blog 2 blog: what does a christian mean by "faith?"

One of the blogs I frequent is the Atheist Revolution.  And while I always hope to find rational arguments and presentations from the other side, sadly, I am left empty.   This blogger is relentlessly dogmatic in his commitment to Atheism, unyieldingly harsh toward Christianity, and yet perpetually vague in presenting any rational arguments for his own position.  Most recently, he took up the subject of faith.

The question under review was the following: “Could [any]one arrive at Christianity through rational means?”  This blogger was doubtless, which didn’t surprise me.  However, what caught my attention was the reason he was doubtless.  In his mind, Christianity could not be ascertained on the basis of any rational grounds because Christianity requires faith, and faith (in his understanding) is “belief in the absence of evidence,” which is not rational.

So many skeptics believe this is what is meant by the word “faith”, but is this what the christian means?  Is this what the Bible itself speaks of when it uses the word “faith?”

I have long grown tired of vain attacks from atheists.  Having studied philosophy in college, I am no stranger to the belittling attacks of professing atheists.  Nevertheless, I have yet to be graced with a rational response, which I, of course, find ironic.  For it is the atheist who always claims to have the market cornered on rationalism.  All I hear, however, is crickets, and the chirping from this blogger was no different.

When discussing the issue of faith, is it not appropriate to let the christian speak for him/herself?  More than that, should we not let the Bible speak for itself?  Defining faith as “belief in the absence of evidence” is completely foreign to the Bible.  Nowhere will you find such a definition.  Rather, the Bible positively defines faith as “the assurance [or substance/evidence] of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).  Even still, Merriam-Webster’s 2010 online dictionary has no finding of the phrase “absence of evidence” in its definition of faith.  In the end, I must say that my fellow blogger has done nothing but given a caricature and flimsy straw-man of our position.

Instead, when the christian and/or the Bible uses the word “faith,” it means something very real indeed.  In fact, it is the evidences that lead one to faith in Christianity.  When one surveys the wonders of Christianity – its coherent worldview, answered prophecies, evidence of the resurrected Jesus (i.e. empty tomb), and the testimony of its existential fulfillment in a person’s life – one is led to believe (or have faith) in the fact that these evidences bear witness to the veracity of Christianity.  In the end, for the christian, faith is not “belief in the absence of evidence,” but rather the firm confidence in the truth of Christianity based upon the evidences.

Now, I know some of you will ask, “If Christianity is true and based on evidences, what need is there for faith?  If this is the case, it is no longer faith but knowledge.”  There is, however, no contradiction between truth and faith.  You can very well have faith in something that is absolutely true, because faith is not about whether or not something is or is not true, but faith deals with our personal response to the truth.  Consider, if you will, the following scenario:

A jogging enthusiast has just been released from the hospital.  She had severely injured her leg while running.  However, after surgery and much physical therapy, her doctor informed her that it was perfectly okay for her to start jogging again.  All the tests and evidences of her healing were clear.  The jogger, however, was reticent to continue jogging again.  She deeply feared that her leg had not fully healed…despite the evidence seen in her physical therapy.

End scenario.  Do you see it now?  Faith had nothing to do with the truthfulness of the jogger’s restored leg, but about her response to that truth and the evidences that demonstrated it.  Though her leg was healed, and all the evidence testified to that healing, she did not believe (i.e. have faith) that it was all better.  

In Christianity, evidences are things upon which faith is built in order to believe the truth.  And the faith of the christian will be effective in bringing them to the final revelation of that truth when, at the end of this age, God will vindicate his cause in the world, Christ will return, and his Kingdom will have no end. 

Grace to you 🙂

"become an atheist and save the world"

The world news at Mail Online recently posted a story on the violence which recently occurred in Jos, Nigeria, wherein some 500 Christians were slaughtered with machetes by Muslim rioters.  The Muslims claim that their attacks were “revenge” attacks due to the injustice they suffered at the hands of Christians and the predominately Christian government in Jos.  The conflict between the two religious groups is said to have been going on for quite some time now.

Such unrest and lack of peace in the world created by religious conflict is one of the reasons many people frown upon strict religious adherence.  Well known atheist author Christopher Hitchens, in his book God Is Not Great, has said that “religion kills.”  Another commented on the strife in Nigeria, saying, “…and all this in the name of god.  Become an atheist and save the world.”  The idea being that atheism will somehow rectify the unrest caused by scrupulous religious devotion.  And I must say, this commenter is indeed on to something, but is atheism the answer?

I completely agree with both Hitchens and the commenter on the mail online journal.  Religion has often been the seen cause of a wealth of injustice and conflict in our world’s history.  In turn, Hitchens and his atheist sympathizers assert that removing the “God factor” will create peace.  This seems plausible enough.  Does it not?  I mean, if people are warring over their differing beliefs in God, just remove God and then…problem solved.  Simple.

Well, as simple and plausible as it may seem, the move to atheism is not the answer to the problem.  Atheism and secularism have already been tried.  One need only look at the 20th century and see the Communist governments of Russia, Cambodia and China.  These countries rejected any kind of nationalized or traditional religion in favor of human reason and secularism.  Yet the violence and atrocities produced under these regimes was extensive.  The religious influence had been removed, yet conflict, violence and war continued.  Why is that?  Because when the “God factor” is removed, people will elevate something else in its place, as a way to obtain control and superiority over others.  The Nazi’s, for example, elevated race and ethnicity to a place of preeminence as a way to marginalize and crush the Jewish people.

Atheism’s removal of the “God factor” is not the solution.  Why?  Because, ultimately, it is not what we believe that inspires conflict, but its the human heart that expresses itself through those beliefs.  The human heart has a natural inclination toward self-centered, moral and spiritual superiority.  So, what’s the solution, if its not eliminating religion?

The answer is Jesus Christ.  Only when rightly seeing who Jesus is and what Jesus did, will humanity be able to find redemption from the strife and unrest caused by the selfish, sinful inclinations of the human heart.  How, you may ask?  It’s because Jesus was God come in the flesh.  Furthermore, as the God-man, he lived a perfect and sinless life, and he, alone, actually had preeminence and moral and spiritual superiority.  Moreover, he would have been in his right to crush sinful humanity under his mighty hand.  Nevertheless, he subjected himself under the injustice of humanity, as he died on a cross; all the while forgiving his enemies.  What’s more, he took upon himself, as a substitute, the very judgment of God that humanity incurred because of injustice and self-centeredness.

He did this so that all people, even his enemies, could be saved not by their good deeds, which we selfishly use to assert our superiority over others, but by his perfect righteousness.  This is what grace is – the loving act of Jesus to save sinners from judgment by taking on their sinful record and bestowing his sinless record to them by faith.  When a human embraces this idea of grace in the core of their being, they will be radically humbled.  For they will know that it is not by performing their religious duty that they will be saved, but by the sheer grace of another, namely, Jesus.  And such humility will, as with Jesus, move people to love their enemies and be an agent of peace towards those with whom they disagree.

Religion is not the problem, the human heart is, and it needs to be radically transformed and redeemed by the grace of Jesus.  Atheism does not save the world; Christ does!

Grace to you 🙂

   

what’s wrong with killing 6,000,000 jews?

One of the most awful realities in the records of human history is The Holocaust, wherein Nazi Germany methodically and systematically exterminated the lives of millions of Jewish people.

Now, nearly everyone will consider what the Germans did horrific…inhumane, in fact.  However, why is that?  What’s wrong with killing 6,000,000 Jews?

Ultimately, the issue concerns human dignity and value.  The reason what Nazi Germany did to the Jews was so terrible was because the Jews were human beings that had innate value and dignity.  And when we see the Germans disregarding that fact – marginalizing the Jews and eventually crushing them underneath their hatred – not only do we take offense, but we call it wrong.

However, on what basis do human beings have dignity?  Aren’t we just a higher more complex form of animal?  Well, no, we aren’t.  Human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:25-27), and by virtue of that very creative fact, we have innate, inherent value.  Yet, there is no other worldview (i.e. apart from Christianity) that says human beings are created in the image of God, or that have a foundation for believing in innate human dignity and value.  Apart from Christianity, beliefs about innate human value are arbitrary.  And if beliefs about human value can be reduced to arbitrary view points, then there is nothing wrong with what the Germans did.  They can (and did) create their own valuation of the Jewish people (i.e. they saw the Jews as inferior beings) and treat them as they please.  Similarly, we can do the same.

Unfortunately, living out that worldview causes destruction and tragedy…exhibit 1: The Holocaust.  However, this becomes the result if non-Christian worldviews are carried out to their logical conclusions.

Of course, no one (well…most) subscribes to the belief that human beings are devoid of any real, intrinsic dignity and worth.  And the very heart of humanity, which knows, deep down, that people have real worth and value, is testimony to the fact that the Christian worldview is true.

Christianity alone tells us that mankind is created in the image of God and thus has supreme and infinite worth.  When we deny this, however, we lose all foundation for believing in human dignity, which provides an easy justification for killing 6,000,000 Jewish people.

Grace to you 🙂

can you be good without god?

In a stroll through Barnes & Noble today, I perused the philosophy section.  Having majored in philosophy, I’m always interested in what my ilk has written.  As I browsed, I found a book that caught my eye: “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein, who is a self-proclaimed humanist, which he defines as the following:

“[A humanist is one who believes in] being good without god.  It is above all an affirmation of the greatest common value we humans beings have: the desire to live with dignity, to be ‘good’” (xiii – Good Without God).

Now, I’ve read other books that have sought to present an ethic apart from a belief in God, and they have all utterly failed.  However, this being a book published in 2009, I thought that a fresher, more illuminating approach may have been taken by Mr. Epstein.  I just assumed that somebody like Epstein may have learned from the mistakes of those who went before him.  Well, I assumed wrong.

To be fair, let me preface this short critique by saying that I did not sit and read the whole book (page by page).  I did, however, file through the book locating the basic arguments which Epstein uses to found his basis for morality.

Epstein’s basic pattern of argumentation is to present his responses to the many objectors who say, “Morality apart from God is senseless.”  While Epstein’s approach is fine, the problem occurs when you notice that all of his answers continual beg the most crucial questions of morality.

As is typical of an atheist/agnostic, Epstein fails to get to the heart of ethics/morality in his book.  The atheist/agnostic cannot justify or give an account for morality, and the author of this book only further demonstrates this.  For example, in answering the question as to where ethics come from, if they do not come from God, Epstein writes, “The simplest way to put this is: our ethics come from human needs and interests” (34 – Good Without God).  This, of course, begs the more profound question, which is this: If the foundations for ethics comes from seeing the needs in and of other humans, what obligation does one have to appeal to, meet, or respond to those needs in a way that is favorable to the rest of humanity?  One cannot answer the question of morality unless you have offered an account for why people should be obliged or have any responsibility to meet the needs of others.  However, seeing as how this was the first sentence in this section of the book, I looked further to see if Epstein offers any answers…nope.  Silent.   

Elsewhere, Epstein answers the question: What is ethically good?  To which he writes, “There is no good except between people.  We can’t speak of a good planet, sun, or moon.  There are no ‘bad’ butterflies, except as these creatures affect us humans.  There are no ‘bad’ lampposts or ‘good’ motorcycles, except insofar as they give us pleasure or pain,  benefit or harm” (108 –  Good Without God).  Again, this answer begs the more profound question of what is good.  Epstein has (basically) relegated his understand of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on pleasure/pain and benefit/harm.  In other words, something is “good” is it brings pleasure or pain, and something is “bad” if it is painful or harmful.  This definition, however, is entirely inadequate.  For we must then do the arduous (if not impossible) task of determining what is considered painful, pleasurable, beneficial, and harmful.  These things, of course, are highly relative, are are subject to a host of differing interpretations based on circumstances and situations.  And if morality can be reduces to relativity (in this case) we must ask the same question as before: Why should anyone be obliged to treat anyone in such a way as to bring pleasure/pain or benefit/harm?  In the end, we are still left without any real foundation for morality or ethics.

In short, what Epstein has presented is nothing new or more enlightening that what has already been written in atheists/agnostics literature.  Their worldview cannot justify or give an account for ethics and ethical standards.  Now, please notice, my argument is not about whether or not atheists/agnostics can actually do or perform what we may consider good things…because they can.  However, they cannot justify the reasons why they should perform such “good” acts.  And if they cannot justify the reasons why, then they can merely act arbitrarily, which is no basis or grounds for morality.


If there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard that is binding upon human beings.  Thus, there is no binding ethic that ought to govern our lives.  Thus, there is no moral obligation to perform good to anyone.  And when anyone lives consistently with this worldview, it leads to destruction.  One only need think of Adolf Hitler.

Epstein’s reduction of ethics to some kind of human, evolutionary conception begs the most fundamental question, namely, so what?  So what Epstein?  I mean, he basically asserts that morality is about helping foster humanity, but why should anyone adhere to such an idea?  And he can’t say, “Because it will be for the betterment of humanity,” because apart from God there is no objective standard for what the “betterment of humanity” means.  After all, Hitler thought the “betterment of humanity” would be to eliminate “lesser” races such as the Jews.  Therefore, there still remains no justifiable reason for doing good apart from anyone’s own relativistic rationale.  And if morality can be reduced to relativistic standards, then who really cares about Epstein has to say about ethics.

Of course, human beings do not live this way.  We have justice systems.  We feel guilty when we do harm.  We feel anger and sadness when harm is done to us.  There are so many things that consistently speak to and give testimony to the fact that there is, in fact, a standard of morality that is as real as anything else we experience in our material world, and that is because there is a God who has set forth his standard of morality in our conscience (Romans 1-2).

The apostle Paul tells us that people, such as Epstein, are suppressing the truth about God in their unrighteousness.  In other words, such people are willfully rebelling against their creator and are then seeking to justify their unbelief by doing things like writing books about atheistic ethics (even though they cannot account for or justify ethics).  Friends, if you want to be able to rationally and reasonably give an account for being a moral man/woman, then you must appeal to the Christian God.  He is the only assumed reality, upon which a worldview can make sense.

Grace to you 🙂

presuppositionalism and the justification for presupposing god

I recently heard a radio show, in which a christian apologist (i.e. defender of the christian faith) was dialoguing with an atheist about the existence of God in relation to science.  The apologist favored the presuppositional style of apologetics, which deals with the foundational beliefs that we all have.

A foundational belief is a belief that we typically take for granted.  They seem to be self-evident truths.  We don’t necessarily seek to prove them, but rather by them we seek to prove and justify all of our other beliefs.  The correctness of logic, for example, is a foundational belief that many hold.  Most all of us have, at one time or another, indicted someone for lying, or indicted some argument for being contradictory.  Have we not?  However, such an indictment assumes the correctness of logical laws such as the law of non-contradiction.  In fact, without first assuming the correctness of logical laws we could not maintain our objection.  We must presuppose something.  That is to say, we must have some foundational beliefs.  Here then, is where the presuppositional apologist will call into question these beliefs – asking his/her opponent how they can justify such assumed/presupposed beliefs.

The belief in question during this radio broadcast was the uniformity of nature.  The uniformity of nature is a basic explanation of the way the world works.  It states that the universe functions in a uniform and orderly way and because of this, we humans, can accurately observe past events and make theories and even scientific laws concerning the way the universe will behave in the future.  In fact, without the uniformity of nature, science would be impossible.  Because without the uniformity of nature there would be no reason to assume the future would be like the past.  But, of course, all scientists do assume the future will be like the past, and therefore, they assume the uniformity of nature.

However, the atheistic scientist has no good reason to make such an assumption.  They do not have a book (e.g. the Bible), in which an ultimate and absolute creator (e.g. the God of the Bible) reveals unto them the nature of the universe (Genesis 8:22).  Furthermore, they do not have such a being that says he maintains the universe in its order (Hebrews 1:3).  Instead, only the christian can rationally maintain such a belief.  The atheist’s presupposition of the uniformity of nature is completely arbitrary and based on blind faith.  Yes blind faith!  It will do no good for the atheist to say, “Based on past occurences and behaviors of the universe we can make confident predictions about the future.”  That is nothing but the principle of induction.  But to state the principle induction does not justify your belief in it.  You must ask the atheist on what basis do they assume the uniformity of nature (or induction).  In the end, they have no answer.  And they must borrow from the christian worldview to make sense of their beliefs.

Now the christian, of course, has a reasonable justification for the uniformity of nature.  God and his revelation, wherein he demonstrates his prerogative to maintain the order of the universe is our justification.  This is precisely what the radio host said to the atheist caller.  The atheist then, properly, called into question the christian presuppostion of God.  He asked if the apologist could justify his assumption of the “uniformity of God.”  The caller did not see the difference between his presuppostion and the host’s.  To him, it seemed to be that the christian just went one step further, but in the end both presuppositions led to a dead end, namely, not being able to give a justification for a foundational belief.

However, it is not the same.  The christian certainly does have a justification for his/her presuppostion (i.e. foundational belief) of God.  It is precisely this: the justification for the existence of God is that without him nothing else in the universe can be rationally justified.  You see, when you presuppose the christian God as the foundational belief upon which you build your worldview, then you can have a worldview that is consistent, coherent and rational.  The one (especially the atheist) who objects to the christian conception of God and his existence cannot.  This is ironic, because it always seems to be the atheist indicting the christian for having blind faith in some invisible being (God).  But in actuality, it is the atheist who cannot justify his belief about the uniformity of nature, and thus has no rational grounds for doing science; rather, it is a totally arbitrary activity.

The position of the atheist is, of course, false.  The very fact that there is no justification apart from God, gives hearty testimony to the fact that the God of the Bible does in fact uphold the universe by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3) like he says he does.  “The fools says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).  The one who denies that God exists is, in fact, being foolish.  This passage is not engaging in name-calling, but seeking to describe someone who will not use the reason that God gave them.  Let us not be foolish.

Grace to you 🙂

why do atheists care about ridding the world of religion?

there is a growing movement in the world today made up of people who have been branded “new atheists”. now whether they embrace this name or not, it does stand to say that their particular brand of atheism has made a splash in the in the public eye. with leading authors such as christopher hitchens, richard dawkins, daniel dennett, and sam harris (aka “the four horsemen”), a more militant spirit of atheism is taking stride. this “new atheism” is not merely denying or rejecting god and his existence, rather it rejects religion all together. and even more than that, these people are actively fighting out against religion; viewing it as detrimental and negative to the world.

in order to substantiate these claims, the primary strategy by such atheists has been to point to the overwhelming amount of destructiveness caused by christians: the crusades, the spanish inquisition, terrorists bombings, etc. and hey, lets be honest, at face value they would seem to have a legitimate case…do they not? well, however convincing their arguments may be, they are not justifiable objections. here’s why…

when one objects to christianity (i am defending christianity in particular) on the basis such claims as those listed above, that person is assuming or presupposing two things in their objection, namely, absolute moral standards and human dignity. 1) they are presupposing an absolute moral standard because their very objection itself is esteeming such actions, as those committed in the crusades, “wrong”. however, right and wrong are moral judgments that imply a standard or rule of morality with which to judge. 2) also, they are presupposing human dignity in that they wish to rid the world of “harmful” religion because of it’s negative effects on “human” lives. however, what i am suggesting is that the atheist has no rational grounds for such objections, and yes…i said “rational”.

consider this with me if would: in the atheistic outlook on the world there lacks the existence of god as he is revealed in the bible. this is important because the god of the bible is absolute, good, moral and holy. furthermore, this absolute and good god created men and women in his image, which places a great amount of value on mankind. when the atheist lacks such a being, they then lack an absolute and objective moral standard; they also lack the reality of human value. thus they have no grounds for maintaining their objection against religion; christianity in particular.

now of course the atheist will disagree, but they have no justifiable grounds. ultimately, if morality is not set by an absolute being such as god, then it is ultimately subjective and a mere invention of man. it, then, logically follows that if morality is not absolute and is merely an invention by man, then people such as the crusaders can stipulate their own morality, and thus no one can consider what they did “wrong” in a meaningful way. surely they can do whatever acts please them. if morality is ultimately subjective, then it is as dostoyevski said, “without god, all things are permissible.”

furthermore, considering human dignity, in the atheistic outlook on the world, man is not a being created in the image of god. he is merely a biological thing no more valuable than other thing in the world. despite what any atheist might tell you, in their worldview there is nothing that makes a human being anymore special than a worm, maggot, or cow dung (gross..i know). thus, why should hitchens and the like protest so concerning the “evils” religion has committed. who really cares? there is nothing special about human beings in their outlook of the world anyway. and though they would contend that there is, they cannot justify or give an account for their position.

with all that being said, the point is this: atheists cannot justify their professed beliefs about the world. while most atheists would say that human beings are valuable and meaningful (more so than…let’s say…a maggot), and while they would say, “yes, it is wrong to kill people in the name of religion,” they cannot give an account for why these things are so. i have demonstrated that, philosophically, they cannot make sense of these protests and objections. they cannot justify or give an account for them. thus what we have is an inconsistent worldview on the part of the “new atheist”. the one who says their is no god fails to live their life in a manner consistent with what they profess. this, in effect, is a clear demonstration of the incorrectness and untruthfulness of what most atheists believe.

despite this rise of the “new atheist” movement, it has been very encouraging to hear that this is not the only movement on the rise. this generation has also seen a new brand of christian 20 somethings who are hungry for truth. headed by pastoral leaders such as john piper, tim keller, mark dever, john macarthur, d.a. carson, mark driscoll, etc. “the resurgence” is developing people who will contend for the truths of the bible. and this inspires me.

“the fool has said in his heart there is no god” (psalm 14:1). despite all things to the contrary, atheism is irrational. do not be foolish. use the reason god gave you.

grace to you 🙂

so what’s the answer…bill?

i know i’m really late, but i finally saw religulous, and quite frankly…it was a weak. i questioned whether or not it was worth a response, because it wasn’t injurous enough to christianity to warrant one, and far more qualified individuals have already responded more than adequately. nevertheless, i feel inspired. so, i’ll give it a go. and, for the sake of clarification, my responses are most particularly bent on defending christianity…seeing as how i am a chrisitian, and find the other religions, that were bashed in the movie, untenable.

despite maher’s continual assault on christianity (and other religions), he conspicuously failed to offer a cogent and philosophically tenable alternative worldview of his own. this approach is shamefully cheap. surely anyone can stand at a distance and point the finger without turning the mirror of criticism to their own position. notwithstanding these things, maher and his atheistic/agnostic sympathies will not be able to escape scrutiny so easily. i would like to point to only one issue that was apparent in maher’s flawed reasoning.

1) one of the presupposed (i.e. assumed in advance) ideas that were present in the film was “human reason”. the supposed ridiculousness and folly of christianity was continually being pointed out in the film. and the basic underlying objection in all of that was this: the stories, miracles, propositions etc. in the bible are so unbelievable that they belie human reason. hence the film’s title…religulous, because the ridiculousness of the things set forth in the bible couldn’t possible be true…right?

well, as much as people might like to sympathize with maher’s criticism, he didn’t really present any rational argumentation. the entire film was a fallacy of reductio ad ridiculum (hey…if i can’t use such latin phrases, then what good is my philosophy degree?). in other words, maher appealed to ridicule to make all his points, rather than presenting evidence. the film’s basic position followed this example:

-person x: “1+1=2”

-person y: “that’s the most ridiculous thing i’ve ever heard! you can’t really believe that!?”

notice how person y’s objection in no way invalidated or disproved the position of person x. likewise, maher’s criticism in no way presented any evidence that showed christianity to be untruthful or incorrect. furthermore, on what basis does maher call the bible ridiculous and unbelievable? from what logical high ground is he making such claims? his own worldview lacks an absolute, perfectly logical, immaterial, eternal, and personal god of whom our own reasoning should reflect. without such a being, to whom we are accountable and because of whom there exists an absolute and eternal standard of reasoning, human reason and logic has no real absolute bearing upon anything. thus, who really cares if the bible seems to belie it. without god, human reason is nothing of real value to consider in debate. in the atheist worldview, human reason is nothing but a mere existence that somehow popped into existence with everything else that exists. it’s of no more value than a corroding tree stump in the middle of some forest.

yet maher, himself, seems to place a high value on human reason without giving an account for it in his own worldview. afterall…the entire film was basically a call for people to wake up, use their human reason, and see the ridiculousness of religion. yet without giving an account of human reason and its value, the film’s objection carries little to no weight. it is here i would like to ask: what’s the answer then bill? do you have a coherent and consistent worldview to present us, that will adequately replace the bible? your atheistic reason will not do the trick.

you see friends…genesis chapter 1 tells us that a loving, personal, wonderfully imaginative, creator god made us in his image. it is this image that we bear, of a conscious and logical being, that makes our reason valuable and special; that says that we were made to enjoy relationship with the one who made us in his image, which allows us to do that very thing. however, if you try to remove this god from the picture, of what real value are you? bill maher can only maintain his objection if he first borrows from the christian worldview, so that he can have the value of human reason with which to object.

in the atheistic outlook on the world, you are nothing more than a biological mass of matter that’s floating around on some planet in a universe that came into existence out of nowhere! come on friends! surely the folly of atheism is clear. i don’t know what various hangups you might have with christianity, but don’t let them distract you from the truth. the one who made us and formed us has sent his son to die for us, that we might experience an abundantly satisfied relationship with him.

grace to you 🙂