If there is one thing I could say about in this present day and age, it would be this: we are among the young and the godless. Almost every young person I have met over the course of time, I noticed that a majority of them tend to be agnostic or atheist to some degree and that is not always a good thing. With the upcoming age where pop music and social networking sites are the rage, more and more people tend to profess themselves with this sense of ‘intellectualism.’ While I think the reasons these problems exist is not due to the amount proper information and rebuttals that are provided, I think it’s because popular writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens have never taken an actual look at the rebuttals that theologians have said for centuries.
Instead of acknowledging these counter arguments, there tends to be a repetitive notion by Atheists in general to repeat their arguments ad nauseum (i.e., repeating until someone grows sick of it). With their constant repetition of genocide, hypocrisy, and anti-intellectualism these atheists hope to win the world with their convictions. Despite the challenging answers theologians have given to Atheists in response to their tirades, most atheists will try their hardest to push these problems aside without acknowledging the points. This is one of the multiple reasons why I wrote the book The Resurrection because atheism in and of itself is a bankrupt system. Believing they have won the audience into with the ‘you can be good without God argument,’ they move onto eradicating any form of intellectual opposition, especially among theological intellectuals.
Before I go onto discussing a post by Ashley Zacharias, let me point out something for atheists to comprehend. I want them to be absolutely certain they can understand why anyone will not accept their bankrupt system, and it’s because of the predominantly logical reasons theologians have stressed upon for centuries. While the idea atheists have put out may seem ideal to the incognizant viewer, he or she is not aware of the problematic views atheists have forgotten to mention. Defining the Good is one of them.
“If one can be classified as morally good without a supreme being, who or what then qualifies to define the concept of good?”
This is one of the few demanding questions atheists have not answered in their good without God campaign for years. Even with Greg Epstein’s book Good Without God he fails to answer this excruciating question theologians have asked for. If the atheist’s assertion against God is that anyone can be classified as ‘good,’ who or what defines the good? If that who is a person, who is he or she or it? If that what is an object then, what makes that person or object qualified to judge the human race? Of course there are going to be a multitude of answers atheists will posit to show their loyalty of being both civil and patriotic in their responses.
The most common answer I have heard atheists use to justify their position is an appeal to society i.e., the individual. Were you to judge and define the basis of law, it’s all based upon what society has determined long ago. Although the answer appears satisfying at first, the problem gets even more complicated because another question lurks at the door of the ‘good-without-God’ argument.
“If one can be classified as morally good without a supreme being (based on the consent of society), which society should we go by and makes them qualified to determine the concept of Good?”
Again, this whole argument sounds entirely appealing, using society as a means to determine the abstract. If we use the conscience of the current society to determine morality, again there seems to be another problem, what exactly makes that society’s conscience any better than the rest of everyone else’s? The problem behind the whole social contract theory between human peoples and human governments is this: it’s all too human. Anyone human being can qualify as a prescriber for morality; Hitler did it, and so did Mao. The problem for most Atheists who argue against the intellectual willpower of Theologians is that there are no human beings who no more qualified to prescribe righteousness than other humans. How could you expect a human government institution to be any better were it run by different men or women? If the governments ran their ideas had a qualification to define the good, where exactly do they get their basis from?
Hence, the person or being who is to give morality to everyone else ought to transcend the race of human beings. Not only is it necessary for laws impressed upon humanity more logical, but also necessary. In this case, I find it right and more sensible that God should have his rightful place as moral prescriber because (1) He transcends the human race, (2) He created humanity, and (3) He is eternal. Although I have not extensively covered all there is to say about atheism in general, I figured I would give off a ramble about what I think of the topic altogether.
Now it’s time to discuss Ashley’s Post.