COLUMN: An Old Absolute Newly Discovered – (A continuing series). Part 5 – THE SHALLOWNESS OF ATHEISM. After completing Part 4 of this series on Rationalist Atheism, I quickly became aware of the significant amount of information that was needed to adequately address the topic of Part 5, which was originally planned as the final part of this series. This final part was to be entitled “The Way of Faith.” Now, because I see, quite unexpectedly, the large amount of information that needs to be included as this series reaches completion, plans necessarily have had to change. The material to be included is just too sizeable to be squeezed into a single web page and at the same time expect that readers will not to be overwhelmed by such an information overload.
To solve this dilemma, I decided out of necessity, to increase the number of parts (or installments) that will be needed to end the series. At this time, I envision approximately three additional parts beyond the one now at hand, which has become the new Part 5. But since this website does not limit me to how many articles I can post, I will not be troubled if by some chance these numbers are exceeded. Information is information, whether you get it in one big lump or piecemeal in several increments.
At this time, the plan to have “The Way of Faith” as the title of the last part of this series remains unchanged. That part will focus on stating my case as to why religious faith, Christian faith in particular, is the most sensible and rational way of dealing with non-rationality (or the non-rational absolute) that so dominates and pervades human events and throughout our world and universe. But in my opinion, in order to make the best case to substantiate this assertion, important foundational groundwork has to be laid. This groundwork now begins here with Part 5, where certain atheist arguments that are most relevant to this series are confronted and addressed. Having said this, we now move on to the main body of Part 5.
II – RESPONSE TO BASIC ATHEIST PHILOSOPHY
While looking at several critiques received from my atheist readers, I came across one, posted on May 4, 2008 at the end of Part 4, that strongly caught my attention. It caught my attention primarily because a relevant part of the critique is offered in a very concise, logical and point by point explanatory manner that lays out very clearly what I believe to be the basic positions (or reasons) why rationalist atheists reject faith as a legitimate vehicle for attaining reliable knowledge of anything that is not immediately known, either by sensory perception or through human reasoning or science. In his or her critique, the atheist reader (I shall simply refer to him or her as “the atheist critic”) centers the critique of my work on a statement I made at the end of Part 4. Following is the statement:
“The existential dilemma for all people everywhere is the universal absolute we call non-rationality. So the goal of true wisdom is finding an effective way to peacefully deal with this dilemma.”
Here in four relevant parts (A, B, C and D) is how the atheist critic reacted to my statement cited above:
A. “The author wants to suggest that FAITH is the answer (i.e., if you can’t know something, just make it up?!). But interestingly, the most “effective way” we have found to deal with this dilemma [of the non-rational] is called SCIENCE.”
B. The atheist critic then goes on to give his or her description of what “science” consists of:
“SCIENCE:
1. Admits that knowledge is not absolute
2. Admits that we can never know everything
3. Is a method for uncovering that which we CAN know”
C. But the following from the atheist critic is also relevant:
“To assume (as faith does) that there must be some objective, difinitive [sic], “right” and “wrong” is unjustified. Is a tree blooming in the desert right or wrong? The question is meaningless, as right and wrong are human constructs [which if not objective, then presumably only mental or subjective].”
D. Finally, the atheist critic ends with the following:
“To assume (as faith does) the existence of a “supernatural” or “ideal” world outside of the natural world is equally unjustified. If it is not part of reality, how can we know it exists or not? And what would it matter to us if it did?”
Now I can proceed to respond to these four atheist assertions. To do so, I will first make a quick response and elaborate in more detail in a conclusion further on. We begin with Part A, the first part of the atheist’s critique:
A. “The author wants to suggest that FAITH is the answer (i.e., if you can’t know something, just make it up?!). But interestingly, the most “effective way” we have found to deal with this dilemma [of the non-rational] is called SCIENCE.”
MY IMMEDIATE OBSERVATION AND RESPONSE:
It is comforting to note that, at least with this atheist and at least at this point, he or she agrees with me that the non-rational and how to deal with it is the chief or central dilemma for all humanity. As for the effectiveness of science without the need of faith to deal with the non-rational, I place this notion under dispute. Here and in future segments, I will dispute that this is so and I expect to show that faith, at least faith as I know it and define it, is not a “make up something if you can’t know it.” Such an atheist conception of the nature of faith is actually a MIS-conception now being advanced by atheists out of their sheer ignorance concerning the nature of faith and the perversity of mind they possess.
Now for the next part of the atheist critique:
B. “SCIENCE:
1. Admits that knowledge is not absolute
2. Admits that we can never know everything
3. Is a method for uncovering that which we CAN know”
MY IMMEDIATE OBSERVATION AND RESPONSE:
This is a humble acknowledgement of the limitations of science. As such it is a far cry as well as significant retreat from the way empirical science began as a vehicle which naive early scientists wishfully thought would eventually explain, in rationalistic terms, all the apparent mysteries perceived in the universe and cure all that ails humanity. In a future segment, we will see this important historical aspect of early science and its giddy wishful thinking, when we discuss the prominent beliefs that made the Enlightenment Era of European history (the cradle of early science) what it was.
As for the limits of knowledge we can derive from science, my concern is not so much that which science does not know or cannot know. It is instead that which science ALREADY knows and is now telling us. I have particularly in mind that science which takes up the branch of Physics now referred to as “Quantum Mechanics.” A commentary on the rationally disturbing findings of quantum mechanics will appear in yet another future segment leading to the final part of this series. Such a significant topic deserves a separate treatment of its own.
Now on to the third element of the atheist critique:
C. “To assume (as faith does) that there must be some objective, difinitive [sic], “right” and “wrong” is unjustified. Is a tree blooming in the desert right or wrong? The question is meaningless, as right and wrong are human constructs [which if not objective, then presumably only mental or subjective].”
MY IMMEDIATE OBSERVATION AND RESPONSE:
The atheist critic seems to be saying here that insofar as rationalist atheism is concerned, there is no objective right or wrong to anything. Everything just IS. For example, a tree (even one blooming in the desert) is just a tree, a rock is just a rock, water is just water. None of these objects can be said to be objectively right or wrong. But it is unclear how such a remark is supposed to relate to or follow my statement on faith and the non-rational. As such, we may have here a non-sequitur.
Yet in another respect, I do see something significant here that reveals to us an important aspect of what is typical atheist mentality. We will see more of this below. At this point, however, we can at least begin to demonstrate what such a mentality consists of:
In order to be a good and perfect atheist, you must be the type of person who, generally and with preponderance, thinks in terms of “just look at the facts.” That is, you must be the type who, generally and with preponderance, are able to focus on things as you see, feel or sense them AT FACE VALUE ONLY: in other words, SUPERFICIALLY. By “superficially” I mean that you must first be able to clear your mind of any sense of wonder concerning anything in the physical or mental world that all humans know. You must then be able to put aside any human emotion that such a sense of wonder might evoke. If you let such things as a sense of wonder or emotions of awe about anything in existence overtake you as an atheist, even to a slight degree, you are treading the slippery slope that leads to theistic sentiments, and that means you are not being a good and perfect atheist.
This is why the best suited human types to be good and perfect atheists are the extremely logical and reasoning human types who have difficulty expressing a soft, human emotional side. These types consequently exhibit an extreme “geek-like” lack of aptitude in the sphere of romantic relationships. They would be the dysfunctional lovers (if they would be so lucky to get that far) who can only do the physical, animalistic part of sexual love but are totally at a loss in getting on to the tender, loving, and romantically endearing part (unwittingly, they really are in dire need of a healthy dose of psychotherapy on how to be a loving and romantic person).
Yes, I do know for a fact that not all atheists are this way. I met one who was a psychopath and another who was quite sociable. So if you can find these two opposite extremes among atheists, I feel certain you can also find the whole, variegated personality spectrum in between. But for reasons I elaborate below concerning the way atheists generally approach life and universal existence as a whole, and in consistency with their simplistic view of reality, it has appeared to me that to be a good and perfect atheist, you must adopt or have a certain “Mr. Spock” mentality (after the character of the original TV series “Star Trek,” who ever sought to reject his soft human side by remaining immovably stoic as a Vulcan, and against all forces to the contrary, strictly rational and emotionless).
In other words, the good and perfect atheist, generally and in preponderance, just stays strictly focused superficially on the cold bare facts of existence. To such an atheist, living creatures, the entire physical universe and the mental world in humans is just that and NOTHING MORE: living things, physical things and mental things. “What’s so significant about that?” asks the good and perfect atheist. “Furthermore,” says the atheist, “animals are ‘just animals,’ trees are ‘just trees,’ human beings are ‘just human beings,’ SO WHAT? There’s nothing in these things to ‘wonder about in amazement’ or to get ‘mystical’ about…you just gotta focus on the bare facts and never mind adding the mystical and mushy stuff. There’s no god behind what you see; there’s no hidden meaning. Take it from me,” says the good and perfect atheist, “I know it all; I GUARANTEE IT!”
We will see more of how this cold, (Mr. Spock) Vulcan-like, good and perfect atheist mentality reveals itself as we go on.
But to further elaborate on the third segment of the atheist critique, if the critic intended to use the remark of “a tree blooming in the desert” as an analogy to establish that there can never be any objective right or wrong to anything, including any human belief or behavior, then a serious problem becomes evident in such a notion. The notion clearly advances the belief that because any judgments of right or wrong attributed to anything is all in the mind of human beings, such judgments (or “constructs”) are not objective, they are purely subjective and relative only to each individual’s moral thinking. In other words, this atheist belief is obviously espousing a relativist moral ethic. The problem with relativist moral philosophies is that they eventually and invariably lead to rational and practical absurdity and to moral chaos in the human community. The following extreme example will suffice:
On the basis of this atheist’s moral philosophy of right and wrong, I suppose I should be able to kick the atheist in the butt (I told you it would be extreme; but no need to get hysterical, I’m just seeking to make a point in debate) and I should be morally justified in my kicking because, according to the atheist’s moral theory, whether me kicking him or her in the butt is right or wrong is merely a mental “human construct,” as opposed to something objective. What if according to my mental human constructs such a thing is subjectively the morally “right” thing to do to anyone I choose? Then obviously, according to this atheist’s relativist theory, I should consider myself objectively justified in such behavior. In order to be consistent with the atheist’s own moral philosophy, it would be objectively irrelevant for the atheist to protest the kicking received as being morally wrong since such a judgment would itself be a subjective moral construct of the atheist with no objective moral value.
But the other alternative that the atheist critic’s moral theory gives me to justify me kicking him or her in the butt is that such behavior is just what it is: It is objectively “just a kick in the butt,” like a tree is “just a tree” and a rock is “just a rock.” As such, a kick in the butt can neither be right nor wrong objectively, just as a tree or a rock is neither right nor wrong because, according to the atheist critic, right or wrong are merely subjective “human constructs.” But considering the equally obvious madness that such a moral theory would determine for all human relations, this particular statement by this particular atheist is patently absurd.
In any case, the atheist critic ends his or her brief critique as follows:
D. “To assume (as faith does) the existence of a “supernatural” or “ideal” world outside of the natural world is equally unjustified. If it is not part of reality, how can we know it exists or not? And what would it matter to us if it did?”
MY IMMEDIATE OBSERVATION AND RESPONSE:
The critic here is clearly making an unfounded and disputable triple assumption: First, there is the atheist’s disputable assumption that the “natural world” is actually “natural;” second, there is the atheist’s disputable assumption that the supernatural is not PART OF REALITY (i.e., part of “the natural”); and based on the atheist’s second assumption, there is the atheist’s third disputable assumption that the supernatural can only exist outside of reality (i.e., “the natural”). In the first place, and contrary to this whole notion, we have already shown abundant evidence, empirically verifiable as it is, that our so-called “natural” world is at least pervasively non-rational. As such, it is at least “unnatural” (i.e., virtually “super-natural” since the prefix “super” means above, beyond or outside). In other words, our so-called “natural” world is thus above, beyond and outside (i.e., “super-natural” to) our rationality and to its NATURALLY inherent utopian drive.
All that now remains to be shown is how SCIENCE ITSELF, on which the atheist critic relies so much (or has so much faith in?), is ironically also the very thing that is now confirming to us, and empirically through Quantum Mechanics, that our entire world and universe is itself UNNATURAL. In this sense, we will see that our physical universe, reality, the natural, or whatever human convention chooses to name our so called “natural” reality, is in actual fact SUPER-NATURAL in that it defies, is beyond, above and outside our “natural” (i.e., normal) expectations of reality: That is, not only of what is natural, but also of what is real, rational and reasonable. This will be demonstrated in a future segment leading to Part 5.
Given this future demonstration with respect to Quantum Mechanics, we will ask questions that the atheist does not consider out of a natural aversion that atheists have for such things:
“What if the supernatural is not something fanciful, unseen and spooky existing only beyond or outside the so-called ‘natural,’ completely unknown in its totality? What if what we call the ‘natural’ world (with this construct we call the ‘natural’ being just a mere subjective ‘human construct,’ arbitrarily limited in its conception by mere and fallible human convention)…what if, as a mere subjective and arbitrary construct, this ‘natural’ does not IN REALITY (as opposed to simple wishful thinking) possess the limits that mere, fallible human convention says it has?
“Furthermore, what if such a reality that we call the ‘natural,’ and which fallible human convention arbitrarily limits, actually defies the limits superficially imposed by such fallible human convention? What if in such defiance, the so-called ‘natural’ INCLUDES the equally ‘limited-by-human-convention’ human construct we call the ‘supernatural.’ What if such a ‘supernatural’ is here already, IN AND AS PART OF REALITY (or the so-called ‘natural’)? What if, in other words, this ‘supernatural’ is right here, right now, among us?
“What if, in addition, the ‘supernatural’ has been here all along, unknown and empirically unconfirmed until now, and the ‘natural’ turns out to be ironically, not as ‘natural’ as has been supposed by present human convention, but supernatural at its core and overall essence? If these things were to be true, and we will soon witness how Quantum Mechanics is giving empirically strong encouragement to the hypothesis as to its theoretical legitimacy, then we would be able to conclude with empirical confidence that:
1. SUPERNATURAL REALITY IS IN NATURAL REALITY
2. THUS, SUPERNATURAL REALITY IS NOT OUTSIDE NATURAL REALITY
3. HENCE, NATURAL REALITY IS NOT TOTALLY “NATURAL”
4. THUS, REALITY IS NOT COMPRISED ONLY OF THE “NATURAL”
5. FINALLY, SINCE NATURAL REALITY CAN BE KNOWN, INVESTIGATED AND EXPERIENCED SCIENTIFICALLY, AND SUPERNATURAL REALITY IS IN NATURAL REALITY, SUPERNATURAL REALITY CAN ALSO BE KNOWN, INVESTIGATED AND EXPERIENCED SCIENTIFICALLY”
Now to end the response to the atheist critic, who asked in his or her critique, “If [the supernatural] is not part of reality, how can we know it exists or not? And what would it matter to us if it did?” My answer, first of all, would be that the assumption that the supernatural is not part of reality is premature and unproven. Secondly, in light of the fact that whether or not the supernatural exists has been a topic of debate and dispute among the most brilliant of sages in human history, and in light of the fact that countless masses of humanity have staked their destiny on the resolution to this debate, how can anyone even imply that such a development would not matter at all in any way to anyone?
But yet, if in fact the atheist critic happens to be what I would call a “hardened atheist,” then I surely can understand how any indication of the existence of a supernatural, either in or beyond the “natural” would NOT matter to him or her or to anyone of the same “hardened” persuasion. To illustrate what I mean, I am immediately led to recall a story that my friend David Mishkin wrote in article for “Jews for Jesus.” The story revolved around a conversation between two Jewish men who knew each other, one was a religious Jew and the other a hardened atheist. Following is how Mishkin wrote the story:
“Two older Jewish men were staring at the Mona Lisa. There they were in the Louvre, looking at the real thing. They agreed that it was a painting of unsurpassed quality. Every detail was perfect. However, Hyam commented to his friend Bernie, “It’s the darndest thing, you know. A few jars of paint fell on the canvas and by sheer accident this painting was created.” Bernie, the avowed atheist, responded with a smile of appreciation for the painting’s beauty, “No. It’s too perfect, Hy. Too detailed. This was no accident.” Hyam continued with a smile of his own, “It’s like the universe, you know. If this work on a small piece of canvas is too complex to have possibly been created by accident, how can you say the universe-billions of times more complex than this painting-could have happened by chance?” Bernie [the hardened atheist] thought for a moment and said, “Hmm. I suppose you’re right. It IS possible for a few jars of paint to have fallen and accidentally have created the Mona Lisa!”
The gist of Mishkin’s story seems to be that because of their hardness of mind, there is nothing anyone can say or do to persuade hardened atheists to think otherwise. I already knew this before I began this series. This is why from the very beginning, I never intended to write this series to try to convince hardened atheists to think otherwise. I would have seen such a thing as a totally wasted effort not worth my time. Instead, I decided to write the series thinking only of those whose minds are not yet hardened and closed and who might find here something useful in their overall quest for what is the truth of existence. Appropriate comments concerning incorrigible and hardened atheists, and why God has allowed them to arise and exist, will be made in Part 6 of this series where the biblical doctrine of “predestination” will be addressed.
Yes, the Bible does say there’s a reason for everything that happens or exists, as non-rational as some of these things may appear. In this universal existence that God created to accomplish his sovereign design and purpose, the non-rational God of the Bible works in non-rational ways his wonders and will to perform.
III – CONCLUSIONS OF RESPONSE TO BASIC ATHEIST PHILOSOPHY
Partly as shown in the atheist critique that was discussed above, the greatest weakness of rationalist atheism is the intellectual and philosophical impoverishment that it holds as a philosophy of life. Other significant weaknesses will become apparent in future segments I post in this website.
One of the best things that can be said about rationalist atheists is that they are essentially a “no-nonsense” bunch of people. They have either been basically turned off by sour experiences they have had with highly irrational forms of religion (I can’t blame them. I am turned off by these as well), or they have been so convinced of an all- or self-sufficient supremacy of human reason that they have reached the conclusion that faith, which is a non-rational element common to all religion, is irrelevant and useless in attaining a real or true understanding of the world and of what is objective reality.
The no-nonsense atheist response to all this is to virtually and very pragmatically say to religion as a whole, “To hell with all this nonsense. To hell with religious irrationality. To hell with religious faith. We rational atheists are just going to rely (or have faith?) in what our senses and refined human reason tells us and we will discover this through the methodical and rational means and methods that empirical science employs.”
A no-nonsense approach to a complex situation, an approach that purports to make complexity effectively simple to deal with is something that naturally appeals to most if not all of us. Hence the popularity of the often heard advice to those who would influence others, “Keep it simple stupid.” But unfortunately for atheists, in the case of their no-nonsense approach to dealing with the complexity of universal and human existence, and the non-rational absolute that permeates this, not a simplified but a simplistic result is the outcome.
As a consequence, most atheists, if not all, are people of the type and mentality who of necessity have to take very much for granted. It is necessary that they do this in order to keep from admitting that existence, and the non-rational in existence, is much more than mere human reason or even science can handle, comprehend or make rational sense of. I intend to show that the deeper science digs into the mechanics or makings of nature and existence, the more inscrutable and non-rational it becomes and it is shown to be, “empirically so.” But given this, atheists are also like immature children; that is, they are very simple minded. In other words, you will find in most atheists very little intellectual depth; worst yet, they often delude themselves to get into a state of denial where they believe otherwise. Still worst, this delusion goes on to the point of atheists considering themselves intellectually superior when in fact they are nothing more than unwitting pretenders and “know-it-alls.” This is why truly intelligent people want nothing at all to do with such simple-minded or simpleton atheists and their facile, impoverished and superficial thinking.
On the other hand, there has been a recent exception to the rule. This was a famous British atheist who in 2004, woke up to the lack of substance in atheism and decided to throw his atheism in the trash heap. His name is Anthony Flew. Unlike the superficiality and shallowness we find in most atheists, Flew finally “saw the light” as to the complexity and depth of the universe and all that exists within it. Particularly in the area of Darwin’s theory of evolution, Flew renounced naturalistic theories, stating that “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” After considering Richard Dawkins’ argument in his book, “The God Delusion,” that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance,” Flew rejected the argument, stating that “If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over.”
What happened with Flew, who had a long career as a British professor of philosophy and the international fame of being a leading atheist proponent, equal in eminence as that of his fellow professor and atheist Richard Dawkins, is in my estimation an indication that atheism is not the intellectual “slam dunk” that atheists would have us believe insofar as atheism being self-evident in the veracity and reliability of its views. On the other hand, Flew’s conversion away from atheism is no cause for biblical theists to celebrate. I say this since the only significant news about Flew’s conversion is, in my opinion, simply that such a long-entrenched, intellectual and famous atheist could no longer go on believing in the sophomoric intellectual level of atheism. It was just too simplistic, took too much for granted and, thus, failed to account for too much.
So Flew’s conversion involved more of a rejection of and conversion from atheism than a conversion to any meaningful alternative that could be found outside of atheism. It appears that Flew’s decision to take up Deistic beliefs came more as a “default” move to the best other option available that he could live with, rather than something he sought to embrace enthusiastically. The “problem of evil” in particular was the problem that prevented Flew from opting for Christian or biblical theism.
Flew could not accept the arguments which traditional Christian theology set forth to defend the biblical God from any association with evil. It appears that this was the main reason why he opted for Deism. Deism advances the belief that God created the universe. But after having created the universe, he withdrew his presence from it, and with this, his personal interference. So, according to this view, the universe is now alone without a god and has been left to work totally on its own. Unfortunately for Flew, there is not even a revelation from the god of Deism that is claimed, as we find among Jews and Christians, which would have the authority to affirm that Deism embodies the truth about our universe. As such, Deism is nothing more than just another rationalist philosophy, and certainly not a religion. The end result is that Flew simply traded one brand of rationalism for another. In doing so, Flew remains the same irreligious rationalist he ever was. So the only positive thing I see about Flew’s change is that he finally caught on to the scientific and intellectual bankruptcy of atheism.
For a brief but interesting review of Flew’s latest book, where he explains all the things that led him to toss out atheism, click here.
In Part 6 of this series, the so-called “problem of evil” in traditional Christian theology that Flew had so much problem dealing with, will be discussed from a fresh perspective, but still within the realm of Christian biblical theology.
Given the great lack of meaningful depth of intellect in atheism, the best that simplistic atheists can do to defend themselves is to resort to ad-hominem attacks on adversaries and to hide behind the protection of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not a reason to believe one’s views are thereby necessarily legitimized in view of the fact that this court is obliged to protect anybody, including pornographers, idiots and the insane. To be sure, these atheists can and do employ logical argumentation that gives at least a “bare bones” or skeletal semblance of substantive thought, as we have seen in the atheist critique I have documented above. But when such argumentation is put under critical analysis, as I have done here, its shallowness, lack of consistency and emptiness of substance is exposed.
Atheists may say in all candor that “we can never know everything.” Here above, in the atheist whose basic philosophy I responded to, we have an example of an atheist admitting this and saying that science itself cannot know everything. Yet in gross and apparent inconsistency, “know-it-all” arrogance, and fool-hardy boldness, atheists pretenders will pretend and speak as if they have gone and visited every corner, nook and cranny of this vast universe and have acquired all the knowledge that can be known and are now back to tell you categorically that they have found THERE IS NO GOD! If no one can know everything, then agnosticism would be the more prudent and humble position to take. This is especially so given that reality has now forced some atheists, in retreat from past historic excesses of foolish certainty, as in the case discussed above, to admit that there are things which even their high and mighty empirical science cannot know. Yet atheists, as in the case discussed above, still cling to their foolish know-it-all atheism nonetheless, which makes them twice foolish. That is why I say that agnosticism would be the more prudent and humble position to take.
But even rationalist agnostics face a problem of their own: Sigmund Freud was a rationalist agnostic (he did not say God did not exist, only that scientifically and rationally, no one could prove it). As with Freud, such rationalist agnostics will insist that unless God reveals his existence to them in rational ways that rational humans can understand, they cannot and will not believe he exists. The fatal error of these rationalist agnostics is that they presume God is a rational being and that he is obligated to be rational. The fact is that the biblical God is NOT thoroughly rational (as humans define this) and no one can obligate or force him to be so.
We have already shown in previous discussions that the God of the Bible is overall a non-rational God. For this reason, human beings have no rational ground on which they can base an expectation that the non-rational God Almighty will actually be obligated by mere human creatures to show himself rational. Such a God is Almighty and Supreme, and because he is Almighty and Supreme, he is not in a position where he is obligated to follow the wishes and dictates of creatures under his power. It is actually all the other way around.
Apparently then, rationalist agnostics fail to seriously consider that God may have in fact already revealed himself and that the knowledge of that revelation is not dependent on waiting for something rational to be seen before believing that God exists. The God of the Bible has indeed already revealed himself to his creation. It is just that he has done so in non-rational ways that rationalist atheists and agnostics cannot handle or accept. Obviously, this is their problem and not the problem of the Supreme non-rational God who is not obligated to anyone so as to become or show himself in precisely the way his creatures wish he would.
But in saying what I do about God’s non-rationality, it is not a case of saying there is actually no rationality at all in the God of Bible (that is, as humans understand rationality). Such a theological conception would be defective. It is only that rationality in God is, as it were, a lesser “sub-set” of the whole of who God is. Thus, in God, rationality is ever subject to being qualified or overridden by the greater sub-set of non-rationality. Of course, it needs to be kept in mind that we here and elsewhere refer to “rationality” and “non-rationality” only in deference to and for the sake of facilitating human understanding. In other words, such separate references to “rationality” and “non-rationality” is not meant to say that God is to be understood as being split between two separate spheres within his being, one rational and one non-rational, each isolated from the other:
The God of the Bible has not revealed himself as being “split” within himself in any manner. But nevertheless, and strictly as understood from our limited point of view as humans, God is a Being who in complexity has revealed from out of himself both a rational (humanly speaking) and a non-rational (also humanly speaking) aspect. In other words, though God’s personality is one and not split, we human beings have seen these two seemingly discontinuous and separate aspects (the non-rational and the rational) emerging from that one personality. This is true at least as we are able to perceive at our level of human understanding what we conceive as “rational” and “non-rational.”
V – FINAL COMMENTS ON THE SHALLOWNESS OF ATHEISM
Finally, with regard to atheists and their shallow thinking, in their drive to simplify existence, atheists, as we have seen in the specific example shown above, are like the people who Jesus referred to as those who “strain at a gnat and swallow a big camel” (Matt. 23:24). These atheists “strain” as they marvel and wonder how or why so many otherwise rational people can actually believe that behind all of existence is a Supreme Creator who brought this existence to being. On the other hand, they fail to perceive and appreciate the actual depth and wonder of such existence. As a consequence, they miss the reason why such an existence can evoke in humans the sense of wonder it does and that as long as this sense of wonder occurs among humans, religious faith can never be eradicated. This is the big “camel” that atheists swallow: They are so superficial not only in their thinking, but also in their perception of existence as to its marvelous complexity and its scope and depth of immensity, grandeur and design, they fail to see or recognize the fact that if you want to eradicate religious faith, you can only do so indirectly by first eradicating the sense of wonder that human and universal existence invariably evokes in the minds of humans. You can do this only if you can cause this universe to disappear, or easier yet, teach a pig to fly.
Under these circumstances that I have pointed out, I can, for example, in great wonder ask the atheist the questions, “Why do we as humans exist on this planet earth, we humans who not only have consciousness that makes us aware of our existence and environment but also a rational mind that thinks, reasons, plans and acts with intention to do things out of a free will and who experience such things as physical pain, disease, death and hunger and inner feelings that cause in us things we call fear, joy, happiness, desire, loneliness, despair or disappointment? Why are we not as the rocks, the sand, or metals, or all non-living substances that can be found on earth or that we know to exist in desolate planets? Why are we not like these things that have no rationality or feelings but simply exist passively, without pain, self-awareness or need of nourishment as humans require?”
In response to such questions, all that shallow atheists can do is to say, “I don’t know. That’s just the way it is. Live with it!”
There are many such questions that thoughtful human beings are led to wonder about as they ponder the expansive breadth and depth of universal existence and the complexity thereof: “Why is it that if I hunger for food, there just happens to be in earthly existence food to satisfy my hunger and water to quench my thirst? Why not nothing on this earth on which human beings can survive as is the case in desolate planets? Why do earthly farm crops need water and light to thrive and there just happens to be the sun to provide them light and rising water vapor that form clouds over the whole earth to provide crops and all living creatures the rain water they need? Why do the planets and non-living phenomena in our earth and the universe behave orderly according to “natural law”? Why is there such natural law? How and why did such law come to be? Why not chaos, instead of an orderly universe that works on the basis of “law?” Why the orderly workings of the human body, possessing marvelous integrated systems, healing itself through the birth of new healthy tissue and defending itself through the power of a “biological immune system”? Why all this purpose and meaning? Why not nothing? Why not chaos? Is there an end to the universe? If so, how could this “end” of the universe be conceived? Or is the universe really infinite in scope? If so, why infinity and why is space infinite and what does this mean, infer, imply or suggest? For that matter, what does all that exists on earth and the immense and awesome universe mean, infer, imply or suggest?
But to all this sense of wonder over universal existence that never fails to be found among humans and which has led many to be convinced that there must be an intelligent God as Creator of such universal existence, the simplistic simpleton atheist will simply answer again in response, “I don’t know. That’s just the way it is. Live with it and do as I do; DON’T THINK TOO MUCH! Especially, don’t think for a moment this means that a god is behind it all because I can tell you THERE IS NO GOD! I GUARANTEE IT! I DON’T THINK TOO MUCH, BUT I KNOW IT ALL!”
This, I point out to you, is part of the atheist impoverishment; it involves a deliberate evasion of deep, reflective thought with simple-mindedness being the consequence. It is also how atheists are forced, in their drive to oppose religious faith, to take many realities, including meaningful, deep and complex aspects of existence for granted; it is a “so what if things are the way they are or happen as they do; don’t think about it, just live with it and ignore the why of it as much as you can” approach. This, I also point out is what makes atheism so pathetically shallow and utterly superficial. That is why no truly intelligent person wants to have anything to do with atheism and this is why Anthony Flew threw his atheism in the trash once reality jolted him to wake up to its intellectual and scientific bleakness. Rather than try to figure out why human wonder over existence invariably prevails through all human history, atheists in their simpleton and cavalier ways quite casually and with abysmal ignorance dismiss it all as mere nonsense and foolishness.
[tags]John Garrison, Irrelevance of Rational Atheism, New Philosophy of the Non-Rational[/tags]
