Anyone who would object to the notion of God on the grounds of suffering, should only do so with the knowledge that there exists one religion that conceives of a God who experienced more of that suffering than any other being in the universe, in order to rescue us from it.

If “God” is to be found guilty, then this God must be among those put on trial, as a suffering God is the only God Christians have ever proposed.

A little atheist myth about science.

Myth: Even when scientists believe in God, they become practical atheists whenever they do science; they never bring God into the laboratory.


That is neither true historically nor conceptually.

Let’s consider the great pioneers of modern science – the scientists of the scientific revolution (who produced modern science as we know it). Believe it or not, they were not looking for “naturalistic” explanations of things. They simply looked for consistent explanations of things. The reason they believed that nature would behave consistently is because they believed that God ruled nature.

Atheists often tell us that that bringing God into the laboratory (bringing the theistic worldview into scientific endeavours) will lead to lazy inferences: that is, supernatural explanations. It is as if God becomes a conceptual crutch – an escape clause in every difficult anomaly whereby they can simply say, “God did it,” while atheists, who must assume nature causes everything, are left to do the hard work of figuring out the natural patterns and causes of things. (This is all part and parcel of the broader atheistic myth, that science and theism are essentially opposed.)

Of course, this would entail on the theist’s part an inconsistent model of nature – a nature that lacks the resources to produce the systems around us. For a scientist to invoke supernatural explanations for things would be to assume that nature, unaided by God, is unable to behave in the way that it has been observed to.

But the mistake this makes is not that it brings the theistic worldview into the laboratory; it is that it fails to consider the way in which God governs nature: rationally, consistently, and uniformly. The scientific revolutionaries – almost all of them Christians – didn’t make that mistake. They assumed that nature would behave according to intelligible patterns and laws, because they believed in a divine intelligence as nature’s lawgiver.

Thus when they came across an anomalous piece of data, rather than calling it a miracle, their way forward was not to suspend belief in a divine intelligence, but to invoke their belief in God by assuming that the anomaly must be a consistent part of a divinely designed pattern that had yet to be discerned.

Then they searched for the pattern. And the rest is history.

This myth does not seem to pass the test of history, let alone pure reason.

A Quick Thought on Abortion

There are many arguments given for the permissibility of abortion. Most of them seem to be concerned with the rights of the mother to have control over what happens to her body. I personally find these arguments to be callously cold and inhumane in their thinking towards unborn children. However there are also some arguments that appeal to the rights of the unborn child – the right not to live a life that would not be worth living.

This kind argument came out pretty loud this week with Richard Dawkins’ tweets saying that it would be “immoral” to bring a child into the world if you knew it had Down’s syndrome. I take it that he is not worried about the child being more of a cost than a benefit to society – I think he is worried about the suffering the child is expected to go through if it is allowed to be born and grow up. Of course, this argument isn’t limited to concerns about children with Down’s syndrome but extends to other diseases, as well as socio-economic conditions that would mean the parent is unable to provide what we might consider an adequate life for the child.

I just think this is the most absurd argument; it surely cannot stand up to scrutiny. Here’s what I don’t understand. We’re saying that it would be cruel to bring into the world a child whose life would be so full of suffering that it wouldn’t be worth living, right? Have we ever thought of asking the children what they want? Well of course, the children we’re talking about can’t speak; they’re fetuses. But we can speak to the millions of people who have been born with diseases, or born into poverty, and have grown up into adults. Here’s what’s so remarkable: there are millions of these people whose lives pro-abortionists say would are not worth living, and yet for some reason, the overwhelming majority of them choose to continue to live. Don’t you think that’s noteworthy? I mean, if their lives really were so much more painful than they were pleasurable that they would have been better off not to have been born, wouldn’t they just go ahead and kill themselves? But they generally don’t kill themselves, do they? In fact many of them, particularly those born into poverty, go to extreme lengths just to survive. The fact that so many people born in life’s unfair circumstances wind up living lives of crime is so often given as a reason why they shouldn’t have been born. But really I see it as a testimony to just how desperately these people wish to continue living. They will do almost anything, it seems, to stay alive.

Of course, you will probably say that this is just the result of natural instinct: it is incredibly unnatural for a person to end their own life – they generally have to be experiencing an incredible amount of suffering for them to consider it better that they should die. And I would say… Ah, yes; precisely. Maybe that should make you reconsider how lightly you are willing to end someone’s life. Let’s not forget – it’s very, very easy to kill oneself. There’s nothing physically hard about it. What makes it so rare is that people almost never want to die. It’s simple logic: If people actually didn’t consider their own lives worth living, they would kill themselves. And thus, given the enormous sample size of empirical evidence showing that people born in disadvantaged circumstances usually choose to continue living, the rational thing to do is to assume that an unborn child with Down’s syndrome will most likely prefer to live.

Doesn’t it seem tremendously paternalistic to decide, before someone has the capacity to choose for themselves, whether someone’s life is worth living? If what you’re really concerned about is the quality of life for the unborn, why not let the child be born, and then if they decide that their life isn’t worth living, let them kill themselves? How presumptuous, how autocratic, that we would think we know better than someone whether their own life has enough joy that it would be worth continuing, given that whenever we actually give a fetus in a disadvantaged position the chance to live, they almost always take it, holding on to it like nothing else! It is unthinkable to me that our assumption would be that they wouldn’t want to live when everything we know about real life tells us the exact opposite.

Almost everybody who’s ever been born with Down’s syndrome, or with difficult economic circumstances, has chosen to keep living. How about we give them a chance to make that choice.

Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being whose existence is demonstrable.

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part IX.

I have to say, Hume, you are absolutely right.

A note on atheist fantasies.

Many Christians, including myself, have made the argument against atheism that if you accept atheism, then you have to forget the idea that life has any meaning. More often than not, this is met with a sort of personal put-down. Something like, “you theists are so immature if you need a god to make life meaningful for you. We [superior] atheists are capable of finding meaning in ourselves.”

While this sentiment might sound smart, there is very little argumentation in it. It is certainly no-where near as rationally convincing as it is repulsively pretentious.

Here’s the problem. Many of these atheists have come to admit that, if there is no god, then life and the universe have no objective meaning; once we’re dead, that’s it – the universe won’t mourn us. But if that’s the case, why would you congratulate yourself for coming up with your own meaning in life?

See, atheists often make the claim against theists that we are living in a fantasy world, that we have invented a supreme deity to help us find purpose and feel better about life, and then they boast in their ability to find meaning without resorting to a god. But if an atheist has conceded that there is no objective meaning in the universe without God, how can he accuse the theist of fantasising by inventing a God for himself? Has not the atheist committed just as inordinate an intellectual transgression by making his own meaning? Must he not admit that his meaning is an outright fabrication that has no ground whatsoever in the real world? Aren’t atheists supposed to be obsessed with cold, hard, objective rationality, and with believing whatever the evidence says, regardless of how they feel? After all, either we exist for a reason, or we don’t. We cannot justly live under the impression that our existence matters for something if the brute fact is that it doesn’t.

The atheist who so proudly makes his own meaning has committed the very same felony he accuses the theist of: he has invented and believed a sentimental notion in order to get him through Monday to Sunday.

At least theists believe that their God actually exists outside of themselves.

It will probably then be argued asserted that there is no evidence for God!

That’s simply not true.

But if it is, then there’s certainly no evidence of meaning.

We must accept the consequences of the worldview we believe.

He was wounded for… what?

The Cost of Forgiveness

Easter is at hand. I really believe Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday, and the weekend that they compose, make up the most important of all Christian holidays. While the media and our society in general make a lot more fuss over Christmas (probably more to do with its position on the calendar than anything else), there is really no more pivotal an occasion for the Christian than the weekend on which, so says our doctrine, Christ died, was buried, and was raised from the dead. For the Christian, this event was the most important event in the history of mankind, because Christ’s death was the means by which we can be saved from our sins; thus the event is the foundation of the entire Christian worldview.

But unfortunately I think this event is misunderstood by non-Christians everywhere, as well as many Christians. This video, entitled “Richard Dawkins schools Howard Conder on morality”, is one of the clearest demonstrations of this lack of understanding:

I really do recommend watching the video, or at least the first few minutes to get the idea. But basically, Dawkins is drilling this Christian man about the whole thinking behind Jesus atoning death. Now I find a lot of Dawkins’ objections to Christianity to be rather childish, but what he raises here, I think, is a very legitimate concern. Christians claim that Jesus died in order that God could forgive our sins – his death ‘atoned’ for our sinfulness so that we could be made right with God, so that we could be saved from an eternity of punishment in Hell. Dawkins simply asks why this was necessary: why couldn’t God just forgive us? Continue reading


The foundation of morality, reason.


Dawkins makes a staggering number of mistakes in this argument.

First, he doesn’t actually answer the question that he’s asked. He is asked about how it is that an atheist would establish a framework within which to decide between right and wrong without believing in any sort of divine moral law giver who can bring rational basis to concepts of right and wrong.

Instead of answering that, Dawkins simply critiqued the specific moral lawS that certain religions have apparently suggested, and said that our modern ones are superior. But he has failed to give any rational account of what makes something right or wrong. By saying that modern morality is superior to ancient morality, he presupposed the very thing he was asked to prove – that there is such a thing as right and wrong. He was asked a metaethics question, and provided a normative ethics answer. It wins applause. But that’s it.

The other main one is that he doesn’t seem to understand what absolute morality really means. He says that because the specific religious moral laws are unsatisfactory, he doesn’t want absolute morality. He seems to think that absolute morality means a moral law that you are not allowed to question and reason about. And if that was what was meant by ‘absolute morality’, I think I wouldn’t want it either. But that is not what absolute morality means – not when philosophers talk about it, and I highly doubt it was what the questioner meant by it.

Absolute morality simply means that there is an absolute truth (not relative truth) as to whether something is right or wrong. It means that you can reason and debate about it as much as you want, but in the end there IS a truth about whether or not it is wrong to rape someone; that the truth about it is not relative to people’s opinions. It is this type of moral reality that he was asked to give an atheist’s rational account for. Instead he presumed this type of morality exists in order to blast religious people.

I find it strange that he would do this considering that I’m pretty sure, on other occasions, he has admitted that there is no rational basis for morality under atheism.

This is some pretty dodgy rhetoric on Dawkins’ party I must say.