If the basis of human reason is in the
Big Bang or in more primitive forms of life, as atheism
assumes, then the basis of rationality disappears. None of
us can trust our brains, even if we consider ourselves wise,
if we originated in the Big Bang or in more primitive forms
of life. Atheism is a poor explanation for the existence of
reason.
Atheism does not provide a basis for
morality because atheism does
not have all-binding, objective, and final values. Atheism
does not have an authority outside of man and does not
believe in judgment for wrongdoing, whereas, for example,
Christianity has God, a final judgment, and binding ethical
guidelines. Furthermore, since it is difficult to explain
all-binding moral values on the basis of atheism, this can
open the door to evil.
Many atheists are
convinced that if atheism were the dominant view of society,
it would lead society in a better direction. They think that
the more atheists and those who think like them are in
society, the better the future can be expected. Instead,
they are repulsive towards Christian theism, which they
consider to be an old-fashioned and false view. They also
like to point out the thousands of injustices committed in
the name of God and do not understand that they are the
result of abandoning God or that people have not followed
the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They do not result
from following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, but
from not following and obeying them.
But is atheism itself a
rational and useful worldview? Although atheists believe so,
it actually has fundamental problems. The biggest of which
are issues such as the fact that atheism provides no basis
for reason or morality. That is why we will examine these
issues in more detail.
If you talk to
atheists (the author is a former atheist and a believer
in evolution) , you will soon notice that they consider
themselves scientific, progressive, and wise. That is also
one of the reasons why they turn their backs on the
Christian faith. Atheists do not believe that the Christian
faith is rational and correct and that God created
everything. Instead, they believe that the universe and life
arose by themselves, without reason or information. They
think that the origin of the universe and life is irrational
and that we evolved – after life had first arisen by itself
– from lower animals.
But, but. There is a big
problem with this same way of thinking. If we have evolved
from lower animals such as fish, reptiles or ape-like
creatures, how can we trust any human's reasoning ability
and knowledge? Can knowledge derived from fish, reptiles or
ape-like creatures be reliable? Even though a person, e.g.
an atheist, may consider himself intelligent and rational,
there is reason to doubt the rationality of his thoughts.
His supposed wisdom may be a fallacy. This applies to
atheists and to every person on earth.
An even bigger problem
arises if we come from a big bang, where there was no life,
emotions, or reason. Atheists assume this to be true, but it
is difficult to explain how inanimate matter like stone
begins to speak, feel emotions (joy,
sadness, anger, fear, infatuation, love...) and
think rational thoughts. Atheists consider themselves wise,
but if you think about this matter through common sense, it
doesn't make much sense. Stones and inanimate matter don't
automatically become sentient and rational (or
start eating and reproducing) .
Atheism and the assumption that an atheist is rational is
therefore a self-defeating doctrine. An atheist, like anyone
else, cannot trust his brain or his thoughts if he
originated from the big bang or from ape-like creatures.
Darwin himself had to
admit the same thing. He stated that if humans evolved from
lower life forms, their beliefs might not be reliable:
I
always have a terrible doubt whether the beliefs formed by
the human mind have any value, whether they are at all
reliable, considering that the human mind has evolved from
the minds of lower animals. Would anyone trust the beliefs
developed in the mind of an ape, if its mind has any beliefs
at all? (1)
Another problem with
atheism, and one that the last century has proven true, is
the weakness of the moral foundation. If there is no God and
no belief in him, there are no universally binding,
objective and final values. In atheism there is no authority
outside of man, while, for example, in the Christian faith
there are universally binding ethical guidelines (the
teaching of Jesus and the apostles). This does not mean that
an atheist cannot be moral, but that he does not have
objective grounds for his morality from this model of
thought. One cannot speak of evil or goodness, because they
are personal and time-bound concepts (“My morality, your
morality, etc.…”) . Everyone can define their own
values, because ethics and morality are not connected to
God. Who can then say that, for example, Saddam Hussein’s
morality has been better or worse than others?
Furthermore,
if a person does not believe that he is responsible for any
of his actions, he is easily led to do injustice to others.
This perspective is logical and everyone can understand it.
The belief that there is nothing after this life certainly
affects behavior. The motivation to do good is not
necessarily very high.
On the other hand, the
awareness that God exists and that our actions matter is in
itself a deterrent to wrongdoing. If we truly believe that
we will have to give an account of our actions and how we
have treated others, we will not be so quick to raise our
hands against others. It makes us act a little better. It
limits evil more effectively than the assumption that there
is no God and no judgment after this life.
Croatian-born Yale
University professor Miroslaw Volf, who has witnessed the
violence in the Balkans, points to the same observation. He
states that the cycle of revenge in the Balkans is not
caused by belief in God but because people reject the idea
of God's judgment. Only a belief in a perfectly just God
and that judgment and revenge belong to him can make a
person refrain from revenge if their loved ones have been
killed and raped:
If God were not angry
with injustice and deceit and did not permanently end
violence – such a God would not be worthy of worship. - -
The only way to prevent ourselves from ever resorting to
violence is to insist that violence is justified only when
it comes from God, - - My thesis that the practice of
nonviolence requires a belief in divine retribution is bound
to fall out of favor with many - - in the West. - - But it
takes the peace of a suburban home to give rise to the
thesis that man’s nonviolence is due to a belief that God
refuses to judge. In a sun-baked land soaked in the blood of
the innocent - - it invariably dies - - like other prisoners
of liberal thought. (2)
What about the
injustices of the last century? By
far the most extensive human rights violations in human
history were committed then, but what caused them? The best
explanation is certainly that the Christian faith lost its
importance, but atheism won the field. For example, Germany
was a leading country in liberal theology and religious
criticism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In addition,
Darwin's theory contributed to the decline in the importance
of the Christian faith throughout Europe. Darwin's theory
reinforced the idea that God does not exist, and that we are
therefore not accountable to him for our actions.
The following quote refers
to the developments at that time. In Germany, for example,
huge numbers of people left the church, and an atheistic
worldview and morality gained ground in people's minds. The
book was published just five years before World War II.
From time to time,
mass movements of apostasy have appeared in several
countries since the war. Thus in Germany in 1920 305,000
persons left the Evangelical churches. This flight from the
church has continued. In 1930 in Berlin alone 59,225 persons
left the Lutheran Church, not to mention the Catholics and
Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not
say much about the spread of atheistic ideas in the
nineteenth century. Suffice it to say that the number of
those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute
non-existence of God has increased enormously. Some men who
are considered learned claim that modern science makes
belief in God impossible. They either cease to believe in
God altogether or assert that “science demands a new
conception of God.” This denial of God begins among children
in school. In some cities, thousands of children between the
ages of 6 and 14, starting from the elementary grades, have
walked the streets carrying posters such as: “God out of
schools,” “Down with superstition about God,” “Religion is a
narcotic,” etc. (3)
Other quotes point in
the same direction. They show how atheism was behind the
great wrongs of the last century, surpassing the wrongs of
previous centuries. Many atheists have a blind spot in this
area. They can see the errors of religion – committed by the
apostate church and by not following the teachings of Jesus
and the apostles – but not what results from abandoning God.
Well-known examples from the last century include the
regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot, as well as
numerous communist states where atheism has been the
official doctrine.
[What do you say to
those who blame religions?] I would try to make them think
of that terrible 20th century, during which we witnessed
more destruction than in countless centuries before it.
Possibly, apart from the extermination of the Jews, the
greatest crimes were committed by only two openly atheist
states. The Soviet Union, with its museum of atheism, was
one, and Mao's China was the other. Both were militantly
atheist. And what did they do? They killed 70 million of
their own citizens. Why do we never hear that this is what
atheism produces? There is something perverse about it. Why
is the sin of religion so severely criticized (as it should
be) but the sin of atheism so ignored? (4)
Dr. Paul Johnston,
British historian: “The characteristic of the twentieth
century, and the main cause of its horrors, is that great
physical strength has been acquired by men who do not fear
God and who do not believe that any absolute rule of usage
should limit them.” (5)
The role of the
Enlightenment in 20th-century terror remains a blind spot in
Western understanding - - Communist governments were founded
in pursuit of a utopian ideal that had its origins in the
heart of the Enlightenment - - as a by-product of an attempt
to reshape life. Pre-modern theocracies did not attempt to
do this - - Terror like Lenin's did not originate with the
Tsars. (6)
Alexandr
Solzhenitsyn: More than half a century ago, when I was still
a child, I remember hearing several old men explain the
misfortunes that befell Russia in this way: “People have
forgotten God; all this is the result of that.” Since then,
I have studied the Russian Revolution for more than 50
years; during that time I have read hundreds of books,
collected personal accounts, and have myself written eight
works on those stages. But if I were asked to summarize as
briefly as possible the main cause of the terrible
revolution that swallowed about 60 million of our people
into its maw, I could not say it more precisely than by
repeating: People have forgotten God; all this is the result
of that.” (7)
Human origins,
evolutionary theory, and morality. As
noted, atheism has two major weaknesses: it provides no
basis for reason or morality. It is difficult to justify the
rationality of any human thought on the basis of atheism
(even if the person considers himself intelligent).
Similarly, it is difficult to justify any kind of
universally binding moral values on the basis of atheism.
What
is atheism based on then? Its most important scientific
basis has been considered the theory of evolution. It was
only then that atheism and the rejection of God, but also
the rejection of morality, appeared to be scientifically
sound. Morality no longer had any permanent basis because it
was not connected to God. Its importance in changing
people's worldview cannot be underestimated.
With regard to the human
rights violations and injustices discussed in this article,
the theory of evolution itself did not lead to these acts.
Instead, this theory influenced people's worldview in such a
way that they began to question the sanctity and value of
human life. This is related to, among other things, the
following factors:
The boundary
between humans and animals became blurred. When
it comes to the theory of evolution, it is based on the
assumption that all current species have descended from a
single original cell. This theory is believed in even though
the origin of life has not been proven and even though there
are no known examples of actual species changes. There are
no examples of species changes in Darwin's book The
Origin of Species or in other evolutionary literature.
Even bacteria have not been observed changing into other
bacterial species, let alone other species. Alan Linton,
professor of bacteriology at the University of Bristol, has
written on the subject:
In the entire
150-year history of bacteriological research, there is no
evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into
another. (8)
How then did Darwin's
theory – even though there is no concrete evidence for it –
affect the perception of man? In short, it devalued man.
Human life was no longer seen as qualitatively different
from the rest of creation. There was only a small difference
in degree between humans and animals, because humans were
thought to have evolved from simple forms of life through
gradual changes. As a result, it was difficult to draw a
line between humans and other creatures. Man himself was
seen as subject to constant change, like the rest of nature.
In the last hundred years, when inhumanities have occurred,
it is precisely this distorted image of man that has been
behind them:
If you find it hard
to believe that evolution is related to the above, a few
basic examples from history clearly demonstrate this
connection. In fact, I have yet to meet a single
knowledgeable evolutionist who disagrees with me about the
connection between these moral issues and evolution. They do
not necessarily think that this is how it should have
happened, but they do acknowledge that humans have applied
evolution in this way. It is important not to misunderstand
what I am saying. Of course, evil and anti-God philosophies
existed before Darwinian evolution. People were having
abortions before Darwin popularized his view of evolution.
However, what people believe about their origins affects
their worldview. When people reject the God who created, it
affects how they view themselves, others, and our world. (9)
Race and
scientific racism. Secondly,
when Darwin's theory became accepted and it was assumed that
humans descended from lower animals, it also led to the idea
of the inherent superiority of certain races. People began
to think that some races were innately more capable, more
intelligent, and better adapted. People were classified as
valuable and less valuable on the basis of race, ability, or
other characteristics. This view, called social Darwinism,
was common in the early 20th century. It was accepted in
many countries. The theory of evolution thus provided a
pseudoscientific justification for racism and human
inequality. It was no longer believed that the entire human
race originated from a single couple and that all human
races have the same short life span. This idea was rejected
because of Darwin's theory.
The Nazis also adopted the
idea of racial inequality that emerged from evolutionary
theory. The history and human rights violations of the 1930s
and 1940s cannot be separated from the Nazi worldview, in
which race was everything. This view is well expressed in a
statement by the German racial biologist Fritz Lenz in 1936.
He stated that racial doctrines can be put into practice
because
“We
have an organic worldview that has triumphed under National
Socialism. According to its founder, Adolf Hitler, the
National Socialist state has placed race at the center of
social life. The basis of the National Socialist worldview
is belief in race. It does not believe only in scientific
knowledge about the nature and way of life of the race.
Rather, the first is the desire to defend one’s own race:
this will precedes all scientific knowledge and is above it.
The significance of the knowledge of racial biologists lies
in the fact that it provides the means and methods for
preserving, improving, and perfecting the race.” (10)
People believe in
moral values, despite everything. As
stated, the weakness of atheism is that it does not provide
a basis for morality, just as it does not provide a basis
for reason. In atheism, there are no universally binding,
objective, and final values. They are absent.
Nevertheless,
people generally believe that there are moral values that
are binding on all people. Although many may initially argue
that everyone should define their own morality, they will
very soon refute this if they are even briefly questioned.
This belief in moral values that are binding on all people
strongly suggests that there is a moral reality that is
independent of people and that comes from outside. Timothy
Keller has more on the same topic:
The popular notion
that we should all determine our own morality is based on
the belief that the spiritual world is not like the rest of
the world. Does anyone really believe that? For many years,
I would stay in the hall for an hour after morning and
evening services to answer questions. Hundreds of people
would stay for the exchange of ideas. One of the most common
arguments I heard was: “Each person must determine for
themselves what is right and what is wrong.” I always
responded to those who made the argument by asking, “Is
there anyone in the world right now who is doing something
that you think they should stop doing, regardless of what
they personally believe is right?” The people who made the
argument invariably replied, “Absolutely.” Then I asked,
“Doesn’t that mean that you believe that there is some kind
of moral reality that is not ours to determine and that must
be followed regardless of what a person feels and thinks?”
The response is almost always silence – either thoughtful or
irritable. (11)
The Bible also
suggests that every person has an inner sense of right and
wrong. Everyone understands that there are actions that are
right and actions that are wrong. Paul wrote on the subject:
- (Romans 2:14-16)
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature
what the law requires, these, although not having the law,
are a law to themselves.
15. and show
that the work of the law is written in their hearts ,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
between themselves accusing or else excusing them—
16. on the day
when God will judge the secrets of men through
Christ Jesus, according to my gospel.
What can be concluded
from the above? The existence of morality points very
clearly to God and that he has originally put the moral law,
or the concept of right and wrong, inside of man (just as
he has made us sentient and thinking beings). It is also
a strong message that God will one day judge every person.
So you, who have denied
the existence of God until now, seriously consider this
matter! Consider the possibility that a living God created
man, and that is the reason for the existence of thought and
morality! Atheism does not explain these things, as stated
above, but the existence of God is a good reason for the
existence of reason and morality. We have reason and
morality because God is rational and moral, and because he
made the first humans in the image of God (Genesis
1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them.) .
Furthermore, God will judge us, as the Bible says in many
places (e.g.
Romans 14:12 So then each of us will give account of himself
to God.).
How then can one be freed
from judgment? Everyone knows deep down that they have not
always done what is right, but can everything be forgiven?
The Bible answers this
question. Jesus Christ came into the world to bridge the gap
between God and man. He took our sins to the cross and only
through him can we be forgiven. He is the way to God, as the
following verses show:
- (John 14:6) Jesus
said to him, " I am the way, the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father except through me ."
- (Acts 4:12) And
there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other
name under heaven given among men by which we must be
saved."
So if you personally
want to be saved, accept Jesus into your life and turn to
him in prayer. This can happen, for example, in the
following way:
Prayer of
Salvation :
Lord Jesus, I turn to you. I confess that I have sinned
against you and have not lived according to your will.
However, I want to turn from my sins and follow you with all
my heart. And I also believe that my sins have been forgiven
through your atonement and that through you I have received
eternal life. I thank you for the salvation you have given
me. Amen.
References:
1. Charles Darwin: The Life and Letter of Charles
Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter. (1887, 1:
315-316),
Edited by
Fancis Darwin. London: John Murray.
2. Miroslav Volf: Exclusion and Embrace.
A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and
Reconciliation, s. 303,304. Abingdon 1996.
3. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa,
p.
114,115
4. P. Cousineau: Conversations with Houston Smith on
the spiritual life,
p.
259
5. Michael Green & Gordon Carckner: Kymmenen myyttiä
kristinuskosta,
p.
18
6. John Gray: Black Mass, Apocalyptic Religion and
the Death of Utopia, 2007.
London: Penguin, p. 36,39
7. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos
1-5, p. 34
8. Linton AE, Times Higher Education Supplement
(20.4.2001),
p.
29
9. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution,
p.
112,113
10. Pekka Isaksson & Jouko Jokisalo: Historian
lisälehtiä, p. 178
11. Timothy Keller: Mihin Jumalaa tarvitaan (The
Reason for God), p. 71
