The Four Miracles of Atheism

Richard Dawkins stated that “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” However, even naturalistic worldviews also take some things on faith.

 

 

For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process. Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:

  1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
  2. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
  3. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
  4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.

Continue Reading --->

THE NO-GOD DELUSION

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the marketplace, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.  

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you.  We have killed him  – you and I. All of us are his murderers.”

–Words of Friedrich Nietzsche, arguably the most influential atheist philosopher of all time, from his Parable of the Madman. Interestingly enough, Nietzsche spent the last 11 years of his life locked away in a mental institution.

—————–

Robert M. Pirsig summarized how many atheists perceive theistic belief in his famous book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a religion.”

Somewhat embarrassingly, Pirsig here fails to notice that atheism and agnosticism fit many of the diverse definitions of “religion” present within religious scholarship. But we can put that aside for a moment, and for the purpose of discussion, just accept the definition of religion as “those belief systems which are theistic”…since this is the definition most prevalent in modern popular “secular” culture.

The question then becomes whether or not belief in God could be classified as a “delusion.” Andrew Sims is a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. In his book Is Faith a Delusion? Why Religion is Good For Your Health, he comments on the psychiatric definition of delusion:

“Although in the past, the word delusion could refer to being fooled or cheated, in modern speech it always implies the possibility of psychiatric illness. It has been appropriated by psychiatry and invariably implies at least the suspicion of a psychiatric diagnosis. If I am deluded, then I am necessarily mentally ill. In English law, delusion has been the cardinal feature of insanity for the last 200 years.”

Continue Reading --->

 

The Mind behind the Universe

Dear Dr. Craig,
Thank you for the amazing work you do in your ministry.
Last year I studied Philosophy of Mind at my university, after hearing your advice to do such on the RF podcast. I found it extremely interesting and it certainly opened me up to a few realities about the field that I wouldn't have expected to be true (such as the increasing number of modern philosophers that are leaning towards dualism).
To my question: It seems to me that your suggestion, that the only rational cause for the universe is an unembodied mind, presupposes dualism. What do you consider to be the best arguments for dualism, in light of the materialist majority?
Moreover, what do you consider to be the best argument for an unembodied mind as the first cause over an abstract object? Could the 'multiverse', as described by Prof. Lawrence Krauss and other New Atheists, be such an abstract object? If so, does this put the notion of an unembodied mind as the first cause into second place?
Thank you for your assistance, it is much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Ben
United States


Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer


Dawkins: Pigs over Humans?!?

Richard Dawkins Ranks Live Pig Above Human Fetus

At his National Review Online blog, Discovery fellow Wesley J. Smith hammers Richard Dawkinsfor his tweet that a human fetus has less intrinsic value than an adult pig. Presumably, many on the right will share Smith's dismay. But how many are willing to acknowledge that the Dawkins view is the logical extension of his Darwinism?
Does it matter? Well, yes. Dawkins, and atheistic Neo-Darwinists like him are the new advocates for eugenics, and other atrocious moral behavior that fits nicely with their naturalistic worldview.
Ideas have consequences....Remember Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao?  Interesting that all of them subscribed to atheistic naturalism and the theory of Darwinian evolution.  
Might this type of talk from Dawkins and others like him be cause for concern?

Why Is Richard Dawkins So Popular?

"Richard Dawkins: A Simplistic and Silly Skeptic"

- Part 3 - 

(pt.3 of 3)

Contrary to the common opinions of his devotees, Richard Dawkins is very unsophisticated and uninformed in his thinking.  Most notable in his lack of understanding of good rigorous philosophical reasoning.

Here, numerous philosophers offers some powerful and simple refutations to the silly claims that are made by the famouse British Biologist, in his recent book "The God Delusion".  What Dawkins claims is "his best knockdown argument" is actually a philosophical error and very incoherent.

Don't take my word for it.  Listen to Dr. William Lane Craig, one of the greatest Phd philosophers in the world today and his critiques the simplistic thinking of Dawkins and his intellectual devotees. 

It you are an atheist/agnostic because of what you have "learned" from men like Dawkins, I strongly encourage you to do some more rigorous research and investigation into the issues, and the fundamental questions of humanity.  

A great place to start this intellectual quest is www.reasonablefaith.org

Pt.2 - "Richard Dawkins: A Simplistic and Silly Skeptic"

What do Professional Philosophers have to say about Richard Dawkins' objections to God?

Contrary to the common opinions of his devotees, Richard Dawkins is very unsophisticated and uninformed in his thinking.  Most notable in his lack of understanding of good rigorous philosophical reasoning.

Here, numerous philosophers offers some powerful and simple refutations to the silly claims that are made by the famouse British Biologist, in his recent book "The God Delusion".  What Dawkins claims is "his best knockdown argument" is actually a philosophical error and very incoherent.

Don't take my word for it.  Listen to these Phd philosophers and their critiques of Dawkins simplistic and silly thinking. 

It you are an atheist/agnostic because of what you have "learned" from men like Dawkins, I strongly encourage you to do some more rigorous research and investigation into the issues, and the fundamental questions of humanity.  

A great place to start this intellectual quest is

www.reasonablefaith.org

Richard Dawkins - A Silly and Simplistic Skeptic (pt.1)

Are you aware of the mistaken thinking that is employed by Richard Dawkins?

Contrary to the common opinions of his devotees, Richard Dawkins is very unsophisticated and uninformed in his thinking.  Most notable in his lack of understanding of good rigorous philosophical reasoning.

Here, Dr. William Lane Craig offers some powerful and simple refutations to the silly claims that are made by the famouse British Biologist.

It you are an atheist/agnostic because of what you have "learned" from men like Dawkins, I strongly encourage you to do some more rigorous research and investigation into the issues, and the fundamental questions of humanity.  

A great place to start this intellectual quest is

www.reasonablefaith.org


- Pastor J.

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

elderly.jpg

I'm surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating to the position that its power is a thing of the past. The convenience of that stance, of course, is that it enables them to insist that natural selection was a powerful mechanism without committing themselves to the more risky proposition that it still is.

Laurence Moran is among those who seem to favor this approach, at least as I interpret his 

recent post

.

Ann Gauger and I have shown that Darwin's mechanism cannot accomplish what appears to be one of the more favorable functional transitions among proteins. Specifically, we've presented

experimental evidence

 that the protein pictured here on the left cannot evolve to perform the function of the protein shown on the right, despite their striking similarity and the generous assumptions we granted.

We completely agree with Moran that this exact transition never happened in the history of enzyme evolution (and said as much in 

our paper

). But evidently we expect more of Darwin's theory than he does. In particular, we expect it to conform to the established norm of offering universal principles instead of just-so stories.

If it can be shown that natural selection actually has (present tense) the creative capacity attributed to it, then I will certainly join those who are calling everyone to accept this. But if the facts go the other way, as it seems they have, then perhaps the reality check should likewise go the other way.

Darwin certainly didn't make the mistake of relegating natural selection to the past:

It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

By this classically Darwinian view, all that was needed for our ape ancestors to evolve the intellectual capabilities that distinguish us so dramatically from apes was the right "conditions of life." It follows that any ape population of today, if placed in those conditions, should evolve in the same way -- not becoming human per se, but rather human-like in every respect that we benefit from being un-ape-like. And similarly, all it should take for one member of a protein family to transition to a new function is the right selective environment.

Continue reading --->