God's Not Dead! Part 2: My speech in front of the class

So a couple of weeks ago I reviewed the film God’s Not Dead, and in that review, I reported that it is my hope to write out a speech that I would have delivered to the class if given the chance.  This is the result. 

A lot of this is coming directly from points made in debates that I particularly liked.  I’m citing when I recall exactly where I heard it, but in general, please note that I listened to a lot of these debates, so I’ve been influenced by the thought of Greg Bahnsen, Sye Ten Bruggencate, James White, The Narrow Mind podcast, Apologia Radio, Douglas Wilson, etc.

I should also note that I have heard a hundred questions in response to this reasoning, and it would have taken me an additional month to write replies to all of them.  In lieu of that, I thought to just leave off the Q&A.  If you are interested more in this, I would recommend the Bahnsen/Stein debate in particular, but also any of the debates by the people and groups listed above.

Now on with the show! 

***

Good afternoon.  I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you on this topic.  I would like to start off with the very simply confession that I’m surprised that this is a topic at all.  And yes, I know that this is only a topic because I would not sign a piece of paper that says “God is dead,” so maybe you’re wondering why this is a topic at all as well, since no one else wanted to press the point.

But the reason I am wondering why this is a topic is because the very fact that we are in this classroom, studying philosophy, trying to get a degree, communicating with one another, and seeking to be understood at all.  And all of that assumes that God is quite alive, and frankly, that the Triune God of the Bible is quite alive and is who He says that He is.  And without the God of the Bible, all of this is pointless, meaningless, and probably a very poor use of our time.

Before I go into that further, let me state up front – I’m not here trying to argue for some general theism.  I am a Christian, and so I will argue for the only truth that makes any sense whatsoever, and that is that God is true, that God has spoken, and that God has spoken in Scripture and is true.

And you’re assuming it too.  That’s the reason you’re here.  That’s the reason you have even asked me to “prove” something, because you’re assuming that “proof” exists.

And now you’re giving me the stink eye.  I understand, but give me a chance to explain what I mean.

The presupposition that we are supposed to make in this class is not that a higher being made us, but rather we just are because of a series of material processes that have culminated, at least at this time, in the human race.  Those processes have taken millions and billions of years, but that they were unguided and uncaused, but just are.  There is nothing about us that is not derived from that.  We are nothing but material beings, the result of an evolutionary process.  We are chemical reactions in protoplasm.

We are told that this has been shown to us by science, but I want to back up a step before even challenging that claim, because how exactly did we even get that far?  The amount of assumptions that go into even a trust of science are astonishing, and none of them supported by an evolutionary materialist worldview.  We are assuming that the laws of nature are constantly.  We are assuming we can trust our own observations.  We are assuming that the laws of logic are constant and true.  We are assuming that we can comprehend what we are seeing.  How does a naturalist worldview support these?

In other words, how do you know science is true?  You can’t test it.  It’s not a natural property to be measured.  How can you know that today’s going to be like yesterday?  That the laws of nature will hold and won’t change.  To support any of these concepts, we have to step beyond what naturalist materialism can explain.

Let’s look at logic.  Logic isn’t material.  It isn’t measureable.  It isn’t something you can test in a laboratory.  And yet this very class is based on the fact that the laws of logic, despite being immaterial, are universal.  They apply everywhere without exception.  I’ve heard a lot of atheists speak of the laws of logic, but how does an immaterial and universal truth happen in a universe that is solely material?

Well, you can say that we have learned these from observation, but again, we’re assuming all of the same things.  We’re assuming that things are consistent, the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our sense.

I’ve often heard Christians being criticized for use “God of the gaps” theories, meaning, we don’t understand something, so that means God must be there.  Well, that’s not the argument I’m using.  What I’m saying is not that your worldview doesn’t have all the answers.  I wouldn’t expect you to have the answers.  What I’m saying is that you don’t believe your worldview.  I’m saying that the things you hold dear – truth, logic, science, love, beauty – none of these make sense in a materialistic world.  It’s not that we just don’t understand how they make sense.  No, it’s that they go against your worldview.

  

To paraphrase Douglas Wilson, it would be silly if we put a bottle of Dr. Pepper here and a bottle of Sprite over there, shook them both us, and ask which fizzing is truth.  But if we are nothing but chemical reactions, I’m wondering about the wisdom is having a debate on whether my fizzing and whether the professor’s fizzing is true.  The question is not that we just don’t have enough information to know for sure which soda is truth.  The real issue is that it doesn’t even make any sense to ask the question.  The Christian says that we are more than chemical reactions.  That we are more than material.  That we are made in the image of God, and as such, we can reason, we can do science, we can philosophize, and these things have meaning and are important.  It’s not that the atheist cannot do these things and do it well.  Atheists do that every day.  It’s that when they do these things, they are betraying their own worldview and embracing the Christian one.

Let’s take morality.  Because I want to talk about to the problem of evil, which is the best challenge against Christianity.  It’s also the best challenge to atheism, because if there’s no God, then why do we consider this a problem?  Atheists will normally rant about wickedness in the Bible, but I’m wondering why atheists are even speaking of something like evil when their worldview doesn’t support it.

The Christian can speak of good and evil because we have a moral and constant God who by His very nature defines what is good and what is evil.  We have a concrete moral code, wrapped up in the being of God Himself, that tells us what is right and what is wrong.  That code is reflected in His creation to the point that the Bible describes those who have not read the commandments of God in His Word as still having that law “written on their hearts.”  The fact that we all agree on the basics of a moral code reflects this too, but it makes no sense in an evolutionary worldview.

What is rape, murder, and theft amongst animals?  I don’t know, some of the species do these things, some do not.  Can we really make a moral declaration about them?  Who are we to say whether it’s right to murder or wrong to murder?  Let me quote Richard Dawkins on this point:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. (emphasis mine)

This is the same Dawkins, by the way, who will criticize religion as being dangerous and immoral, which sounds to me like he actually doesn’t believe what his worldview tells him to believe.  So he can write that the world acts exactly how he would expect with no good and evil, but I say he acts exactly opposite of that view.  So does he actually believe it?

You may say that we don’t need God in order to be moral!  You’re right.  But when you act morally, you act in conflict with a materialistic worldview.  I’ve known a lot of really moral atheists.  But I can tell you why you should be moral, and they cannot.  Not really.  Any basis you lay for morality will crumble away without God.  Social convention, maybe?  A majority of Germany voted for Hitler.  Were his actions moral, then?  There was a consensus, so we should say yes!  Well, maybe morality is not causing harm.  That’s a decent definition, but where does it come from?  Certainly not nature.  So where?  Again, we’re putting an immaterial and universal standard on a worldview that cannot account for either.

And unless we have a universal immaterial standard for morality, at the end of the day, American right and Nazi Germany wrong because we were stronger, that’s why.  Might makes right.  Had Hitler been stronger, then it’s okay to killed Jews.  America is stronger, so it’s wrong to kill Jews.  At least, until someone stronger says it’s fine again.  Two hundred years ago, it was totally okay to take black people from Africa and enslave them.  Why?  Because we’re stronger.  Might makes right, that’s why.  The stronger people say it’s wrong now, so we’ll go with that for the time being.

You can say I’m wrong here, but as you are saying that, you need to put your morality on a firmer foundation.  You say, well, being moral means not harming someone else.  And I reply, why?  What makes not harming someone right and harming someone wrong?  Hitler disagrees with you, and without a transcendent morality, why are you right and he’s wrong.  Maybe the people we’re locking up and calling sociopaths are really the sane ones.  How do you know?

What standard are you standing on?  Why are we more civilized than those who rape, steal, and murder?  When it comes down to it, the best you can say is that you prefer people didn’t rape, steal, and murder.  But rapists, thieves, and murders all think you’re wrong.

The Christian can say that they’re wrong.  The Christian can say that it’s wrong to rape, steal, and murder.  The Christian has a standard by which to judge these things, and that standard is the goodness of God revealed in His creation and in His Word.

When Dawkins signed his book deal with his publisher, did he expect the publisher to act consistently with this worldview?  If they had stolen all the money they owed him, would he not sue them?  Of course he would.  Dawkins entered the deal expecting that his publisher would act like a Christian, and in return, Dawkins promised to act like a Christian too.  That’s the assumption at the base of every contract, of every relationship, of society.  When we do not behave according to the very moral code that we all know to be absolute and universal, all kinds of foul is called.

We’ve seen a number of cases lately of black men being killed by police officers.  Not to enter that debate at all right here, but I’ve heard a number of people say the phrase, “Black lives matter.”  To which the Christian says, “Amen.”  To which the evolutionist, if he were to be consistent, must answer, “Not really.”  Of course they don’t answer that way, but it’s in spite of their expressed beliefs, not because of them.

When atheist Dan Barker was asked on the radio by Jeff Durbin about why murder is a problem if we’re just stardust, Barker replied, “In the cosmic picture?  None.  There’s no problem.  In the cosmic picture, it won’t matter.”

So I don’t have a problem answering this question, but it should be stated up front that if you reject the Christian God, then you have no basis upon which to criticize my answer.  Who is to say that the ones of us who evolved to love peace and harmony are the right ones, and the ones who evolved to take and kill are wrong?  They are merely following the path of their animal ancestors who did the same things, after all.

So how do I answer it?  The same way God does in the Bible.  By first telling you that you don’t have the foggiest clue as to what you are talking about.  We spend so much time making proclamations about the beginning of time, but it was God there who laid the foundation of the earth, who set the seas within their space, who lit up the sky with light and wonder, who guides the whole of creative history by His hand.  We live in a tiny fraction of time and a tiny fraction of space, seeing a tiny fraction of the events that happen in this world, and we want to declare God wrong on the basis of what we see?

God does allow evil to exist in His creation.  He has done so to show off his glory, his justice, and his mercy.  How all of this plays out is something that we’re in no position to understand fully.  We are all like Job, calling out to God for answers for all that he has lost, but without understanding of everything that is going on.  I will remind you that the book of Job has been a comfort to people for millennia, and it’s not because it lays out all the answers for Job’s suffering, but it is because we are reminded there that there is a purpose to suffering, even if we don’t know what they are.

To shift the focus a little as well, the sufferings of Christ had a purpose too, and the purpose there has a direct application to what we’re discussing.  Whether or not we confess God or say we are atheists, we all know God’s law.  That’s why we refer to things like “evil.”  And it’s easy to point at Hitler and call him evil.  Even the atheist, who shouldn’t even really believe in evil, can do that.  But it’s another thing to admit about your own heart.  Romans 1 tells us this:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 

 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

You see, the reason we are asked to sign this piece of paper, declaring God to be dead, is to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  But claiming to be wise, we become fools.  We end up denying the only thing that makes this class make sense.  Instead, we should acknowledge the truth – that we have rebelled against a just God, the very God who created the world and who spoke in His Word, and the very God who made a sacrifice in the place of His children, all those who would call upon His name.

Christians can trust that the laws of nature are consistent, because God has told us that they would be until the Second Coming.  We can trust in logic because God is the God of order.  We can seek for truth because He is truth.

This foundation is built on the idea that we are learn things, and those things are important.  That is why Christians throughout the ages have been in the business of educating people.  Atheists come later to the institutes that we built, stand on our foundation, and declare us to be fools.  Look at your feet, sir.  Every word you say is rooted in the truth of the Triune God.  It doesn’t matter what we learn, say, or do if we are nothing but bags of protoplasm.  Philosophy?  What’s the point?  Can we really say that there is any greater point or purpose in life if we are highly evolved bacteria.  The only way a class like this would even make any sense at all is if the God of the Bible is true.

So to go into this class assuming that He doesn’t exist makes as much sense as breathing when we don’t believe in air.  You want to know how I prove God?  Because without God, none of this makes any sense at all.  My suggestion is to take up a hobby like bowling or tennis or guitar or something.  Enjoy yourself.  This is all you got, however many years you have left.  Honestly, I’m not sure why you’re spending it studying something that is meaningless in your worldview.