of the Trinity which provides the coherency of the
Christian worldview. Without the Trinity, everything deconstructs into meaninglessness.
For instance, Allah is one. In the Quran it reads: He is Allah, the One (Sura 39:4). But this does
not mean one in number, for that which has no second cannot exist in a numerical form. According to
Vincent J. Cornell, a scholar of Islamic studies and director of the King Fahd Center of Middle East and
Islamic Studies at the University of Arkansas: God is one in the sense that there is no multiplicity or
division conceivable in Him, neither outwardly, nor in the mind, nor in the imagination. God alone
possesses such unity.[19.2]
Concerning Judaism, the renowned Rabbi and Torah scholar Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides,
1135-1204) stated:
This God is one; He is neither two nor more than two; He is simply one. His unity is not
like any other oneness that exists in the world. His is not the unity of a kind that encompasses
many other single particulars; and it is not like the unity of a body that is divided into parts and
extremities; rather it is a unity that is entirely unlike any other sort of oneness in the universe.
[19.3]
Likewise, the theistic god of Aristotle, the Unmoved Mover, is an immaterial, infinite, eternal,
immutable being who is pure actuality. Because He is immaterial, He is a simple being without body,
parts, or composition. Because He is eternal, He exists in a timeless and motionless state. He is pure
actuality (actus purus) that is without any movement whatsoever. He is not like man who is in flux and
ever changing. God is perfectly immutable. God is not becoming He is what He is and all that He is
without any change or differentiation.
Man knows there is an infinite, eternal, and immutable God, but without special revelation,
natural theology will never properly lead us to believe God is a Trinity. All these wonderful attributes
(immateriality, infinity, eternality, and immutability), however great they are, without the balance of the
Trinity, logically lead to the inconsistency of monistic pantheism.
But this not only robs God of any emotional and personal interaction with creation, it robs God of
all cognitive interaction. Once Gods emotions are limited by Gods heart being absorbed into the sea of
Gods simplicity, Gods mind must be absorbed into this same ineffable sea as well.
If God cannot distinguish between His attributes, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, as pointed out
in chapter 3, God cannot distinguish between Himself and that which is not Himself. Such contemplation
implies a distinction between the self-awareness of the one who is thinking and that which is being
thought upon.
For Aristotle, though God is pure thought, he cannot think in any true sense of the word because
thinking consists of composite thoughts. Thinking is differentiating between things. And because
thought is moved by the object of thought,[19.9] contemplation cannot be contributed to the
unmovable God. Consequently, God cannot know the particulars of the universe, for He can only know
that which is indivisible. Because the only indivisible substance is God, God can only know Himself.
[19.10]
Thus, the god of Aristotle, according to B. A. G. Fuller (1879-1956), a former president of the
American Philosophical Association, knows only himself with a knowledge in which there is distinction
neither of self from not-self, nor of the activity of thought as such from its content.[19.11] Fuller went
on to explain: All Gods life and thought are locked up. He knows nothing but it, nothing but
himself.[19.12] For this reason, Aristotle said that God is thinking upon thinking.[19.13] That is to
say, Gods essence cannot be distinguished from Gods thought. If God is what He is, then He is that
which He contemplates. God is what He is without any differentiation, then whatever information is in
the mind of God is the very essence of God. Pure simplicity, without any inherent diversity of any kind,
leads to this conclusion a God who cannot consciously think.
Again, according to this view of God, there can be no movement or motion in God without there
being a distinction within the essence of God. Consequently, this not only makes the universe eternal, it
makes the universe necessary and essential to the essence of God. That is, if the act of creating cannot
be separated from the undifferentiated attributes of God, then Gods act of creating the universe
becomes timelessly and eternally one with the essence of God. God and the universe are blended
together where the one becomes the other. This would also mean that there was never a time before the
foundation of the world where nothing existed but God alone. As in monistic pantheism, creation is an
essential property of God. God and creation are eternally united and inseparable. This ceases to make
creation a free act of Gods will that is subject to time, but merely an eternal emanation that cannot be
separated and distinguished from Gods essence. For God to be who He is, creation has to be what it is
making both God and the universe necessary and essential to one another.
Conclusion
Not only is the god of pantheism one with the universe, the god of pantheism ceases to be loving
and personal. He is a simple being who apathetically and blissfully exists in a cemented state of pure
and indivisible thought of Himself without any personal concern or contemplation of the ever changing
affairs of the universe that is full of particulars.
One may argue that this god of Aristotle is not Allah or the god of Judaism, but this is where a
pure unitarian/monistic god leads. For instance, the Arab-Islamic scholar Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (11651240) reduced the oneness of God (Tawhid) in Islam to its logical conclusion pantheism. Ibn Arabi
believed that the single and indivisible reality simultaneously transcends and is manifested in all things.
Likewise, the Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza did the same with Judaism in his book Ethics.[19.16]
And though many Muslims and Jews do not agree with Ibn Arabi or with Spinoza, this is where the
ultimacy of Gods oneness logically ends.
If we start with pure unity without any intrinsic diversity, then Ultimate Reality becomes more of
a blind, unknowable, and impersonal force than a personal and loving God who remains distinct from the
universe. A single-person god, if he/it could even be defined as a person, cannot love, care, and express
a diversity of emotions because there is no differentiation within his/its essence, thoughts, or acts. Such
a god as Allah or the god of Judaism becomes the god behind pantheism. And, as we have already seen
in chapter 17, pantheism is an incoherent worldview.
retain the trinitarian distinction, one must deny that every essential divine property or relation is
strongly equivalent.[20.5]
Consequently, there can be and there are essential and eternal distinctions within the very being
of God.[20.6] This implies that Gods simplicity must be understood in light of the diversity found in the
Trinity.[20.7] Specifically, Gods simplicity does not cancel out His multiplicity. To avoid the blank
identity of pantheism, Van Til claimed, we must insist on an identity that is exhaustively correlative to
the differentiations within the Godhead.[20.8]
If there were no formal differentiations within God, as with Allah, the Aristotelian Unmoved
Mover, and the god behind pantheism, then God would become pure unity without any diversity at all. In
fact, as pointed out in the last chapter, unitarian monotheism, in all of its forms, is reducible to monistic
pantheism.
communicating to one another, and sharing themselves with one another. And it is only because they are
inherently able to communicate and share themselves with each other like this that they are intrinsically
able to communicate and share themselves with us, who are made in the image of God.
In other words, divine communication is possible because God is triune. As all three persons of
the Godhead are involved in the process of communication: The Father reveals the Son (Matt. 16:17), the
Son reveals the Father (John 14:6), and the Spirit reveals the Father and the Son (1 Cor. 1:30). Each
person finds pleasure in revealing the glory of the other persons. Hence, we can know God because God
is triune something that could not be said about a monistic deity.
The ontological differentiation within God is vital in keeping the essence of God from becoming
conflated with the universe. This is because the equal ultimacy of God not only allows for diversity-inunity, but it also explains why an immutable God was able to create a distinct universe out of nothing (ex
nihilo) at a particular point in time.
Aristotle believed that motion (e.g., the pure motion of the stars) was eternal, for every act of
motion within the universe must be caused by a previous act of motion, which must be indefinite. Though
motion is infinite, there must be a prime mover to prevent the logical inconsistency of an eternal
regression. The solution, according to Aristotle, is that motion is the eternal effect of the eternal
Unmoved Mover making the unmovable God and the forever moving universe coeternal and
coessential.
Aristotle was right motionlessness and motion must both be eternal. There is no way around
this. For instance, if motionlessness (i.e., an Unmoved Mover) was not eternal, then we would be left
with an eternal regression of causes with no explanation of what or Who set off the first cause. On the
other hand, if motion was not eternal, then motion would not be essential to Gods nature. And if motion
was not essential to Gods nature, then God would depend upon something outside of Himself to move
and act. And if God was immobile and unable to exert acts of volitional power, then He could not have
created a temporal universe out of nothing. So, motionlessness and motion must both be eternal.
But how can both realities be eternal without God and creation being coeternal and coessential?
How can an unmovable God create something temporal if creating the universe requires an act of
movement within God? How can God be unmovable, yet capable of moving Himself to create? How do
we have a God who is above time and space, but is not locked out of time and space? How do we have a
God that is immutable to time-bound events, but is also able to carry out time-bound events, such as
creating and governing the universe?
The only solution is found in the triune God of the Bible. God is immutable without being
restricted to a static and motionless state. This is because God is one in His essence and three in His
persons. He is unchanging in His essence (which safeguards us from open theism).[20.14] However, in
this immutable and eternal state of perfection, the Father, as a distinct person, is intrinsically and
internally (ad intra) moved to love and glorify the Son, and likewise the Son and the Spirit are moved to
love and glorify the Father. They each are incited to share, communicate, give, love, and glorify the other
by the infinite worth that they consistently see in the other. They are in an eternal state of interacting
and sharing their glory with each other. That is, within the Godhead there is an eternal state of
movement (i.e., interaction) between the three persons without any change taking place in the unity of
Gods immutable essence.
The word automobile originated from the compound of two French words auto, which means self,
and mobile, which means movable. Thus, an automobile is something that moves itself. But truly this
cannot be said of man-made vehicles that require a driver and fuel. Vehicles dont move themselves.
Strictly speaking, the word automobile applies only to God. Only the triune God is autonomously selfmoving. Unlike Aristotles Unmoved Mover, the God of the Bible does not need the universe as a vehicle
of movement. God is not dependent on anything outside of Himself. God is not cemented in an
immovable state, for He can act, move, create, and do as He pleases.
To think, to love, to share, to communicate, and to act are all intrinsic abilities within a triune
God. Because the triune God is not restricted from having acts of motion within Himself, creating and
governing a universe that is separate and bound to time is not an impossibility. Creation does not have
to be eternal. Although God is not bound by time and space, He is not locked out of time or space either.
The God of the Bible is Lord of time and space as He is personally ever-present in all the particular
affairs of this world.[20.15] In short, because the three persons of the Trinity interact internally (ad intra)
with one another, the Godhead was able to create externally (ad extra) a temporal universe out of
nothing at a particular moment in time.
was atemporal.
If God is bound by timelessness, where did the universe come from? The only possible answer
that retains God as Creator is the notion that the universe has always existed as an eternal emanation
flowing from the undifferentiated essence of this Unmoved Mover. As light flows from the sun, the
universe has to be timelessly flowing out of God. Ultimately, without the Trinity, God and the universe
would be one and the same, as light is made of the same stuff as the sun. Consequently, even though an
atemporal god would be wholly other in His unknowable transcendence, He would be one with the
universe in His ontological immanence. While this is a blatant contradiction, it is the result of a god who
is barred from any temporal movement.
This obvious inconstancy, however, is safely resolved with the God of the Bible. With the Trinity
there is a clear Creator/ creature distinction, since God created the universe out of nothing at a
particular point in time. God alone existed before the foundation of the world. There was nothing else
but God until God (at a particular point in time) freely and intentionally spoke the universe into existence
out of nothing.And because the universe and God do not consist of the same ontological substance, God
remains transcendent. But He is also immanent because He is not barred from time as He personally
interacts with those whom He has made after His own likeness. This unity and diversity between God
and creation is possibly only because there is unity-in-diversity within the Godhead.
Conclusion
Only the trinitarian God of the Bible can be both ultimate and personal. For this reason, the
Trinity is the only solution to the ultimate questions of life relating to (1.) metaphysics, (2.) epistemology,
and (3.) ethics. First, as already pointed out, metaphysics is concerned about what is real or ultimate; and
only the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity within the Trinity can properly explain the eternality of God
and the existence of the temporal universe. Second, the epistemological problem of how we know what
we know is exclusively resolved with the triune God of the Bible who is able to reveal Himself to man. As
we have seen, all knowledge is rooted in the revelation of God, and only a trinitarian God can reveal
Himself to man. Third, and finally, ethics can only exist if God is inherently personal and relational, which
cannot be said of any monistic deity. And because the multi-personal God of the Bible is inherently
relational, in Him we have an absolute standard to follow.
Non-trinitarian religions, such as Judaism and Islam, cannot give an account for the one and the
many, the distinction between the thoughts and acts of God, a temporal universe, and standards for
moral righteousness that are vital for loving relationships. In short, non-trinitarian worldviews cannot
coherently tell us (1.) what is real, (2.) how we know that its real, or (3.) how we should live.[20.16]
If we dont have a trinitarian God who remains ontologically distinct from creation and who is
able to reveal truth to man, then we must conclude that truth, all truth, is impossible to discover. The gist
of the argument is that, without anchoring our beliefs in the God of the Bible, absurdity is all that
remains. Christianity, as it has proven itself to be, not merely supplies the least contradictory worldview
available, but truly, it gives the only worldview that is not contradictory. Because the Christian worldview
is the only worldview that maintains coherency, it then is logically deducible that it is the one and only
appropriate way to perceive Ultimate Reality. Believing in the Bible does not take a blind leap of faith,
but rather the opposite it is the only rational thing to do.
personal. Without a personal God who can communicate, as with naturalism, impersonalsupernaturalism leaves finite man completely to himself (in a closed universe) to vainly search for
objective meaning that is nowhere to be found.
A Trinitarian God
As indicated above, for divine communication to be possible, we need a personal God, but, as
chapters 18-20 show, the only way for an Ultimate Being to be both ultimate and personal is for Him to
be multi-personal.
The Ultimate Being must be both one and many for Him to be a communicable being. For
instance, without unity, there would cease to be any one thing that was Ultimate. Without diversity,
there would cease to be any formal differentiation within God, which would hinder God from
distinguishing between things and communicating accordingly. Thus, only the trinitarian God of the
Bible, who is both one and many, meets the necessary preconditions for divine communication.
A Creator/Creature Distinction
Another necessary precondition for divine communication is the Creator/creature distinction. This
is because when unity is ultimate, as with Islam and Judaism, everything is reducible to pantheism.
Because pantheism destroys the possibility of divine communication, as we have seen in chapter 19,
Islam and Judaism cannot consistently give an account for divine communication.
The God of the Bible, on the other hand, is capable of speaking not only because He is trinitarian,
but also because He is ontologically different from man. God is an eternal and self-existing spirit, while
man was made from the dust of the ground, and the dust of the ground was ultimately created out of
nothing (ex nihilo). This distinction is vital to prevent God and the universe from merging together into
one substance. And this ontological distinction must be maintained for God to be both personal and
capable of speaking.
An Analogy of Being
There must be a Creator/creature distinction, but there also must be a real point of connection
between God and man if communication is to take place.
A link between God and man is possible because ontology (i.e., the nature of being) cannot be
separated from epistemology and ethics within Gods essence. This is because God is, in His essential
being, epistemologically omniscient and ethically righteous. In other words, God is what He is. As Gods
ontological existence is the foundation behind everything else that exists, His knowledge is the
foundation for epistemology, and His righteousness is the foundation for ethics. God is the standard and
measure of all things. Therefore, because God is all-knowing and perfectly righteous, it is impossible to
disjoin His being/essence (ontology) from His knowledge (epistemology) and from His righteousness
(ethics).
This is important to note, because even though man is not made from the same ontological stuff
as God, man is made in His epistemological and ethical likeness. What God formed from the dust of the
ground, He also made a living soul by breathing the breath of life into him (Gen. 2:7). By this, I believe,
mans original righteousness and knowledge of God (i.e., sensus divinitatis) was facilitated by the very
breath and life of God. God not only created man ethically upright, He implanted within man the
epistemological knowledge of Himself. Unlike the animals, man shares the communicable attributes of
God. Because of this, there is an analogy of being between God and man.
This similarity between them establishes a real link. Being made in the image of God (Imago Dei)
not only allows for man to know God, but more importantly, it allows for man to have fellowship with
God.
It is true that the fall has separated man from the life of God, and that sin has defaced the Imago
Dei within man, but nonetheless, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of right-and-wrong remain
stamped on his conscience. Consequently, even with the unregenerate, there remains an analogous
relationship a real point of connection between God and man.
Fallen man will never love God without being reconciled to God through Christ. As chapters 26
and 27 will show, only the spiritual illumination of the Holy Spirit can communicate to fallen man in such
a way that they will lovingly embrace the truth of Gods existence. This is because spiritual illumination
restores the Imago Dei within them. By the Holy Spirit spiritually indwelling those whom He illuminates,
He effectually imparts the love of God, the righteousness of God, and the (experiential) knowledge of
God within them. In this way, the renewed man can personally know God because he has entered into
spiritual fellowship with God.
Nevertheless, if there were no analogy of being, then God would be ineffable; and if God was
ineffable, as explained in chapter 1, communication between God and man would be impossible. For this
reason, a real point of connection between God and man is a necessary precondition for divine
communication, and this necessary condition is only discovered within the biblical worldview.
Conclusion
Therefore, without logical and ethical absolutes, knowledge all knowledge deconstructs. The
necessary conditions for logical and ethical absolutes are only met by the trinitarian God of the Bible
who communicates to those whom He has made in His likeness. The biblical worldview is the only
coherent worldview because of the impossibility of the contrary. It is the only coherent worldview
because it alone meets the necessary preconditions for logical and moral absolutes.
it to be consistent with itself. Because of this, God remains perfectly good and all-powerful, while man is
fully responsible for his own transgressions. There is an all-powerful and all-benevolent God who will
hold man accountable for all the injustice, sorrow, and crimes that have turned the world upside down.
God is Good
God is good in His nature (Jer. 12:1), His law (Ps. 19:7-11), His works (Ps. 145:17), His judgments
(Ps. 119:137), and in His mercies (Rom. 3:21-26). God is good because He seeks His own glory in all
things (Col. 1:16-18). Each person of the triune Godhead loves the other persons of the Godhead
perfectly. They each place the glory of the others above everything else (John 17:5-32). Because nothing
is greater than Gods glory, for God to be good He must seek His own glory above all things. To not
glorify the most glorious being is to come short of the glory of God. Each of the three persons of the
Godhead seeks to glorify the others. God loves humanity, but not above His own glory this is why God
is good.
Motives matter, even in God. Everything that God does is good because everything He does is
done for His own glory. The chief motive behind every action of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to
glorify one another. God created the universe for His own glory, All things were created through Him
and for Him (Col. 1:16). He saves sinners for His own glory (Isa. 43:7; Eph. 2:6-7). And He answers our
prayers for His own glory (John 14:13). Even sin is permitted because it will indirectly bring glory to God
(Ps. 76:10). So, when we think about Gods goodness, we must remember that His goodness is not
principally derived from His love for man (though He does love man), but from His love for Himself, or
otherwise God would cease to be good.
God is All-Powerful
In addition to being good, God is omnipotent. He is absolutely sovereign. He controls everything
from the number of hairs on each of our heads (Matt. 10:30) to the timing of each little sparrow that falls
from the sky (Matt. 10:29). He controls the rise and fall of the nations of the world and the rise and fall
of the birds of the air (Dan. 2:21). God appoints when and where each of us is born into this world (Acts
17:26); and He determines when each of us will depart from this world (Heb. 9:27). He tells the sea
where it can go and where it can go no further (Job 38:11). He clothes the lilies of the field, and He feeds
the mouths of the lions in the wilderness (Luke 12:27; Ps. 104:21). He controls the hearts of all men, for
even the kings heart is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it where ever He wishes (Pr. 21:1). He
hardens whom He wants to harden and shows mercy on whom He wants to pardon (Rom. 9:18). Not one
blade of grass is blown about in the wind without being obedient to Gods eternal and predetermined
counsel.
God determines everything that takes place in history, for His counsel shall stand. No one can say
to Him, What are you doing? (Dan. 4:35). For does not the potter have the right to do what He wants
with His own clay (Rom. 9:21)? Does a hammer have the right to say to Him who wields it, dont swing
me here or there (Isa. 10:15)? Of course not. He is God and He does all things according to His own
pleasure (Ps. 115:3; Eph.1:11). God would cease to be God if He ceased to be in control of all things.
Gods sovereignty ensures that everything works together for His own glory. Though not all acts
in-and-of-themselves, such as sin, bring glory to God, they do work together to accomplish a greater
purpose. Everything, including Adolf Hitler and the terrible crimes of Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot, will bring
praise to God, or otherwise God would not have orchestrated such calamities. Mans wicked plans will all
be thwarted and turned around before it is all said and done, so that the name of the all-wise, all-good,
and all-powerful God will be exalted. Anything less than an all-powerful God could not bring all things,
including evil, to a glorious conclusion.
Compatibility
But, this brings us back to our alleged dilemma if God is good and sovereign, how is He not
responsible for all the evil in the world? We must also remember that within the Christian worldview,
God is both transcendent and immanent. Unlike pantheism, God is not one with the universe. If that was
the case, then evil could be directly assigned to the actions of God. Conversely, unlike deism, God has
not abandoned or left the universe to itself where evil has no greater purpose. This would make God
negligently irresponsible.
Only the biblical worldview has the answer to why there is evil in the world. Because God is in
control of all things, evil works together with all the other events in history for the glory of God and the
good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28).
According to the Scriptures, God does not control all things directly. He controls the universe, but
He is not one with the universe. He has delegated and invested a measure of His power into nature
itself. The physical universe is established with the laws of nature; and humans have been endowed with
the power and volition to choose between right and wrong. In other words, God controls the laws of
nature and the free actions of men, but He is not one with these things. God has created the universe to
operate in an orderly and precise fashion, and He has created man to operate in accordance with his
human nature. As gravity does what gravity does, and dogs do what dogs do, so men will act the way
men act. Nature will function according to its established laws, and creatures including humans will
function according to their established natures.
So, according to the Scriptures, God governs all things according to His own counsel and purpose
but does so in a way that does not violate the laws of nature and the volition of man. As the AmericanDutch theologian Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) explains, In the physical world He has established the laws
of nature, and it is by means of these laws that He administers the government of the physical
universe.[22.4] Thus, the direct power of God and the indirect powers of nature cooperate and work
together without mixture and confusion. God and the laws of nature (religion and science) are not one
and the same, but they are perfectly compatible with each other. Theologically, this is known as
concurrence, which Berkhof defines as follows: Concurrence may be defined as the cooperation of the
divine power with all subordinate powers, according to the pre-established laws of their operation,
causing them to act and to act precisely as they do.[22.5]
Though God has overruled the laws of nature on a few special occasions, as when He caused an
axe head to float on water (2 Kings 6:6), He typically and almost always utilizes the laws of nature to
carryout His purposes. This frees God from being morally responsible for evil, but it also prevents evil
from undermining and thwarting His eternal purposes. Moreover, this means that man is not a machine;
the impersonal laws of physics do not determine his will. The divine activity, according to Berkhof,
accompanies the action of man at every point, but without robbing man in any way of his
freedom.[22.6] This means that God is sovereign and man is responsible.
Man was originally created innocent, but due to his own will, he fell from his original state (Ecc.
7:29). For this reason, God is not the author of sin, for evil is derived from the heart of man (Jam. 1:1314). Man is responsible for departing from God. Though God permitted it, in no way did God push, tempt,
or incite man to leave his original position of innocence.
Once man chose to leave his original upright state, his original nature was defaced. He was made
in the image of God, but this image was marred when he no longer loved God with all of his heart. He no
longer could love God because He no longer wanted to love God love of self was now the dominant
factor in mans heart.
Man remained free to do what he wanted to do, but this also means that he was bound to do only
what he wanted to do. Because man had become enslaved to his own sinful nature, it was impossible for
him to please God (Rom. 8:5). As a polluted spring cannot produce fresh water or a bad tree bear good
fruit, a depraved man will not love God above himself. As the leopard cannot change his spots, a selfish
man will never surrender all to God (Jer. 13:23).
On his own, man has forsaken God, and now man can never come to God on his own. Fallen man
always moves away from Gods glory. Because even mans best acts are not done for the glory of God,
God considers these acts as sinful (Rom. 3:23). Just as methamphetamine pulls the addict deeper into
the addiction, self-love draws depraved souls deeper into selfish and sinful behavior. Down, down, down
man spirals out of control. As gravity pulls objects downward, mans heart pulls him away from God.
Though selfishness pulls man away from God, God remains in control over the selfishness of
men. Mans nature pulls him downward, but only to the level or degree God allows. As padlocks and law
enforcers prohibit many crimes from taking place, God has sovereignly placed many external restraints
upon the human race to prevent society from nose-diving completely out of control. Mans conscience,
the structure of the family, governments, social acceptability, police officers, and many other such things
keep depravity in check. God controls the restraints, and thus indirectly controls the degree to which man
is able to fall into sin.
Only in judgment does God remove His restraining hand and give people over to themselves. His
righteousness is revealed from heaven each time He hands people over to their own lawlessness (Rom.
1:18). As Paul explained, the consequence of sin is God removing His outward restraints and giving man
over to his own sinful desires. Isaiah understood this as well. In his prayer to God, Isaiah cried out:
There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you; for you have hidden
your face from us, and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities (Isa. 64:7).
Thus, sin is the just punishment for sin. If we dont want to live for God, then God justly takes a
step back from us and leaves us to our own devices. Because of sin, God gives us what we want more
sin. God does not push us into sin; He simply turns us over to our desires and down we go on our own
accord. We sin freely and willingly. The further we travel down the path of unrighteousness, the more
God gives us over to ourselves (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). There is no end to where sin will take us. And, left
alone, we will never seek after God but will only move further and further away from Him (John 6:44).
Because sin comes from within our own hearts, we are fully responsible; because God controls
the restraints and nothing occurs without His permissive will including sin. Moreover, because He is
good, He only allows that which will bring Him glory (Ps. 76:10). Thankfully, there is not one random sin
that will not be utilized for good. Thus, God remains sovereign over sin, while we remain fully
responsible.
Gods sovereignty and mans responsibly can be seen in every act of evil, but they are most
clearly revealed in the greatest evil that has ever taken place in the history of mankind the death of
Jesus. The Apostle Peter had the boldness afterwards to look at the Jews and say, this Jesus, delivered
up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of
Conclusion
Consequently, if there is anything good or praiseworthy in the universe, then the glory belongs to
God alone. We only have ourselves to blame for the corruptions and cruelty that have permeated the
human race throughout the history of the world. Thus, both Gods sovereignty and mans volitional
freedom prevent the world from being meaningless. Only within the biblical worldview are the
supernatural and natural powers perfectly compatible with each other. Only the biblical worldview saves
the world from meaninglessness.
Supported by Reason
The cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments are all valid arguments within the
Christian worldview.
The cosmological argument says that every cause has an effect, and because nothing in the
universe is without motion, the universe must have an outside cause.
The teleological argument says that everything that has a design, such as pocket watches,
pocketknives, and pockets themselves, must have a designer. This logically implies that the universe
must also have a designer, since it shows signs of design.
The ontological argument is based on the logical principle that something which is greater cannot
be produced by something which is lesser.[23.1] In this context, we would say that something greater
than our capacities to conceive could not have initially been conceived by us. For example, we may well
be able to imagine the perfect island, which means that our powers of imagination and thinking must be
greater than this perfect island. In this case, the perfect island does not have to exist. However, the idea
of God, an infinite and supremely perfect being, is too great a thought for a finite and imperfect mind to
conceive by its own powers. In other words, if God did not exist, it would be impossible for our finite
minds to have created such an infinite and perfect idea in the same way it would be impossible for the
Neuschwanstein Castle to have been built out of a single brick.
Within the biblical worldview, in which the knowledge of God, logic, and morality are basic
presuppositions, these rational arguments make sense. In fact, as we have sought to demonstrate, the
Christian worldview is the only coherent worldview, and it alone passes the test of reason. It is true
because of the impossibility of the contrary.
nature. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), for example, believed that the moon influenced the tides and he
accredited solar eclipses to the fixed laws of the suns course rather than to any direct supernatural
power.[23.2] Augustine distinguished Christianity from Greek pantheism in The City of God when he
upheld the importance of secondary causes.
We worship that God who has appointed to the natures created by Him both the
beginnings and the end of their existing and moving: who holds, knows, and disposes the causes
of things; who hath created the virtue of seeds . . . who hath created and governs the most
vehement and most violent fire of this world, in due relation and proportion to the other elements
of immense nature; who is the governor of all the waters; who hath made the sun brightest of all
material lights, and hath given him suitable power and motion . . . Therefore He governs all things
in such a manner as to allow them to perform and exercise their own proper movements.[23.3]
The God of Augustine was not a god of the gaps a god that is only needed to explain the
unexplainable. God is not needed to fill in the remaining holes of scientific knowledge, which would
make Him a god that will be slowly squeezed out of existence as scientific knowledge increases. The
God of the gaps is not the God of the Bible. Rather, the God of the Bible is needed to explain why the
laws of nature are there in the first place. God explains why there is geometrical structure that governs
the laws of nature, and no other explanation can give account for such order.
Christians understand that there is an orderly universe because there is an orderly Creator who
upholds the universe in accordance with the laws of nature. As Lennox claimed: At the heart of all
science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly. Without this deep conviction science would not
be possible.[23.4] Lennox went on to cite Nobel Prize-winner in biochemistry Melvin Calvin in his
explanation of where this conviction comes from:
As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion
discovered 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient
Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the
whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This
monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.[23.5]
In fact, a miracle would cease to be a miracle if Christians did not believe in the laws of science.
Since Christians start by presupposing the God of the Bible, they have no problems with belief in
supernatural events, such as the miracles and the resurrection of Christ, and they dont have any
problem with science either. There is nothing wrong with scientific knowledge. Christians are not at war
with science. They are not at war with the laws of nature. Many of the great scientists of the past were
devout Christians Sir Isaac Newton being the chief among them. Christians can thank God for an
orderly universe that allows us to learn from our past experiences and helps us to plan for the future. A
transcendent and imminent God, whose sovereign rule is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics,
provides us with a perfect foundation for all of our empirical and rational knowledge.
Seeing that all truth comes through general and special revelation, scientific and biblical truths
are not at odds with each other. That is, as Francis Bacon maintained years ago, the book of Gods word
is not in conflict with the book of Gods works. As Charles Hodge said: All that the Scriptures teach
concerning the external world accords with the facts of experience.[23.6]
Christianity is not at war with science, nor is science at war with Christianity, according to
Richard Swinburne. Swinburne believes the scientific evidence of an orderly universe can only be
understood when God is presupposed. It is not beyond the realm of science to postulate the existence of
something that is unverifiable by sense perception (such as gravity) in order to make sense of the
evidence at hand.[23.7]
For instance, Newton did not discover gravity by observing its immaterial properties. This is
because gravity is an invisible force that cannot (in-and-of-itself) be observed. Though Newton could not
give any direct empirical evidence for its existence, he concluded that an invisible force, such as gravity,
must be presupposed if we are going to make any rational sense of the motions of the planets and
objects falling to the earth.
According to Newton, gravity is the best explanation for the movements of the heavenly bodies.
Moreover, once the force of gravity was presupposed, it was possible to locate Neptune prior to its
discovery in 1846. By observing the movement of Uranus, astronomers noticed a perturbation at a certain
point in its orbit. It appeared that, in addition to the Sun, another large mass was pulling on it. The only
hypothesis that could give an account to the irregularity in Uranus orbit was the gravitational force of an
unknown planet. By this means, without any direct sensory confirmation, the existence, basic size, and
location of Neptune were predicted.
In the same way gravity is needed to make sense of the motion of the planets, God is needed to
make sense of an orderly universe. Newton understood that for science to work there needed to be a
God: Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in
motion.[23.8]
According to Swinburne, though there is no direct sensory evidence for the existence of an
invisible and incorporeal God, the physical evidence of an orderly universe presupposes Him. The
theists starting-point, according to Swinburne, is not that we perceive order rather than disorder, but
that order rather than disorder is there.[23.9] What hypothesis can make sense of such order? It is only
when we presuppose God that we have an explanation that makes senses. Theism leads us to expect to
find the things which we do find when we would not otherwise expect to find them.[23.10] If there is
an Intelligent Designer, then the order and design of the universe is what we would expect to find. Again
he says: The hypothesis of theism is a simple hypothesis which leads us to expect these observable
phenomena, when no other hypothesis will do.[23.11] For this reason, Swinburne concluded that God
exists: Because theism satisfies the criteria well, the existence and regular behaviour of material
objects provide good evidence for the existence of God.[23.12]
Likewise, Stephen Meyer explains that intelligence is the only scientific explanation for the
specified information within living cells.[23.13] Given the criteria used by historical scientists to explain
past events, Meyer asks: What causes now in operation produce digital code or specified
information?[23.14] The obvious answer, according to Meyer, is intelligence: Because we have
independent evidence uniform experience that intelligent agents are capable of producing specified
information. Intelligent activity is known to produce the effect in question. The creation of new
information is habitually associated with conscious activity.[23.15] Yet, according to Meyer, an
intelligent mind is not merely an explanation; its the only scientific explanation.
First, there is no other causally adequate explanation for the semantic language coded in DNA.
[23.16] Undirected chemical processes do not produce large amounts of specified information starting
from purely physical or chemical antecedents.[23.17]
Second, the experimental evidence confirms the causal adequacy of an Intelligent Mind.[23.18]
Conclusion
Alvin Plantinga is right when he says that there is no conflict between science and theism.
Natural law and a supernatural Christianity are perfectly congruent. The real conflict, according to
Plantinga, is between science and naturalism.[23.23] We do not need God in order to explain how
secondary causes work together within the universe, we need God to explain why there is such a thing as
secondary causes in the first place. Why is there an orderly universe which makes science even
possible? The evidence points us to the only plausible answer God.
the gospels do not depict Christs resurrection in such a fashion. This is not the sort of thing one would
expect if the evangelists or their sources had wanted to say that Jesus had been exalted to a position of
either divinity or heavenly glory.[24.4]
The fourth detail, which would not have been admitted if the resurrection of Christ were merely
made up, is the presence of women at the empty tomb. This is because the testimony of women in that
day was not considered valid in a court of law. It is, frankly, impossible to imagine that they were
inserted into the tradition after Pauls day.[24.5] Wright went on to explain:
Even if we suppose that Mark made up most of his material, and did so some time in the
late 60s at the earliest, it will not do to have him, or anyone else at that stage, making up a
would-be apologetic legend about an empty tomb and having women be the ones who find it. The
point has been repeated over and over in scholarship, but its full impact has not always been felt:
women were simply not acceptable as legal witnesses. We may regret it, but this is how the
Jewish world (and most others) worked. The debate between Origen and Celsus shows that critics
of Christianity could seize on the story of the women in order to scoff at the whole tale; were the
legend-writers really so ignorant of the likely reaction? If they could have invented stories of fine,
upstanding, reliable male witnesses being first at the tomb, they would have done it.[24.6]
Wright concluded by saying, If you try to imagine three such people doing it independently and
coming up with three different stories which nevertheless all share this remarkable feature, in addition
to the others we have noted, I think you will find it incredible. I certainly do.[24.7] The only apparent
reason for the gospels to record these unusual details is the fact that they did indeed occur in history.
Not only are the unlikely details recorded in the gospels, of which the earliest manuscripts date
back to the second century,[24.8] but the life of Christ is testified to by many non-canonical texts, such
as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37-120). In the year 93, Josephus published a history of the
Jewish people in which he testified of the life of Christ:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For
he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth
gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon
the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who
had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to
life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.[24.9]
The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120) gave not only an early second century
testimony of the life of Christ but a vivid account of the persecution experienced by the followers of
Christ when he explained how the Emperor Nero falsely accused Christians of the burning of Rome in AD
64:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators,
Pontius Pilate, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only
in Judea, the source of this evil, but also in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from
every part of the world meet and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all
who confessed; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much
of the crime of arson, as of hatred of the human race. Mockery of every sort was added to their
deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to
crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed.
Nero had thrown open his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus,
while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot.[24.10]
According to professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College, Lee Martin
McDonald, even though the historical critical approach (due to its starting presuppositions)[24.11]
cannot verify the divinity of Christ, it does without a doubt substantiate the life of Christ as an historical
figure:
Of course, historians as historians will never be able to affirm the christological
affirmations or interpretations about Jesus in the churchs earliest documents, but it is important
that Christians know their faith in Jesus is not contrary to the available evidence from antiquity.
[24.12]
In addition to the historical record, the overwhelming archaeological evidence, also, supports the
reliability of the Scriptures. The ancient history of Northern America as recorded in the Book of Mormon
has yet to be substantiated by any archaeological findings. Joseph Smith (1805-1844) apparently
included a lot of fiction in his story. Yet, the Bible has not only been proven trustworthy by archaeology,
it has proven to be a valuable resource for pointing archaeologists in the right direction. And even when
the reliability of the biblical history has been challenged, these challenges have been answered by later
archaeological findings. For instance, it was once thought that the Hittites were a biblical legend until
their capital and many of their records were unearthed in Bogazkoy, Turkey. The Assyrian king Sargon,
who is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1, was also considered fictional until Sargons palace was discovered in
Khorsabad, Iraq. Moreover, the capture of Ashdod, which is mentioned in Isaiah 20, was recorded on the
palace walls. These are but a few of the thousands of archaeological evidences that validate the biblical
record.
Not only have many of the ancient cities and civilizations of the Old Testament been unearthed,
which provide empirical and historical evidence of the reliability of biblical history, the accuracy of the
New Testament has also been firmly established by archaeology. James Charlesworth of Princeton
Theological Seminary concluded:
It would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional
stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are
grounded on interpretations of real historical events, especially the crucifixion of Jesus, at a
particular time and place.[24.13]
History is no enemy to the gospel. Historical documents and archaeological evidences confirm, as
external witnesses, that Scripture is trustworthy in its historical testimony. Moreover, the historical
record verifies that the Scriptures have been faithfully transmitted. Of course there is Bart Ehrman who
not only claims that the Greek New Testament text has been corrupted, but that all the extant
manuscripts are polluted to the point that it is impossible to reconstruct a trustworthy critical Greek text
of the New Testament. Ehrman is quick to point out the 400,000 variants within the extant New
Testament Greek manuscripts, and how there are no two manuscripts in perfectly agreement with each
other.[24.14]
Yet, Ehrman stands in opposition to the consensus of the community of textual scholars and the
overwhelming textual evidence. In fact, no ancient piece of literature can boast of a more faithful
transmission than the Scriptures. First, no other ancient book has more extant manuscripts than the New
Testament close to 6,000. Second, no other ancient work has extant manuscripts that are so close to
the original autographs P52 dates between 100-115 AD, and we have a host of papyri manuscripts that
date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries. Third, of the 400,000 variants, 75 percent are spelling errors,
which do not do any damage to the faithfulness of the Greek text. Fourth, another 24 percent of the
variants are concerned with word order, but this too does not create much of a problem seeing that the
subject of each sentence in the Greek is determined by word endings rather than by word placement.
Fifth, that leaves only 1 percent (around 400) of variants that are any importance, yet of those 400
variants, the majority are concerned with minor issues such as gospel harmonization. Sixth, only around
15 percent of the 1 percent of variants (about 50) is considered of any major significance, yet there is no
doctrinal compromise in any of the variant readings. With such evidence, it is safe to say that the
Scriptures have been faithfully persevered throughout history.[24.15]
Conclusion
The biblical worldview is not supported by the evidence, but as we shall see in the next chapter,
it also is the only worldview that can be faithfully implemented in everyday life.
pm. Do those in the Far East, who think the law of non-contradiction is only a Western way of thinking,
not live by the law of non-contradiction in their everyday life? Do those who practice Zen really expect to
hear a sound when they see a one handed man clapping? It is easy to create an intellectual philosophy,
but the true test of any system of thought is seeing if it can be implemented and lived out in the real
world.
Conclusion
As light testifies of itself, the Bible, by its own internal witness, proves itself to be the Word of
God. And its not just that it says is the Word of God, but that without it, nothing makes sense;
knowledge of any kind is ultimately impossible without the God of the Bible. Moreover, the rational,
historical, and empirical evidence collaborates the testimony of Scripture. The Christian worldview is
simply the only trustworthy worldview because of the impossibility of the contrary. So the choice is
this: according to John Frame, either accept the God of the Bible or deny objective morality, objective
truth, the rationality of man, and the rational knowability of the universe.[25.3]
The absurdity of it all is that sinners will continue to choose absurdity over sanity. This is because
sanity only comes by submitting ones thinking and life to the lordship of Christ, and this, my dear
readers, is the heart of the problem.
rejecting Christ is our embedded love for ourselves, how can we ever come to a saving knowledge of
God? If truth alone is not enough to convince us to lay down our lives and turn to Christ, how will we ever
be saved? We must believe to be saved, but how will we ever willingly embrace that which we deplore?
As long as we despise the God of the Bible, we will never freely and willingly surrender all to
Him. We all need help. As God haters, we cannot convert ourselves. We need more than a slick pitchman
to coach us into superficially repeating the sinners prayer. The Bible makes it clear that faith and a
personal knowledge of Christ come only by Gods grace.
The only way we will ever embrace a holy and just God is for God to supernaturally reveal Himself
to us as He really is altogether worthy of all our love and acceptance. God must reveal Himself to our
minds in such a way that our hearts perceive Him as altogether glorious. It is not that God must enhance
His appearance so that we will like Him better, but He must change our hearts so that we can perceive
Him as He truly is. Moreover, we must have help to see ourselves as we truly are altogether undone
and unworthy of the least favor of God. It is only when we see ourselves as deplorable and Christ as
lovely that we will come to our senses, repent of our sins, and eagerly embrace what we know to be true.
In other words, we who sit in darkness need to be enlightened in both our minds and our hearts. The
image of God that has been defaced by sin must be renewed.
Divine Works
This divine revelation of God begins with the universe itself. Natural revelation is from God
because God created the universe. This revelation is universal and self-authenticating. Because we are
made in Gods image, we cannot help but see the stamp of God everywhere we look. There is no spot in
the universe, according to John Calvin, wherein [we] cannot discern at least some sparks of his
glory.[26.2] For this reason, the English puritan John Owen rightly stated:
There is no need of traditions, no need of miracles, no need of the authority of any
churches, to convince a rational creature that the works of God are his, and his only; and that he
is eternal and infinite in power that made them. They carry about with them their own authority.
By being what they are, they declare whose they are.[26.3]
With this divine source of revelation, we all know (1) that there is a God (Rom. 1:19-20), (2) that
He created the universe (Ps. 19:1), (3) that He is absolute (Acts 17:25), (4) that He is infinite (Acts
17:24), (5) that He is sovereign (Acts 17:26), (6) that He is all-powerful (Rom. 1:20), (7) that He is
omnipresent (Acts 17:25), (8) that He is imminent (Acts 17:27), (9) that He is righteous (Ps. 97:6), and
(10) that He is angry with sinners (Rom. 1:18). Because we are made in the image of God, we inherently
and immediately understand (11) that there is a universal law, (12) that we have broken this law (Rom.
2:15), and (13) that we will be held accountable to a just and angry God (Rom. 1:32). In essence, natural
revelation reveals our guilt, leaving us to feel hopeless, as we wait for the coming day of judgment. For
this testimony is constant (Ps. 19:2), universal (Ps. 19:3), and undeniable (Rom. 2:15), leaving us without
any excuses (Rom. 1:20).
Natural revelation is vital, but it alone is not sufficient to bring us to love the God of the universe.
Natural revelation leaves us condemned and guilty before a just God with no hope of salvation. The
universe reveals a just and powerful God, but it does not reveal His merciful disposition and willingness
to forgive.
Thus, left to ourselves, we will create all manner of religious means to appease Gods wrath, or
we will craft various philosophies that push the knowledge of God away by the exaltation of ourselves.
Because of the false notions of our self-righteousness and autonomy, we will continually think too highly
of ourselves and of our own abilities to seek after God. Natural revelation is vital, but it is not sufficient
in bringing one to repentance and faith.
Divine Words
Because of our pride, we need special revelation. Broadly speaking, all of Gods acts within
history are considered a part of Gods special revelation. But more narrowly speaking, special revelation
is restricted to those historical acts of God, divine prophecies, and truths that have been recorded for us
in the pages of Scripture. The Scriptures reveal the merciful disposition of God towards us in the gospel
message that He sent His only Son to die for our sins the just for the unjust. This is the goodness of
God that leads sinners to repentance.
Just as natural revelation does not need any external proofs to verify its message, the Holy
Scripture, because it is inspired by Gods Spirit, needs no external argument, proof, or evidence to verify
its infallible and authoritative nature. The Bible is self-sufficient and self-authenticating.
The veracity of Scripture does not stand on the approval of men, ecumenical councils, or
churches, but on its own divine testimony. It does not even need apologists.
Not only does the Bible claim to be Gods Word (1 Cor. 2:12-13, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:20), but it
also handles itself as if it is Gods Word. It speaks to us as if it is authoritative and infallible. As Gods
Word, the Scriptures demand belief and obedience in the same way God demands belief and obedience.
The authority of God shining in them, Owen claimed, afford unto us all the divine evidence[26.4] that
is needed. In other words, the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God by its own internal evidence.
If the Scriptures prove themselves to be Gods Word, why is it that so many reject the gospel?
Why would any of us want to reject such good news? It is not as if the gospel is too complicated for us to
understand. According to Owen, one only possessed of reason and the ability to use it according to the
measure of [ones] talents, can (without the aid of the Holy Spirit) discover the sense of the biblical
propositions and grasp their signification.[26.5]
In fact, I would go as far as to say that the written Word of God brings a measure of conviction to
all who hear it. It opens us up and exposes us for who we are. It shows us our sins and reinforces our
guilt.
Even those who are spiritually dead and incapable of loving the truth, cannot help, because they
are made in Gods image, but feel convicted by the truth when they hear it. For this reason, God will hold
those of us who have heard the gospel to a greater accountability. None of us will be able to say to the
Lord on the Day of Judgment, I just did not realize that it was You speaking to me. Moreover, as we
have already seen, the truth claims of the Bible are not rejected because the gospel is rationally
incoherent or unsupported by historical evidence. Rather, the truth is rejected because the unchanged
heart remains in love with the false notion of its own moral self-righteousness and/or intellectual
autonomy.
The problem is that the wrong things are loved and hated because sin blinds. As Alvin Plantinga
claimed: Sin is a malfunction of the will, a skewing of affections; it is loving and hating the wrong
things. Still, it also involves blindness, and inability to see the glory and beauty of the Lord.[26.6] This
world and self are loved too much to be given up. It is for this reason that one remains spiritually dead
and unwilling to embrace the gospel. It may be known that Christ is Who He says He is, but you may not
be convinced that you like Who He says He is.
Though death is approaching, Esaus soup tastes too good for unbelievers to be overly concerned
about eternity. The gospel is for those who know themselves to be sinners and see their need to be
saved from their sins (1 Tim. 1:15). It seems the majority simply have no desire to be rescued from that
which is slavishly loved themselves.
Conclusion
Subsequently, all the apologetic arguments can be laid out with absolute certainty, and, as the
Lord says, a man could even be raised from the dead, but because of our disdain for the gospel that calls
us to forsake all, we will stubbornly refuse this wonderful offer. For this reason, Jonathan Edwards says,
no signs that can be given will actually satisfy persons in such a case; let the signs that are given be
never so good and infallible, and clearly laid down, they will not serve them.[26.7] Logical consistency,
various proofs, and evidence are simply not enough to break a hard heart something more is needed.
Divine Light
Spiritual illumination is the influencing power of the Holy Spirit working by, in, and through the
Scriptures to give light and spiritual understanding to the minds and hearts of Gods people, which
enables them to willingly believe, embrace, and obey the truth of Gods Word. Thus, the testimony of the
Holy Spirit is not a new revelation (independent of Scripture), but the Holy Spirit speaking in the words of
Scripture.[27.1]
Spiritual illumination never goes beyond the truth presented in the text. It is the written Word that
the Spirit uses to open the hearts of our understanding. When this occurs, believers know for certain that
they are hearing God personally speak to them in the pages of Scripture (Luke 24:45, 1 Thess. 2:13-14).
[27.2] Because of the testimony of the Spirit speaking to us in the truth claims of Scripture, the Scriptures
are self-authenticating. As Calvin explained:
Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and the Scripture
indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoningFor even if
it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon
our hearts through the SpiritWe seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our
judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any
guesswork![27.3]
But let us not be confused, spiritual illumination is not the Spirit empowering the Scriptures (as if
they are mere dead words), but the Spirit enlightening the minds and hearts of believers by the words of
Scripture. The problem lies not in any deficiency in the written Word, but in the darkness and rebellion of
our hearts (Eph. 4:18). In this sense, illumination is the Spirit of God speaking in, by, and through the
Scriptures to bring light to blind minds and dead hearts so that they can properly receive and interpret
the Scriptures.
This is why Edwards understood that the illumination of the heart does not occur without the
illumination of the mind: Holy affections are not heat without light; but evermore arise from the
information of the understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual
knowledge.[27.4]
For this reason, embracing the truth claims of the Bible is not based on external evidence,
rational arguments, or even on the coherent presentation of the Christian worldview, but in the Holy
Spirit illuminating the truth of Gods Word to us (Gal. 3:2, 5). As clarified by Calvin:
Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit
acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, designs
not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to
receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our
own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human
Judgment, feel perfectly assured as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed
on it that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not
for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and
Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate.[27.5]
Divine Faith
Spiritual illumination brings forth the new birth and faith. Once the eyes of our hearts can see
clearly, we are born again. And, once we have new life in Christ, we cannot help but believe. The new
birth does not force us to believe against our wills, but transforms our nature as it renews the Imago Dei
with the infusion of the love of God so that we will be found willing.
Saving faith is not mere intellectual assent to the truth claims of the Bible. Demons acknowledge
that Christ is the Son of God, yet they lack a personal relationship with Him. Many professing Christians
also have only an intellectual understanding of the gospel. Though they do not deny the truth, they do
not love the truth. They may profess to believe, but would not die for the truth.
In the same way that people believe in triangles and squares, nominal Christians believe in the
Bible. But this speculative knowledge, which may even cause them to attend church and perform a few
good deeds, is not saving faith any more than fear and trembling is evidence of saving faith within the
demons (Jam. 2:19). Demons know God, but they do not love God. I am afraid that many, if not most, of
professing Christians only possess this superficial form of faith a faith that works without love.
Saving faith, however, establishes a personal and experiential relationship with Christ because it
is motivated and derived out of a sincere love for Christ. Faith alone saves us, but faith works by love
(Gal. 5:6). This love is the fruit of the new birth, where the old sinful and selfish nature is recreated in
the likeness of Christ. The image of God that was defaced by the fall has been restored in Christ (Col.
3:10). We have been given the mind of Christ that gives us a proper discernment and love for the truth (1
Cor. 2:16). The tuning fork that was bent by sin has been renewed by love.
With a new heart, the gospel now resonates within our new natures and is altogether glorious.
We willingly bow our knees to our Savior because, by Gods saving grace, we now love the Lord Jesus
above all things. Though His holiness and lordship was once a repellent, we now see these attributes as
altogether glorious and worthy of all our adoration and worship.
Plantinga was right when he said: The gift of faith and consequently regeneration isnt just a
matter of restoring the intellect to a pristine condition in which we can once again perceive God and his
glories and beauties; it also, and essentially, requires curing that madness of the will.[27.6]
After spiritual illumination and the new birth, our affections and will, because of our new nature,
have been turned away from selfishness to a sincere love for God. As Plantinga went on to explain:
Regeneration consists in curing the will, so that we at last begin to love and hate the right things; it
also includes cognitive renewal, so that we come to perceive the beauty, holiness, and delightfulness of
the Lord and of the scheme of salvation he has devised.[27.7] Sin is now hated, and God is now
glorious. But it is not as if reality has changed, it is simply that the darkness that once covered our eyes
has been lifted.
Divine Love
In this sense, the saving knowledge of Christ comes not by apologetic argument but through
spiritual illumination and regeneration. It comes by our minds being enlightened to the truth of God so
that our hearts will be enflamed with a love for God. We must love the truth before we will embrace the
truth (2 Thess. 2:10). Plantinga continued by saying:
When the sources of affection function properly, we will love what is loveable, take
delight in what is delightful, and desire what is desirable. We will love God above all and our
neighbor as ourselves; we will delight in his beauty and glory, and in created reflections of that
beauty and glory; we will desire what is in fact good for us.[27.8]
Calvin also realized that we will never commit ourselves to God until we see Him as altogether
worthy of our devotion and service:
For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his
fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him
they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in
him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him.[27.9]
Divine Knowledge
It is this love, which comes from the new birth, which provides us with an experiential and
personal knowledge of God. Paul summarizes all this in Ephesians 3:14-19:
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and
on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened
with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through
faith that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the
saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that
surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
First, we notice that experiential knowledge of God is supernaturally and sovereignly bestowed
on us by God, For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and
on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with
power through his Spirit in your inner being (vss. 14-16).
Paul is asking God to give or grant us this spiritual knowledge by strengthening our inner man. For
Paul knew that, in our own natural capacities, we are insufficiently equipped and incapable of handling
such weighty and glorious truths. To hold such weight, we need to be strengthened (,
krataiothenai) with Gods power (, , duvamei) through the work of the Holy Spirit. As it is written:
What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has
prepared for those who love him these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the
Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a persons thoughts except the
spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the
Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God,
that we might understand the things freely given us by God (1 Cor. 2:9-12).
This illumination and strengthening of the inner man is what brings forth faith, and this faith
saves us because it legally and experientially unites us to the life of Christ. For by this faith, Christ
dwells (, katoikesai to house permanently) in our hearts (Eph. 3:17a). With Christ united to
our hearts by faith, we are provided not merely an intellectual knowledge of Him, but a living and
personal relationship with Him.
Christ is love. Consequently, the reason we need Christ to dwell in our hearts is so that we may
be rooted and grounded in love (vs. 17b). Being rooted and grounded in love is the strengthening of our
inner man that enables us to grasp a true knowledge of God. In other words, the power of God that was
needed to strengthen us is the love of God that is written on our hearts.
The power that God uses to break our rebellious hearts is His love being poured out into our
hearts. It is what brings about the new nature. As a result, the love of God within us not only gives us a
love for God, but it also enables us to personally know God. The love of God disposes our old selfish
natures that enslaved us to our own selfish passions of the flesh, and gives us a heart to know and
willingly embrace God.
Why do we need to be strengthened with the love of God? According to Paul, we need to be
rooted and grounded in love so that we may have [the] strength to comprehend with all the saints what
is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses
knowledge (vss. 18-19a). To know the love of God we need to be filled with the love of God. This is
because God is love, and the fullness of His love in all of its depth, breadth, length, and height, is too
great for us to comprehend without our first having the love of God living within us in the person of
Christ. His love is inexpressible and beyond conclusive comprehension. We need strengthening in the
inner man. We need to be rooted and grounded in love before we can comprehend the love of God.
This explains more fully how the love of God establishes a personal and experiential knowledge
of God. Since God is love, when we experience the love of God, we experience God. Though we cannot
visibly see Him, it does not mean we cannot emotionally and experientially know Him. As the Apostle
John says, if we love Him, God abides in us (1 John 4:12). And this love that abides in us is the
ingredient that we need in order to love and know Him in return, for God is love, and he who abides in
love abides in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16). Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God;
and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (1 John 4:7). As eyesight connects us with the
world around us, faith, which works by love, connects us with God.
This love, in addition, is not merely a subjective and raw emotional experience, but rather it is an
emotional experience that is firmly rooted in the objective knowledge of God that has been
supernaturally revealed to us in Gods written Word. With love being poured into our hearts by the divine
illumination of Gods objective Word, we are renewed in the likeness of God to love God.
For this reason, Paul concluded his prayer for us by adding, that you may be filled with all the
fullness of God (vs. 19b). Thus, being strengthened and rooted in the love of God not only gives us an
experiential knowledge of the love of Christ, it enables (, exischuseete, vs. 18a) us to be filled
with all the fullness of God Himself.
Conclusion
But this, the necessity of love, brings us back to mans basic problem man is separated from the
love of God. Mans separation and rejection of God is rooted in the hardness of his heart (Eph. 4:18).
Man may know right from wrong and the difference between love and selfishness, but he does not have
the love (motive and power) to appreciate and fulfill this moral standard. Most importantly, man does not
have the inward disposition to love God. Unregenerate mans inherent knowledge of God is not enough
to provide a personal knowledge of God. You must love Christ to truly know Christ, and this takes
spiritual illumination.
Consequently, intellectual and practical atheists do not lack warrant for belief in God, but they do
lack the love that is necessary to submit to God. It does not matter if you are a nominal Christian or an
outright atheist, what controls your beliefs and behavior is your deep-seated love for yourself. You are
rooted in a love for self. Because you love yourself the most, you will not submit to the knowledge of
God. You may make an empty profession of faith or contrive some complex philosophical system that
denies the existence of God, but either way you seek to smooth over a guilty conscience without
confessing your sins and bowing your knee to the lordship of Christ.
Underneath all the calluses, no matter how many movies we have watched to distract ourselves
and no matter how many friends have reassured us, down deep we know that we have sinned and come
short of the glory of God. Because of our uncanny ability to forget and smooth things over, however, we
have no idea how wicked and shameful we have been. We do not know the depths of our depravity. We
each know that we are a sinner, but none of us can begin to comprehend how big a sinner we actually
are in the sight of God. With mud-caked glasses it is hard to see how dirty we actually are. We see
ourselves through sinful eyes. What must we look like to the one who is too pure to even look on sin?
Which of Gods commandments have we not broken? We have stolen, lied, and cheated. We have
been unfaithful, unforgiving, unkind, and unloving. We have given our lives to fulfilling the various
passions of the flesh and have been more worried about being rich, popular, and powerful than being a
thoughtful friend to those in need. We have given more time and energy living for ourselves than living
for God.
Not only have we transgressed Gods law, we have failed to do all the things that we should have
done. We should have called grandma a few years back when she became ill. We should have stopped
and helped that person on the side of the road. We should have done this or done that, but we were too
lazy and self-focused. We have neglected to be thankful to God in all things. We have neglected the
worship that is due to His name. We have not lived up to the standard.
This is not to mention the sins of our heart, such as anger, malice, bitterness, jealousy,
covetousness, lustful thoughts, vain imaginations, and all manner of evil desires.
But what is more fearful than our hearts condemning us is knowing that God has personally
chronicled everything that we have ever done. Every thought, word, and deed has been recorded. God is
not fooled by our silly excuses. He has clearly manifested to us that those who practice such things are
worthy of death (Rom. 1:32).
These sinful acts are treasonous. We have not only rebelled against our Maker and King, we have
defected over to the kingdom of darkness. We have seditiously picked up our swords in opposition and
have shaken our fists at Him in defiance. Our sins are a direct and bold attack against God. He has
blessed us with life. He has showered us with good things, such as the rain and the sunshine. He has
graciously been kind, long-suffering, and patient with us. He has sent us the gospel. He has given us
plenty of opportunities to repent. He has seen fit to keep the blood pumping in our veins and uphold the
beating of our hearts. But how have we responded to such kindness? We have defiled His name by the
things we have watched and the jokes that we have entertained. We continue to bite the hand that is
feeding us every time we utilize the gifts, money, resources, and health, which God has given us, for
selfish, sinful, and disgraceful activities. The life that God has given us to serve Him, we have used to
defy and curse Him.
most is that which we have despised, as if His Son were not good enough. We, who are worthless, have
rejected the One who is of infinite worth. We, who are unlovable, have turned away from Gods
immeasurable love. Thus, what anger must reside within God for the disgrace that we heap on Him when
we turn our backs on His beloved Son?
Our rejection of Gods love is open rebellion. Every moment we refuse to bow our knee and
surrender all to His Majesty, we continue to provoke Him and to store up wrath for ourselves.
We are but a second away from running out of time. He will not hold back His wrath forever. The
Day of Judgment is coming (Col. 1:6). Our guilt testifies of the certainty of this.
Death is coming, but we live as if it is not. As with our guilt, we have pushed this knowledge
away from us. We have blinded ourselves to the severity of our condition and the gravity of the wrath of
God. We have blinded ourselves with a false sense of security because of our self-righteousness. We
have blinded ourselves with the pleasures and concerns of the world. We are more concerned about a
pay-raise than saving our souls from hell. We are too busy fishing, hunting, playing golf, and keeping in
shape than with getting right with God. We are too busy eating Esaus soup and playing a game of
freeze-tag with our friends than seeking to meet with God. Because we still hear the birds singing and
feel the warmth of the sun, we are under the false delusion that everything is okay.
We should be alarmed, but we are walking around in a haze. We are following the crowd, caught
up in the madness, blown about by the latest fads and new releases. Like dogs roaming about looking for
their next meal, we are carried about by the tide of hedonism. We are adrift, lost at sea, but completely
unconcerned. As a mouse runs around and around in a wheel, we chase one pleasure after the next. The
tide is rocking us asleep as it is taking us deeper out into the sea. We are unknowingly enslaved to our
routines. Our daily lives, filled with pleasures in business and recreation, blind us to the approaching
danger. As a herd of cows willingly follow each other to the slaughterhouse, we follow the course of this
world unaware that it is reserved for fire.
It is only a matter of time before all this carelessness and false sense of security will be blown
away. Death overtakes us all. In time, you will be standing before a holy God. No excuses. No selfrighteousness. No atheistic worldview. Just you and your guilt, fully exposed before the Almighty God.
But for now, your carelessness remains.
After John baptized Him, Christ was led into a deserted area for forty days. During this time, all hell was
unleashed on Him. The Devil and all his demonic forces threw everything that they had at Him. In utter
hatred, the Devil sought to crush Him.
Christ was famished, tired, and beaten down in every possible way, and yet, He remained true to
His Father. He resisted every temptation. He did not once shame or dishonor the One who sent Him into
the world. He loved God and His neighbor with all of His heart, mind, and soul perfectly, entirely, and at
all times. His life and earthly ministry was full of love, mercy, and compassion for others. He sought not
fame, nor fortune, nor power. He was lowly of heart, gentle, and humble. He gave everything He had to
the service of God and to assist others. He was sinless, righteous, perfect, and altogether glorious.
And this is not all in this state of humility, sinlessness, and goodness, He willingly took sinners
place on the cross the just for the unjust. He took our shame and guilt on Himself. The mocking we
deserved, He willingly embraced. He was beaten, spit upon, and utterly humiliated as the chief of
criminals. His own disciples and closest friends forsook Him in this dark hour. He was rejected because
He was holy. But, worst of all, the anger and wrath of God, which we deserved, was poured out upon Him
in full. He endured the judgment of God so that believers could be declared innocent.
What kind of king dies for His enemies? This is such a King, who offers those who repent a free
pardon.
Christ rose from the dead, which proved His innocence. By His resurrection, Christ won the victory
over sin, death, and the devil. We can be forgiven because the King of glory took care of justice for those
who believe. What a Savior!
If you continue in unbelief, then this is the Savior you are rejecting. This is the gospel you
continue to shun.
If God required a million dollars to wipe away our sins, many would pay the price willingly. If God
required that we give up our firstborn to inherit eternal life, this too would be a price that some would be
willing to pay. But, no! It is the offended party God who has laid down His firstborn for those who
have sinned and rebelled against Him. Christ paid the ultimate price so you may be freely forgiven. Not
only the just for the unjust, but the wounded party taking the place of the guilty party. Salvation is free,
but this is what you refuse when you turn away in unbelief.
What kindness, what graciousness, and what goodness must you turn your back on when you
reject the gospel? If you go to hell, it is because you refuse this offer; you turn your back on the
goodness and mercy of God; you reject a Savior who died so sinners may live. And you reject Him why?
Because you want to play freeze-tag with your buddies? Because youre too insubordinate to accept that
their reigns a King over your soul? Because the pleasure of a twinkie sounds more desirable than the
pleasure of being in a relationship with God?
Deciding not to follow Christ proves you dont want to be saved from your sins. Rather, your pride,
ego, and self-centeredness keep you from accepting a Love to reside in your heart that is greater than all
loves. It is absurdity to reject such a humble Savior, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. You reject life,
meaning, purpose, and happiness so that you can hang onto sin, death, meaninglessness, and despair.
You exchange the truth for a lie and heaven for hell. This is the absurdity of unbelief.
For those of you who are still carefree and unconcerned about the condition of your soul, there is
not much more I can say. But, for those of you who have a broken and weary heart, for those who can
see their sins and rebellion against their God, for those who truly hate their sins, for those who are ready
to humbly ask God for forgiveness and surrender to the lordship of Christ, I have wonderful news. Look
unto Jesus and you shall be saved. This is a promise that is certain to be fulfilled for all who believe. It is
not by works but simply by believing this promise that we are made right before God.
He came to die for sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). He freely offers Himself to all who truly desire to be
delivered from their sins and their guilt. Those who hide and cover their sins will remain in their sins, but
those who repent taking ownership and confessing their sins before God and believe in their hearts
that Jesus is who He says that He is shall be saved. Dear reader, there is forgiveness. Your guilt and sin
may be removed as far as the East is from the West, and the perfect righteousness of Christ could be
credited to your account. All your guilt may be washed away, and the blood of Jesus is able to cleanse
you from all of your sins. Come unto me, Christ says, and I will give you rest. God made this promise.
He cannot lie. He is able to save the worst of sinners. Salvation is free; you only have to believe.
And believing, my dear friends, is the only reasonable thing to do.
Endnotes
1. Faith is Not Blind Endnotes
Note 1.1: Paul Tillich, Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1955), 85. [return to reading 1.1]
Note 1.2: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford, 2006), 198. Dawkins claims that
the Bible ridicules Doubting Thomas for asking for evidence before he believed in the resurrection of
Christ (Ibid.). [return to reading 1. 2]
Note 1.3: Dionysius, The Divine Names, in Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Names and
The Mystical Theology, trans. C. E. Rolt (Berwick, MA: Ibis Press, 2004), 59. [return to reading 1.3]
Note 1.4: Ibid., 53. [return to reading 1.4]
Note 1.5: Ibid., 135. [return to reading 1.5]
Note 1.6: Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind to God, in Late Medieval Mysticism, ed. Ray C.
Petry (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 132. [return to reading 1.6]
Note 1.7: Ibid., 140-141. [return to reading 1.7]
Note 1.8: Meister Eckhart, Another Sermon on the Eternal Birth, in Late Medieval Mysticism,
ed. Ray C. Petry (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 189. [return to reading 1.8]
Note 2.11: Stephen Evans, Passionate Reason: Making Sense of Kierkegaards Philosophical
Fragments (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992), 88. [return to reading 2.11]
Note 2.12: Sren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, trans. Alastair Hannay (London: Penguin
Books, 2003), 54. [return to reading 2.12]
Note 2.13: Sren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript in Kierkegaards Writings, Vol.
1. ed. and trans. Howard V. Hong & Edna H. Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 203.
[return to reading 2.13]
Note 2.14: Ibid. [return to reading 2.14]
Note 2.15: Ibid. [return to reading 2.15]
Note 2.16: Ibid., 204. [return to reading 2.16]
Note 2.17: Kierkegaard claimed that if believers foolishly attempt to fortify their faith through an
objective inquiry, their faith would be lost in the process. When the absurd becomes increasingly
probable, then faith has nothing to grasp hold of, for the absurd is precisely the object of faith, and the
only [object] that can be believed (Ibid., 211). As if to say that faith cannot attach itself to that which is
not absurd. [return to reading 2.17]
Note 2.18: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1936-1969), 1.2, 457. [return to reading 2.18]
Note 2.19: Church Dogmatics., 1.1.123. [return to reading 2.19]
Note 2.20: See Rudolf Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology (New York: Harper & Row,
1966). [return to reading 2.20]
Note 2.21: Carl Armbruster, The Vision of Paul Tillich (New York: Sheed And Ward, 1967), 136.
[return to reading 2.21]
Note 2.22: Ibid., 53. [return to reading 2.22]
Note 2.23: Paul Tillich, The Depth of Existence, in The Shaking of the Foundations (New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1948), 57. [return to reading 2.23]
Note 2.24: Ibid., 136. [return to reading 2.24]
Note 2.25: Ibid., 136. [return to reading 2.25]
Note 2.26: Cited in Ibid., 47. [return to reading 2.26]
Note 2.27: David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Indianapolis: The Bobbs
Merrill Company, 1947), 158. Words in bracket are present author. [return to reading 2.27]
Note 2.28: Cited in Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000), 32. [return to reading 2.28]
Note 2.29: Ibid., 39. [return to reading 2.29]
Note 2.30: Written by Alfred H. Ackley (b. Spring Hill, PA, 1887; d. Whittier, CA, 1960), both text
and tune were published in the Rodeheaver hymnal Triumphant Service Songs (1933). [return to reading
2.30]
Note 2.31: Blaise Pascal, Penses, 277. [return to reading 2.31]
Note 5.17: According to Richard Muller, Calvin had distinguished between three kinds of
reasons: reason naturally implanted in human beings by God, which cannot be condemned without
insulting God; a vitiated reason, occurring in corrupt nature which sinfully warps Gods revelation; and
reasonderived from the Word of God (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1., 275). [return to
reading 5.17]
Note 5.18: Meredith Kline is helpful in the manner in which he links our knowledge of ethics with
being made in the likeness of God: Likeness to God is signified by both image of God and son of God.
Mans likeness to God is a demand to be like God; the indicative here has the force of an imperative.
Formed in the image of God, man is informed by a sense of deity by which he knows what God is like, not
merely that God is (Rom. 1:19ff.). And knowledge of what ones Father-God is, is knowledge of what, in
creaturely semblance, one must be himself. With the sense of deity comes conscience, the sense of
deity in the imperative mode. The basic and general covenantal norm of the imitation of God was thus
written on the tables of mans heart (Rom. 1:32; 2:14f.). (Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a
Covenantal Worldview. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006, 62). [return to reading 5.18]
but it must have been implanted there by God Himself. [return to reading 8.13]
Note 8.14: Cited in Gordon Clark, Thales To Dewey (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 2nd
ed., 1989), 360. [return to reading 8.14]
Note 8.15: This branch of philosophy also includes aesthetics. [return to reading 8.15]
commitment, and this self-love (his ethical commitment) shapes his epistemology, which in turn shapes
his understanding and acceptance of God (ontology). The proper order of ontology (ultimate reality),
epistemology, and ethics (mans primary commitment) has been reversed in the fall. [return to reading
9.17]
Note 9. 18: Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Phillipsburg, NJ: R&R Publishing,
1972), 8. [return to reading 9.18]
Note 11.19: Antony Flew, There Is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 96. [return to reading
11.19]
Note 11.20: George Johnson, Creation, in the Beholder, The New York Times, 20 May 2014, D3.
[return to reading 11.20]
Note 11.21: Cited in Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 17-18.
Emphasis is Stephen Meyer. [return to reading 11.21]
Note 11.22: Ibid. [return to reading 11.22]
Note 11.23: Cited in Signature in the Cell, 12. [return to reading 11.23]
Note 11.24: See William Paley, Natural Theology (New York: Oxford, 2008), 1-10. [return to
reading 11.24]
Note 13.12: C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 52-53. [return to
reading 13.12]
Note 13.13: Cited in Ronald Nash, Faith and Reason, 53. [return to reading 13.13]
Note 13.14: Thomas Morris, Francis Schaeffers Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987),
42. [return to reading 13.14]
becomes clean, once one has read the New Testament (The Anti-Christ, sect. 46). [return to reading
15.12]
Note 15.13: Being influenced by his half-cousin Charles Darwin, Francis Galton (1822-1911)
advocated for eugenics (a term he coined) in Hereditary Genius (1869). Eugenics is concerned with
advancing the human race, through what Galton called, judicious mating and compulsory sterilization.
He defined eugenics as the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of
a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage (Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and
Aims, The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 10; July, 1904; Number 1). Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer
(1896-1969), Karin Magnussen (1908-1997), Josef Mengele (1911-1979), and Nazi Germany took social
Darwinism and the eugenics of Galton to its radical conclusion by experimenting on and executing those
whom they deemed to be inferior. [return to reading 15.13]
Note 15.14: Ibid., 319. [return to reading 15.14]
Note 15.15: Nietzsche., 259. [return to reading 15.15]
Note 15.16: This is odd, seeing that Nietzsche was very sickly most of his life. He was a feeble
man who had to be cared for by friends and family. In the last ten years of his life he became mentally
insane and needed constant care from his Christian mother. [return to reading 15.16]
Note 15.17: Cited in William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1960), 86. [return to reading 15.17]
Note 15.18: Nietzsche, 266. [return to reading 15.18]
Note 15.19: See John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press,
2000), 75. [return to reading 15.19]
Note 15.20: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 12. [return to reading 15.20]
Note 15.21: Ibid., 14-15. [return to reading 15.21]
Note 15.22: Civilization and Its Discontents, 22. [return to reading 15.22]
Note 15.23: Ibid., 24-15. [return to reading 15.23]
Note 15.24: Ibid., 25. [return to reading 15.24]
Note 15.25: Ibid., 34. [return to reading 15.25]
Note 15.26: The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, 90. [return to reading 15.26]
Note 15.27: Alister McGrath, Why God Wont Go Away (Nashville: Nelson, 2010), 145. [return to
reading 15.27]
Note 19.11: B. A. G. Fuller, The Theory of God in Book of Aristotles Metaphysics in The
Philosophical Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Mar., 1907), 170-183., 173. [return to reading 19.11]
Note 19.12: Ibid., 175. [return to reading 19.12]
Note 19.13: Metaphysics, 12.9. [return to reading 19.13]
Note 19.14: Ibid., 177. [return to reading 19.14]
Note 19.15: Metaphysics, 12.6. For a Christian thinker who defends the eternality of the universe
see Eternal God by Paul Helm (New York: Oxford, 2012), 234-250. [return to reading 19.15]
Note 19.16: See Benedict De Spinoza, Of God Part 1 in Ethics. Trans Edwin Curley (New York:
Penguin Books, 1996). [return to reading 19.16]
Note 24.12: Lee Martin McDonald, The Story of Jesus in History and Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2013), 45. [return to reading 24.12]
Note 24.13: James H. Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus and Biblical Archaeology: Reflections
on New Methodologies and Perspectives in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 694. [return to reading 24.13]
Note 24.14: See Burt Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2005). [return to
reading 24.14]
Note 24.15: For an introduction to New Testament textual criticism, see my book Behind the
Bible: A Primer on Textural Criticism (Birmingham: SGCB, 2012). [return to reading 24.15]
Bibliography
Ackley, Alfred H. I Serve a Risen Savior. Spring Hill, PA, 1887; d. Whittier, CA, 1960., both text and
tune were published in the Rodeheaver hymnal Triumphant Service Songs, 1933.
Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogion in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Edited by Brian
Davis and G. R. Evans. New York: Oxford, 2008.
Armbruster, Carl. The Vision of Paul Tillich. New York: Sheed And Ward, 1967.
Aristotle, Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Stilwell, KS: Digireads Publishing, 2006.
Atkins, Peter. Creation Revisited. Oxford: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1992.
Augustine. The City of God. Translated by George Wilson and J. J. Smith. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2013.
_____, The Trinity. Edited by John E. Rotelle. Translated by Edmond Hill. New York: New City
Press, 1992.
Ayer. A. J. Language, Truth, and Logic. New York: Dover Books, 1952.
Bahnsen, Greg L. Pushing the Antithesis. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007.
_____, Van Tils Apologetic. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1998.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1936-1969.
Barzun, Jacques. The Culture We Deserve. Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1989.
Bavinck, Herman. In the Beginning. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, Reprint 1979.
_____, Reformed Dogmatics. 3 Vols. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
Behe, M. J. Darwins Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Beyssade, Jean-Marie. The Idea of God and Proofs of His Existence in The Cambridge
Companion to Descartes. Edited by John Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Berlinski, David. The Devils Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. New York: Basic
Books, 2009.
Black, Jim Nelson. The Death of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Blanchard, John. Does God Believe in Atheists?. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2001.
_____, Is Anybody There. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2006.
Boa, Kenneth D. and Robert M. Bowman Jr. Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative Approach to
Defending Christianity. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006.
Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind to God. Late Medieval Mysticism. Edited by Ray C. Petry.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.
Bosserman, B. A., The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: An Interpretation and
Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius Van Til. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014.
Bultmann, Rudolf. New Testament and Mythology. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
Byl, John. The Divine Challenge. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.
Calvin, John. Calvins Commentaries, Vol. 1. Translated by John King. Reprint, Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2003.
_____, Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vols. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford
Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.
_____, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. Translated by Le mythe de Sisyphe. New York: Vintage
Books, 1991.
Charlesworth, James H. The Historical Jesus and Biblical Archaeology: Reflections on New
Methodologies and Perspectives in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Clark, Gordon. Thales To Dewey. Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 2nd Ed., 1989.
Clifford, W. K. The Ethics of Belief, in Philosophy of Religion. Edited by Charles Taliaferro and
Paul J. Griffiths. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
Collett, Don. Van Til and Transcendental Argument in Revelation and Reason. Edited by K. Scott
Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007.
Comfort, Philip. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography
and Textual Criticism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005.
Cornell, Vincent J. God in Islam, in the Encyclopedia of Religion, Ed. Lindsay Jones, Vol. 5, 2nd
Edition. New York: Macmillan Reference of Thompson Gale, 2005., 3560-3567.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2008.
Crick, Francis. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York:
Touchstone, 1994.
Davies, Paul. Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2007.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 1996.
_____, River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
_____, The God Delusion. Boston: Mariner Books, 2006.
_____, The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford, 2006.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwins Dangerous Idea. New York: Touchstone, 1995.
Descartes, Ren. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, 3rd Ed., 1993.
Dionysius. The Divine Names. Dionysius the Areopgagite on the Divine Names and The Mystical
Theology. Translated by C. E. Rolt. Berwick, MI: Ibis Press, 2004.
Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961.
Eckhart, Meister. Another Sermon on the Eternal Birth, in Late Medieval Mysticism. Edited by
Ray C. Petry. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957.
Edwards, Jonathan. Approaching the End of Gods Grand Design, 1743-1758. Edited by Wilson H.
Kimnach. Vol. 25 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
_____, The Freedom of the Will. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996.
_____, Miscellany 96, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Vol. 13. Edited by Thomas A. Schafer.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
_____, The Religious Affections. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994.
Ehrman, Burt. Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York:
HarperCollins, 2005.
Evans, Stephen. Passionate Reason: Making Sense of Kierkegaards Philosophical Fragments.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992.
Fisher, George Park. The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1915.
Fletcher, James. Situation Ethics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.
Flew, Antony. There Is a God. New York: HaperOne, 2008.
Frame, John. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,
2015.
_____, Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994.
_____, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987.
Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1961.
Fuller, B. A. G. The Theory of God in Book of Aristotles Metaphysics in The Philosophical
Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Mar., 1907), 170-183.
Galton, Francis. Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims. The American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 10; July, 1904; Number 1.
Gerrish, B. A. A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginnings of Modern Theology,
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Goodman, Micah. Maimonides and the Book that Changed Judaism. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society, 2015.
Green, Ronald. Kierkegaard and Kant: The Hidden Debt. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1992.
Harrison, Paul. Elements of Pantheism. Shaftesbury, UK: Element Books, 2013.
Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books, 2010.
Hayman, Ronald. Nietzsche. New York: Penguin Books, 1980.
Helm, Paul. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. New York: Oxford, 2012.
Henry, Carl. God, Revelation and Authority. Vol. 3. Waco: Word Books, 1979.
Hick, John. Faith and Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Carnell University Press, 1966.
Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. New York: Twelve, 2007.
Hodge, Charles. Systemic Theology, 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Indianapolis: The Bobbs Merrill Company,
1947.
Isaacson, Walter. Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007.
James, William. Pragmatism in Pragmatism in Other Writings. New York: Penguin Books, 2000.
Jaspers, Karl. Way to Wisdom. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New Heaven, CN: Yale University
Press, 1954.
Johnson, George. Creation, in the Beholder. The New York Times, 20 May 2014, D3.
Johnson, Jeffrey D. Behind the Bible: A Primer on Textural Criticism. Birmingham: SGCB, 2012.
Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trail. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2 ed. 1993.
Jones, Peter. One or Two: Seeing a World of Difference. Escondido, CA: Main Entry Editions, 2010.
Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 1990.
Kenny, Anthony. The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Kierkegaard, Sren. Fear and Trembling. Translated by Alastair Hannay. London: Penguin Books,
2003.
_____, Concluding Unscientific Postscript in Kierkegaards Writings. Edited and translated by
Howard V. Hong & Edna H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991.
Lennox, John C. God and Stephen Hawking. Oxford: Lion Books, 2011.
_____, Gods Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. Oxford: Lion Books, 2009.
Lessing, Gotthold Ephriam. On the proof of the spirit and of power (1777) in Lessing:
Philosophical and Theological Writings. Edited and translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity. Phillsburg, PA: P&R, 2004.
Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.
_____, Mere Christianity. New York: Touchstone, 1980.
_____, Is Theology Poetry? in The Weight of Glory. New York: HaperCollins, 2001.
London, Jack. The Sea-Wolf. New York: Tom Doherty Associates Books, 1993.
Luther, Martin. The Tabletalk of Martin Luthers. Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2003.
Lyotard, Jean-Franois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report of Knowledge. Translated by Geoff
Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota, 1983.
Magee, Bryan. The. Story of Philosophy. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2001.
Maier, Paul L. Josephus on Jesus, in Josephus: The Essential Works. Edited and translated by
Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994.
McCall, Thomas H. Trinity Doctrine, Plain and Simple in Advancing Trinitarian Theology. Edited
by Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
McDonald, Lee Martin. The Story of Jesus in History and Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2013.
McGrath, Alister. Why God Wont Go Away. Nashville: Nelson, 2010.
Meyer, Stephen C. Darwins Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent
Design. New York: HarperOne, 2013.
_____, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne,
2009.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979.
Morris, Thomas V. Francis Schaeffers Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987.
Muggeridge, Malcolm. The End of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Murphy, John L. Modernism and the Teaching of Schleiermacher, Part II. Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1961.
Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 4. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2001.
Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
_____, The Last Word. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Nash, Ronald. Faith and Reason. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1988.
_____, The Word of God and the Mind of Man. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1982.
_____, Worldviews in Conflict. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Newton, Isaac. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Snowball Publishing, 2010.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Anti-christ. Translated by H. L. Mencken. New York: Cosimo Classics,
2005.
_____, Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Helen Zimmern. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications,
1997.
_____, The Gay Science. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
_____, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1966.
Oliphint, Scott K. Covenantal Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
_____, God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2012.
_____, Reasons for Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006.
_____, Simplicity, Trinity, and Incomprehensibility of God in One God in Three Persons. Edited
by Bruce Ware and John Starke. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.
Owen. John. Biblical Theology. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002.
_____, The Works of Owen, 16 Vol. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.
Paley, William. Natural Theology. New York: Oxford, 2008.
Pascal, Blaise. Penses. Translated by W. F. Trotter in Great Books of the Western World. Gen.
Ed., Robert Maynard Hutchins. New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.
Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
_____, Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford, 2000.
_____, Where the Conflict Really Lies. New York: Oxford, 2012.
Plato. Platos Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1974.
Poythress, Vern. Redeeming Philosophy. Wheaton: Crossway, 2014.
Reeves, Michael. Delighting in the Trinity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1012.
Richards, Jay Wesley. The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of the Divine Perfection,
Simplicity and Immutability. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Russell, Bertrand. Religion and Science. New York: Oxford, 1997.
_____, Why I Am Not a Christian. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957.
Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 2002.
Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions. New York: Citadel Press, 1987.
Schaeffer, Francis. He is There and He is Not Silent in Trilogy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.
Schweitzer, William M. God is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness and Harmony
in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.
Sire, James. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as A Concept. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004.
_____, The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009.
Spinoza, Benedict De. Ethics. Translated by W. H. White in Great Books of the Western World,
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Young, Edward. Thy Word is Truth. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963.
Zacharias, Ravi. A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990.
Index of Names
A
Anaximenes, ref_1
Anselm, ref_1
Armbruster, Carl, ref_1, ref_2
Aristotle, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18
Anthony, Kenny, ref_1
Atkins, Peter, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Augustine, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Ayer, A. J., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
B
Bacon, Francis, ref_1, ref_2
Bahnsen, Greg, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10
Barth, Karl, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Barzun, Jacques, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Baudrillard, Jean, ref_1
Bavinck, Herman, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Behe, Michael, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Bentham, Jeremy, ref_1
Berkhof, Louis, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Berlinski, David, ref_1, ref_2
Bernard of Clairvaux, ref_1
Beyssade, Jean-Marie, ref_1
Black, Jim Nelson, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Blanchard, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Bonaventure, ref_1, ref_2
Bosserman, B. A., ref_1
Bultmann, Rudolf, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Byl, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
C
Cabanis, Pierre Jean Georges, ref_1
Calvin, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18, ref_19, ref_20, ref_21
Calvin, Melvin, ref_1
Camus, Albert, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Charlesworth, James, ref_1, ref_2
Charnock, Stephen, ref_1, ref_2
Clark, Gordon, ref_1, ref_2
Clifford, William K., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Collett, Don, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Comfort, Philip, ref_1
Copernicus, Nicolaus, ref_1, ref_2
Cornell, Vincent J., ref_1, ref_2
Craig, William Lane, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Crick, Francis, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
D
Dahmer, Jeffrey, ref_1
Darwin, Charles, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18, ref_19, ref_20, ref_21, ref_22, ref_23, ref_24, ref_25,
ref_26, ref_27, ref_28, ref_29, ref_30
Davies, Paul, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Dawkins, Richard, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11,
ref_12, ref_13
Dennett, Daniel, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8
Denton, Michael, ref_1
Derrida, Jacques, ref_1
Descartes, Ren, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10
Dionysius, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14, ref_15
Durant, Will, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
E
Eckhart, Meister, ref_1, ref_2
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, ref_1, ref_2
Edwards, Jonathan, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11
Ehrman, Burt, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Einstein, Albert, ref_1
Eldredge, Niles, ref_1
Esau, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Evans, Stephen, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
F
Fisher, George Park, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Fletcher, Joseph, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Flew, Antony, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4 , ref_5
Frame, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Francis of Assisi, ref_1
Freud, Sigmund, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Fuller, B. A. G., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
G
Galilei, Galileo, ref_1, ref_2
Galton, Francis, ref_1
Gates, Bill, ref_1
Gerrish, B. A., ref_1
Goldsmith, Oliver, ref_1
Green, Ronald, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Griffiths, Paul J., ref_1
H
Haeckel, Ernst, ref_1
Harrison, Paul, ref_1, ref_2
Hawking, Stephen, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Hayman, Ronald, ref_1
Hefner, Hugh, ref_1
Heidegger, ref_1, ref_2
Helm, Paul, ref_1
Henry, Carl, ref_1, ref_2
Heraclitus, ref_1
Hick, John, ref_1
Hitchens, Christopher, ref_1, ref_2
Hitler, Adolf, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10
Hodge, Charles, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Hong, Edna H., ref_1
Hong, Howard V., ref_1
Hubble, Edwin, ref_1
Hume, David, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Hutchins, Robert, ref_1
Huxley, Julian, ref_1
I
Isaacson, Walter, ref_1
J
James, William, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Jaspers, Karl, ref_1, ref_2
Jeans, James, ref_1
Johnson, George, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Johnson, Phillip, ref_1, ref_2
Jones, Peter, ref_1
Josephus, Flavius, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
K
Kant, Immanuel, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18, ref_19
Kaufman, Gordon, ref_1
Kaufmann, Walter, ref_1, ref_2
Keith, Arthur, ref_1
Kenyon, Dean, ref_1
Kierkegaard, Sren, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11,
ref_12, ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18, ref_19, ref_20
Klein, George, ref_1, ref_2
Kline, Meredith, ref_1
L
Lasch, Christopher, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Lematre, Georges, ref_1
Lessing, Gotthold, ref_1
Lenin, Vladimir, ref_1
Lennox, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11
Letham, Robert, ref_1, ref_2
Lewis, C. S., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12
Lewontin, Richard, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Lincoln, Abraham, ref_1
Locke, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
London, Jack, ref_1
Lucas, J. R., ref_1
Luther, Martin, ref_1, ref_2
Lyotard, Jean-Pranois, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
M
Magee, Bryan, ref_1, ref_2
Magnussen, Karin, ref_1
Maier, Paul L., ref_1, ref_2
Maslow, Abraham, ref_1
McCall, Thomas H, ref_1, ref_2
McDonald, Martin, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
McGrath, Alister, ref_1, ref_2
Mengele, Josef, ref_1
Meyer, Stephen C., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8
Mill, John Stuart, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Mlodinow, Leonard, ref_1, ref_2
Monod, Jacques, ref_1
Morris, Thomas, ref_1
Moshe ben Maimon, ref_1
Muggeridge, Malcom, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Muller, Richard, ref_1
Murphy, John L., ref_1
Murray, John, ref_1, ref_2
N
Nagel, Thomas, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Nash, Ronald, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Nero, ref_1, ref_2
Newton, Isaac, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Nietzsche, Friedrich, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11,
ref_12, ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18, ref_19, ref_20, ref_21, ref_22, ref_23, ref_24,
ref_25, ref_26
O
Oliphint, Scott, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14
Owen, John, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
P
Paley, William, ref_1
Parmenides, ref_1
Pascal, Blaise, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Pasteur, Louis, ref_1, ref_2
Patterson, Colin, ref_1
Penrose, Roger, ref_1
Pinnock, Clark, ref_1
Plantinga, Alvin, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11, ref_12,
ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16
Plato, ref_1, ref_2
Plotinus, ref_1, ref_2
Pot, Pol, ref_1
Poythress, Vern, ref_1, ref_2
Provine, William, ref_1
Pythagoras, ref_1
R
Raup, David, ref_1
Reeves, Michael, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Rice, Richard, ref_1
Richards, Jay Wesley, ref_1, ref_2
Robinson, Richard, ref_1, ref_2
Rolt, C. E., ref_1, ref_2
Russell, Bertrand, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4 , ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11,
ref_12, ref_13, ref_14, ref_15, ref_16, ref_17, ref_18, ref_19
S
Sagan, Carl, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Sanders, John, ref_1
Sarfati, Jonathan, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Sartre, John-Paul, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Schaeffer, Francis, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Schleiermacher, Friedrich, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Schweitzer, William M., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Shirer, William L., ref_1
Singer, Peter, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Sire, James, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10
Skinner, C. F., ref_1, ref_2
Smith, George H., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Smith, Joseph, ref_1
Smith, Wolfgang, ref_1
Socrates, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Spinoza, Benedict De, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_5
Sproul, R. C., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Stalin, Joseph, ref_1
Swinburne, Richard, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
T
Tacitus, Cornelius, ref_1
Taliaferro, Charles, ref_1
Taylor, Charles, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7
Thales, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Til, Cornelius Van, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6, ref_7, ref_8, ref_9, ref_10, ref_11
Tillich, Paul, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5
Tipton, Lane G., ref_1, ref_2
Tour, James M., ref_1, ref_2
Trefil, James, ref_1
Turretin, Francies, ref_1, ref_2
V
Varghese, Abraham, ref_1
Verschuer, Otmar von, ref_1
Voltaire, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3
Vos, Geerhardus, ref_1
W
Wald, George, ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4
Warfield. B. B., ref_1, ref_2
Washington, George, ref_1
Watson, James, ref_1
White, James, ref_1
William of Ockham, ref_1
Williams, Christopher, ref_1
Wilson, Edward O., ref_1
Wright, N. T., ref_1, ref_2, ref_3, ref_4, ref_5, ref_6
Y
Young, Edward, ref_1
Z
Zacharias, Ravi, ref_1, ref_2
Zimmern, Helen, ref_1