An Elementary Point for Professor Dawkins

Seraph wrote:

"One of the central arguments of The God Delusion by Dawkins is this...

'... the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer?'

You will find a brilliant response and refutation to this argument by William Lane Craig. I thought I would share Craigs' response with those who have briefly alluded to Dawkins' reasoning in their respective posts. Craig succinctly expresses:

'... Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: who designed the designer?

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.'"

The "Myth" of Creationism

"My purpose for being here (and I can only speak for myself and not the other unbelievers here) is to stand up for reason and especially to try to dissuade anyone from spreading the myth of creationism, especially in public schools."

This is censorship at its worst. Those who are anti-knowledge see themselves as the intellectual saviors of poor dumb college and university students, who don’t have the ability to think for themselves. These are the book burners, who do what they do for the good of society. Their society. And they do what they do in the name of “reason” and "science," when their atheistic belief is completely unreasonable and absolutely unscientific.

If you think atheism is scientific and reasonable, let me ask you some questions. Do you believe that nothing created everything? If you do, that's not only unscientific, it's unreasonable. This is because your "nothing" isn’t nothing. It is something because it had the amazing ability to create everything. So do you then believe that something created everything, although you are not sure what that something was? That's reasonable.

Keeping in mind that the most intelligent of human beings can’t create a grain of sand from nothing, do you think that that "something" that made everything was intelligent? It obviously is; and if you do believe the "force" that made the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars was intelligent, you then believe that there was an intelligent designer. You have just become an unscientific knuckle-dragger in the narrow-minded eyes of our learning institutions that embrace Darwinism.

But you are not alone if you believe in God. Many of our greatest scientists believed in the existence of a Creator: Galileo, Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Kepler, just to name a few. Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." He also said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

The incredible harmony in creation proves beyond a doubt to any thinking mind that there is a Creator...don't you think?

Richard, the Liar-heart?

When I contrasted having absolute assurance of something with the word "probably," an atheist (Richard) replied, "All planes and elevators are probably safe. Accidents do happen. All knowledge is probable . . . So the use of probably simple means the person is not as arrogant to assume he/she has absolute knowledge. Anybody who claims to have absolute knowledge is a liar."

However (using his own standards of judgment), this man must be a liar, because he made a number of absolute statements in his reply. He said that "all" planes and elevators are probably safe. That means that he has absolute knowledge of all planes and elevators. There’s not one plane or elevator in this entire universe, of which he isn’t perfectly familiar.

Then he does the same thing with his "all" knowledge. To say "all knowledge is probable," he must have all knowledge to know that it's probable. So he humbly claims omniscience. He thinks that he is God. Then he boasts of his humility (he’s not arrogant like those who use absolute statements) and says "Anyone who claims to have absolute knowledge is a liar."

Richard Dawkins shows the difference between the belief of the atheist and the experiential knowledge of the Christian, with his "There is probably no God." The Christian knows God, while the professing atheist doesn’t. He is an "atheist"--a ("without") theist ("God"). He is without God.

Then Richard (the absolute statement-maker) goes out on a limb and makes another absolute statement, in an effort to prove that God doesn’t keep His promises:

"Now please explain why there has NEVER been a single substantiated report of a single amputee that regained his amputated limb back from God."

How does he know that this has never happened in history, or somewhere else other than in his very limited world? The best he can offer is that he has never heard of such a thing.

His broad statement is typical of those who adamantly say that there is no God. In reality, they don’t know that God doesn’t exist. So they need to sit at the feet of the learned professor Dawkins, and stay with the word "probably."

Preaching to the Choir

"I was just wondering, Ray, why did you move to the U.S. -- why come to America since it is so Christian? Why not go to a country that is primarily Hindu or Buddhist or atheistic? According to polls about 85% of Americans consider themselves Christians and at least 35-40% call themselves "born again" while only 10-12% of Americans are atheists...Aside from this blog aren't you pretty much preaching to the choir in the U.S.?" Southern Comfort

I was honored to be invited to come to this country, back in 1989. I had been speaking in Hawaii in 1988 when the pastor of a church in California heard what I was saying, called me in New Zealand some time later and said, "America must hear this message!" So, at his church’s kind invitation and clear direction from God, I uprooted my family and came to the United States.

I already knew that He was going to bring me here (see, Out of the Comfort Zone for details) and I knew why. I had discovered the reason that this nation in particular was filled with so many "false converts." A false convert is a person who says that he is a Christian, but his life doesn’t match what he professes to believe. Some stay within the Church as false converts, but many are exposed by "tribulation, temptation and persecution" and go back to the sinful world (as the Bible says) like a dog returns to its vomit (see 2 Peter 2:22). Your own experience is an example of a false conversion:

"I was brought up in a Christian home and accepted Christ as my savior at the age of 14. I committed my life to full-time Christian service at 18. I am a graduate of a conservative Christian college and seminary, having studied the Bible formally at the college level for 6 years and as a Christian for many more years than that. I was in Christian ministry for over 20 years. So I guess you could at least say I am very familiar with the bible and its teachings. I don't know if it would surprise you or not, but I know several other preachers who have rejected the tenets of Christianity after having been in the ministry for many years."

You stayed in the Church for many years, and were able to fake it even longer than the well-known false convert, Mr. Dan Barker. But nowhere in the Bible does it say to "accept" Christ as your Savior. That was the root cause of your problem.

My problem is that people who have had a false conversion are often bitter and angry (as with Mr. Barker) and therefore unreachable with the true gospel. I hope that’s not your case. If you are interested in the details of why you fell away, please take the time to listen to "Hell’s Best Kept Secret" and then "True and False Conversion" on livingwaters.com (there’s no charge).

Inconsistent Teaching?

A skeptic wrote: "But I don't believe that Ray's 'vile worm theology' is the consistent teaching of the Bible, nor is it consistent with a healthy self-image. Here are instances, in fact, where certain people are considered 'blameless': 'This man [Job] was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil' (Job 1:1). 'But I lead a blameless life; redeem me and be merciful to me' (Psalm 26:11). 'Both of them [Zechariah and Elisabeth] were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly' (Luke 1:6). We don't see this universal groveling in the muck over one's imperfection. We can thank the Church for that miserable sentiment."

It's important to understand that when the Bible speaks of someone being "blameless" it doesn’t mean that they are without sin. It simply means (in the Old Testament) that they trusted in God through animal sacrifice, and were therefore released from the condemnation of His Law. It was God's mercy that saved them.

This is also the legal state of the Christian (in the New Testament). He is a wicked sinner like every other human being, but because of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, he is counted as blameless. The Law of God has no demands on him. He is "justified" in the sight of God.

The word translated 'blameless' [Greek amomos] is used a number of times in the New Testament:

"That you may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (Philippians 2:15).

"(God) chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Ephesians 1:4).

"Christ ... gave himself up for (the church) ... to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless" (Ephesians 5:25-27). See also (Revelation 14:5).

This is an incredible truth of the Bible. All who repent and trust alone in Jesus Christ will be found blameless on the day of Judgment. That means that God's Law will not condemn them to Hell.

That's why it doesn't faze me when I am accused of being a liar and a hypocrite by atheists. God's approval is all that matters. If I am a liar and a hypocrite (a pretender) I will end up in Hell, but if I am genuine, I will be found blameless.

Look at this wonderful promise for every Christian: "Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us" (Romans 8:33-34).

A Valued Piece of Garbage

"Sometimes Ray makes me angry, or annoyed, flabbergasted or concerned for his mental health. But all in all, he is a good man. I wouldn't torture him, make him feel like a horrible useless little sinful piece of garbage, or arbitrarily destroy him on a meteorological whim. I wouldn't call him names or accuse him of greed. My gut is that Ray's not all that bad. Probably. Steve."

I’m glad you used the word "probably." It shows that you think that you could be wrong about me being a good man. And, you are. Big time. I’m not a good man, and I am "all that bad." A "good" man loves the God who gave him life--with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength. He also loves every other human being as much as he loves himself. A good man never lusts after women, or has a selfish or unclean thought sexual though. He is perfect, in thought, word, and in deed.

By human definition of the word "good," I may be good. But man's definition is very low. God’s is very high, and it’s by His perfect standard of goodness that we will be judged on Judgment day. Definitely.

No doubt this will make you angry, annoyed, flabbergasted and very concerned about my mental health. This is because you don’t understand God’s terrible justice, neither do you understand His amazing mercy. You and I may be a "sinful piece of garbage," but it is on that garbage that God set His love, and suffered and died to cleanse us of our filth.

The Flag and Independence

What does your country’s flag mean to you? To the United States, the flag is very special because it symbolizes freedom. It is a country that is unique in that it calls itself "One nation under God." That means that it’s a nation where you can have the freedom to love God, or you can be an atheist and even be free to promote your atheism. That is very special.

The flag reminds us that we fought for our independence. It came with a price. Many died so that we could be free, and those who honor the flag honor their precious sacrifice.

The symbol of Christianity is a blood-stained cross. It reminds the Christian that he is free from the demands of Eternal Justice. There was a time when he was ignorant, foolish and deceived by sin. He didn’t understand his moral state before God. I look back on my pre-conversion state and remember how the Cross was meaningless to me. It was a foreign flag to which I had no allegiance.

But when the moral Law opened my eyes to its just wrath (see Matthew 5:27-28), I suddenly understood the sacrifice. I had violated God’s Law (the Ten Commandments), and 2,000 years ago Jesus paid my fine in His precious life's blood. He defeated death by rising on the third day. That meant that upon my repentance and faith in the Savior, God could and would legally commute my death sentence.

On the Day of Judgment the Law of God cannot condemn me, because my crimes against God no longer exist. They have been blotted out by the mercy of the Judge. I have independence from the power of death. Fine paid; case dismissed.

So when I hear someone despise or discount the Cross as meaningless, I know why they feel that way. They need understanding, and that's the reason for this blog. May you find independence from death today. Happy 4th of July.

Dripping Hands

When asked "Do you believe a woman has the right to kill her child in the womb?" one atheist answered: "Nope. A child has the right to live. A blastocyte however has the sentient equivalent of a colony of bacteria and it is more morally wrong to slaughter a cow at a slaughterhouse than to kill a blastocyte."

The Bible is consistent when it refers to a pregnant woman as being "with child." It doesn't say "with fetus" nor does it redefine a child in the womb as a "blastocyte."

We are also told in Scripture that the life of the flesh is in the blood (see Leviticus 17:11). If you lose your blood, you lose your life. The blood is sparked at conception, therefore life begins at that moment. Take that life and you murder a human being, and no amount of redefinition will change that fact, and if you have murdered another human being, you will stand before God on Judgment Day with the blood of the innocent on your hands (see Proverbs 6:16-17).

A society may redefine its beliefs, but new definitions don’t change reality. Hitler redefined the Jews as being less than human, and thus began the efficiency of Nazi Germany. Jewish men, women, and children were marched or sent by train, truck, or bus to a nearby forest. A ditch was dug to serve as a mass grave. The Jews were ordered to remove their clothing, place it in neat piles, and wait. Small groups were then taken down into the pit. One German witness later recalled:

"The pit was already two-thirds full. I estimated that it held a thousand people. I looked for the man who did the shooting. He was an SS man who sat at the edge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling into it. He had a tommy gun on his knees and was smoking a cigarette. The people--they were completely naked--went down some steps ... to the place where the SS man directed them. They lay down in front of the dead and wounded. Some caressed the living and spoke to them in a low voice. Then I heard a series of shots." [Testimony given at Nuremberg]

Many Nazis escaped the justice of man, but none will escape the Justice of God.

So the next time you advocate the murder of an innocent human being because of your redefinition of life, feel free to wash your hands (as Pontius Pilate did) in water. It won’t change a thing.

"Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?" Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26–40