There has of late been a strong push by idealogues like Professor Richard Dawkins who have made it their mission in life to destroy any kind of belief in God and any kind of influence of Theism, and especially of Christianity, in modern society and culture. From where I look though, Richard Dawkins is doomed. His agenda also, is doomed. It will never work, no matter how many followers he can get on board for the moment.
I can understand the emotional appeal of atheism. You get to do whatever you think is best and you don’t have to be concerned about a Divine Judge who is going to call you to account and possibly throw you into HELL eternally. Yes, that sounds like a great idea to fallen mankind. The only problem though is that the whole system of thought is not congruent with reality in many respects. And as such, people who subscribe to atheism are taking a huge risk.
Naturalism is the PHILOSOPHICAL position that only those things which exist in the Material realm are real.
Darwinian Evolution is the idea that all life on earth is the product of gradual changes which accumulated over time and stayed around only because they gave a survival advantage to the organism.
Atheism is the belief that there definitely is no God or god. Agnosticism is the belief that one does not know, and probably cannot know, if there is a God.
You can believe in Darwinism evolution and be a Theist. One example is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. He believes in God, and also believes in some kind of Darwinian evolution as the mechanism by which different species came to be. Personally, I am not convinced at all that Darwinian evolution is mathematically possible, or that the fossil record shows the multitude of gradual changes that ought to be there if indeed one kind of thing slowly changed into another. But some Theists do believe in it, apparently.
What should be obvious though, is that if you are a Philosophical Naturalist, and you believe in the material universe only, then you are virtually compelled to believe in some kind of Darwinian evolutionary theory. You have to believe that all these things in our Universe organised themselves into what they are today. If you believe in the Big Bang, then you also are compelled to believe that “Nothing” – except possibly some pre-existent Eternal Laws of Physics – created All that We See and Know. And for that to happen purely through unguided mechanical Laws of Physics, you have to believe in something like Darwinism.
What Are the Problems with the Naturalistic Scenario?
Given that the astronomical evidence points to a Big Bang event, a time when there was virtually no space and perhaps no Universe at all, doesn’t that strongly suggest that the Universe is not its own cause?
If you say that the Laws of Physics like “quantum mechanics” can create a Universe out of nothing, how did these laws even exist without a physical Universe to operate in? Are they “non-physical” things that exist? This denies Scientific Materialism.
There are absolutely no realistic or plausible scenarios for how the first cell – a self-replicating machine with millions of complex atoms in highly ordered technological arrangement – how this came to exist through blind chemistry without a guiding Intelligence.
Instead of seeing multitudes of gradual transitional forms everywhere in the fossil record, we see that the variations due to natural selection and adaptation are really going nowhere new – certainly not from one species to another. We see separate and distinct species arising suddenly all the time.
Everything about dating the age of the earth, fossils and the Universe is based on assumptions which may not hold true at all. Its full of guesswork.
Naturalism needs to enforce its viewpoint by appeals to power. You are not allowed to teach anything else if you want to keep your job in most Universities and Schools.
Biology is full of irreducibly complex biochemical systems. You need many chemical mechanisms together at once to get the functionality you need for something useful. Take one element out and you have nothing useful and the whole system does not work. It is not reasonable therefore to suppose that each of these changes coming about supposedly by unguided mutations alone would survive long enough for the total mechanism to continue to assemble itself. The odds are enormously low.
Naturalism does not question its presuppositions. It assumes that there is no spiritual world, and surprise surprise, deduces from that that there is no Creator God. This is just circular reasoning. It is not fair to exclude all evidence that suggests the assumption is false simply because you have decided this is what you would like to believe.
Evolution is assumed to be true because if naturalism is true evolution HAS to be true. Things like evidence and details are not important for the true believers in Darwinian evolution. It is assumed that the confirming evidence will turn up later, even if hundreds of years of searching has turned up evidence that points more to Special Creation and very little that suggests that complex lifeforms came from simple ones.
Atheism professes to know that no God exists, especially the Christian God. But unless you know everything, its not possible really to prove a universal negative.
Atheists trust their rational thought processes but in the end if they are right and their thought processes are merely the results of fluke chemistry it would be very possible for them to be deluded or mistaken about everything they think they know.
There is no real basis for absolute morality if atheism is true. If enough people in society decide that murder is good or rape is good then there is no ultimate or higher authority they can appeal to in order to say that this is wrong and SHOULD NOT be done.
Just wishing that there be no God to judge you doesn’t make it so.
Rejecting the vast amounts of testimonial evidence of people’s interaction with the spirit realm simply because you don’t think its possible for that spirit realm to exist could easily be a form of wilful blindness. We should evaluate things based on the evidence, and the things that happen in our conscious experience ARE pieces of evidence that should be considered.
Rejecting the eyewitness reports of the resurrection of Jesus Christ because you already made up your mind that such things cannot happen shows nothing more than closed mindedness and a kind of wilful ignorance. You have to deal with the evidence, which is considerable.
Feel free to add more problems you see with these naturalistic philosophies in the comments below. Or perhaps start ad hominem attacks against me – i.e. tell me that I am an idiot – simply because you don’t have a convincing argument and attacking the messenger creates an air of superiority for you, at least in your own mind.