God's Not Dead

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25) Scripture explains the tendency of the human heart to gravitate toward unbelief by suppressing the evidence for God. Unbelief can result from failing to remember why you believed in the first place. Jesus performed many miracles (feeding thousands from a handful of food, turning water into wine, healing the lame/blind/sick, etc.). His disciples had witnessed many of his miracles, and yet even they would forget His power as soon as they faced another challenge. The disciples' doubts was the result of unclear thinking. Secularists have limited truth only to what is scientifically verifiable. But science cannot explain all human conditions and expressions (physical or mental). Atheist Noam Chomsky admitted: "Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can't deal with them . . . But it's a complicated matter: Science studies what's at the edge of understanding, and what's at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated." Therefore, we must look beyond science for guidance in the complex subjects of morality and justice. A man-made source of ethics is not easy to find. Science can't tell us what is right and wrong. Scientists can certainly have morals, but their morals were not derived from scientific experimentation. Instead of science attempting to determine ethics, ethics should be a guide to science. The mathematical order in the universe was discovered, not invented by man. This order allows us to explore and test our universe with confidence. It allows us to send probes into our bodies and outer space. Mathematics is the foundation of science, so you cannot use science (built on mathematics) to explain its existence. You must find a deeper source of origin. It would be like a house holding up a foundation instead of a foundation holding up a house. Natural selection would only have developed our survival abilities. Inanimate nature would not have produced the capacity for intelligent reason. To say that reason came into being for no reason is unreasonable. Science cannot tell us why we are here, why the universe was made, and why there is something rather than nothing. Dawkins (like any other secularist) would claim that asking the purpose of existence was a silly question, but before a public debate with John Lennox in Alabama, he stated, "My interest in Biology started with fundamental questions of our existence. Why we were all here." This question is fundamental to our existence. God and science do not conflict, but naturalism (the belief that nature is the only thing that exists, excluding anything supernatural (beyond nature)) and faith do conflict. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (Albert Einstein). We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of preconceived ideas, and not close our eyes to the obvious when it contradicts our worldview. "I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how NOT to set up our values and social lives." (Richard Dawkins) There must be an absolute if there are to be morals/real values. If no absolute exists beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals/groups whose moral judgments conflict. Evil exists, plain and simple. And evil is becoming more prominent because of the decreasing presence of the knowledge of God in society. "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:28-32). This accurately describes the perpetrators of hateful acts (murder) who have learned how to shut down their conscience. When people dismiss belief in God as illusory, they tend to view the concepts of good/evil as illusory as well. God has ultimately blessed mankind by restraining our evil nature from being fully unleashed. Although evil exists, there is also a force of good that keeps evil at bay. God designed the laws of physics so that the more depraved people become, the worse consequences they suffer. This sustains His just and holy nature. The existence of good is actually a bigger question to answer than the problem of evil. If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil. There would not be a transcendent morality in existence that would give humans any reason to do good. Good and evil would simply be illusions, so it would come down to the opinion of the individual . . . whatever works. Where does our universal sense of right/wrong originate? C.S. Lewis said, "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" That is because these things are written on the hearts of every single human being by our Creator. Nonbelievers cannot describe the world we live in without borrowing the biblical concepts of good and evil. To say that all beliefs are equally valid is self-refuting. The existence of evil is not evidence of God's absence in the universe. It is evidence of His absence from our lives. Rejecting God will not necessarily make you a horrible criminal, and accepting God will not automatically make you a saint. As a Christian, I am a hypocritical work-in-progress, in daily need of salvation. Knowing that morality must be grounded in some authority, secularists desperately struggle to find an alternative other than God, so the real issue becomes identifying the basis for morality. Ethics falls under the category of philosophy, not science. Stephen Hawking states: "Philosophy is dead." Humanity can be good without God, but not because humanity does not need God to be good. When God made us, He put the moral law in our hearts. Without God, does morality boil down to judging your actions by whether they hurt everyone? Does this mean that if my actions hurt only a few, then I am okay? That is like a murderer pleading with a judge to consider all the people he did not kill. A better morality-judging question to ask could be: "What if everyone acted this way?" This is ironic because Jesus introduced the world to the Golden Rule: "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). The Golden Rule is a complete reversal of the survival-of-the-fittest mind-set. How could a blind process such as natural selection, which came into existence by chance, produce this universal sense of right and wrong? If life arose spontaneously from random chemical processes, we would have absolutely no moral obligation whatsoever. "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (Richard Dawkins) If DNA neither cares nor knows, then why can humans know and care if our genetic wiring is supposedly just the opposite? The worldview of Darwinian Evolution attempts to grant someone the freedom to live as they please. The atheistic movement toward violence/cruelty in the 1900s made it the bloodiest century in history. The communist leaders behind these acts had their moral restraints removed when they eliminated God from their thinking. You are probably wondering that if God is a loving Father, then why should He not be held responsible for not doing something about evil/suffering? If you are an earthly father, you must prepare your children to face evil challenges. In the same way, God has given us an instruction manual on how to live in order to avoid the maximum amount of pain. If we heed these warnings, we have a greater chance of experiencing peace/joy. To be angry with God for allowing evil is the same as being angry with Him for allowing you to be born and alive. Throughout history, He has supplied wisdom to advance science/technology in curing more diseases and leading more people out of slavery/poverty. But our ultimate enemy and his opposing forces (demons) live in the unseen world: Satan. There is great evidence of his existence in the inspiration/energy behind evil human activity. God created beings that were capable of failing. Because of His love, He gave us free-will to obey or not to obey. True love is not forced on someone. A robot society was not what He had in mind. Even the angels/Satan (former angel) were given free-will.