The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

dropped on a certain country, he is not speaking as a scientist. He may have degrees in science and may even wear a white laboratory coat while peering into a microscope. But the fact remains that there is nothing inherent in the scientific method that would allow someone to determine whether nuclear energy should be employed to destroy cancer cells or entire cities. This is a decision that science is not equipped to make because it falls far beyond the pale of the scientific method. And, not everything done in the name of “morality” is moral. Surely, one of the saddest events in American history occurred between 1932 and 1972 when the U.S. Public Health Service sanctioned the “Tuskegee Experiments,” in which 399 poor African-American men from Macon County, Alabama—known to be infected with Treponema pallidum (the microorganism responsible for the dreaded venereal disease, syphilis)—were studied to determine the effects of this debilitating condition. The government doctors involved in the study never told the participants that they had syphilis. Nor did they obtain “informed consent” from the men for their experiments. Even though the physicians knew that the disease was fatal if left untreated, and even though antibiotics were available that could have saved the lives of the test subjects, those subjects were denied access to such antibiotics. Instead, they were patronized, prodded, and poked in what can only be called one of the most shameful experiments ever perpetrated on Americans. What was the rationale offered in later years for the experiments, once the scheme finally was uncovered? Those responsible claimed that they wanted to provide knowledge of the disease in the hope that it might prevent the physical degradation and death so often associated with syphilis victims. And, of course, they wanted to secure information that could be used to slow, or halt, the “moral degradation” associated with contracting a venereal disease in the first place. Counterfeit actions carried out “in the name of God” are just that—counterfeit. Just because someone “claims” that cer- - 113
tain actions are sanctioned by God does not mean necessarily that they are. What is needed here is a “fruit inspector” who can compare the counterfeit to the original and thereby separate fact from fiction. J.M. Mathews stated it well: “We ask that the consequences which can be proved to flow from Christianity as the legitimate fruit of the system should be distinguished from those which have no true alliance with her teachings or her influences” (1857, pp. 73-78). Fourth, speaking of consistency (the topic I used to introduce this section), we need to realize that it is not just the believer who should be held to such a standard. The unbeliever needs to comply as well. The colloquialism, “The sauce that’s good for the goose also is good for the gander,” applies here. As Bales observed: Atheism and other systems of unbelief, in applying the fruit test to Christianity, are inviting the application of this test to their systems of faith and practice. Atheistic systems undermine the dignity of man by reducing him to an evolved animal; they destroy morality by denying the reality of freedom and the moral law. Any system of strict determinism and moral relativism undermines human dignity and the value of man. When men live by such systems of unbelief, the fruits are destructive. And these destructive fruits are rightly charged to any system which makes man but matter in motion, destroys the moral law, and eliminates the reality of duty. What atheistic materialism does when it rules the lives of men has been demonstrated in our times.... Perhaps this explains why, so far as the author knows, in our country believers in God do not hypocritically put on the cloak of atheism and parade as atheists (1976, pp. 47-48,49). Bales has made a good point. When you examine the legitimate teachings and fruits of a particular system, ask yourself: “Which one has more to commend itself—belief in God, or unbelief?” When Dr. Bales stated that “when men live by such systems of unbelief, the fruits are destructive,” he was not speaking out of turn. No less of an authority on atheism - 114
Page 2 and 3:
APOLOGETICS PRESS
Page 4:
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8:
For example, when Joshua—who had
Page 9 and 10:
the truth, but they will not. The s
Page 11 and 12:
obliged to acknowledge that it was
Page 14 and 15:
2 THE MANY FACES OF UNBELIEF Throug
Page 16 and 17:
Impossible task, that—since one w
Page 18 and 19:
Neither of these tasks is simple (n
Page 20 and 21:
foundation, not in divine guidance,
Page 22 and 23:
are monkeys” (see Leonard Huxley,
Page 24 and 25:
Such a premise is flawed internally
Page 26 and 27:
The development, over the past four
Page 28 and 29:
Thus, in the end the skeptic does n
Page 30 and 31:
le plethora of men and women who ma
Page 32 and 33:
include “Hell” and “Some Mist
Page 34 and 35:
In fact, in the late 1970s, while I
Page 36 and 37:
future state of rewards and punishm
Page 38 and 39:
tion to function on its own; some b
Page 40 and 41:
Deism...refers to what can be calle
Page 42 and 43:
a God strong enough to create the w
Page 44 and 45:
ecomes indistinguishable from evil.
Page 46 and 47:
Ryerson who allegedly was able to
Page 48 and 49:
...Every action, under certain circ
Page 50 and 51:
tes 12:7). The writer of the book o
Page 52 and 53:
the Lord struck him, because he did
Page 54 and 55:
ook, Apologetics in the New Age: A
Page 56 and 57:
at ease. Yes, it is! Therefore, in
Page 58 and 59:
What should be the response of Chri
Page 60 and 61:
principle of causality. In its pict
Page 62:
a better world, but is limited by t
Page 65 and 66:
every citizen enjoys. Or contemplat
Page 67 and 68: since that time that it has very gr
Page 69 and 70: cuse. Man’s failure to see this g
Page 71 and 72: With reference to men the use is pr
Page 73 and 74: in philosophy and science. Life has
Page 75 and 76: Indeed, it may “not be irrelevant
Page 77 and 78: The shock received by the inexperie
Page 79 and 80: there have been those from politics
Page 81 and 82: from the only God ye seek not?,”
Page 83 and 84: This is the first age, I think, in
Page 85 and 86: tle John brought the book of Revela
Page 87 and 88: self, but the fact that “[i]t is
Page 89 and 90: As this section on immorality as a
Page 91 and 92: Democratic Way of Life, a formal st
Page 93 and 94: But science is no synonym for spiri
Page 95 and 96: ate student asked: “Hundreds of t
Page 97 and 98: ather bluntly: “In contrast to th
Page 99 and 100: a joy to tell him that he does not
Page 101 and 102: is Steven Weinberg, author of Dream
Page 103 and 104: At Noel’s funeral, the minister b
Page 105 and 106: Again, time and space would fail me
Page 107 and 108: sin? No, they were no worse sinners
Page 109 and 110: Just as suffering is real, so are t
Page 111 and 112: The corruptions, or shortcomings, o
Page 113 and 114: UNJUST ACTS COMMITTED BY BELIEVERS
Page 115 and 116: million-dollar reward to anyone car
Page 117: ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 121 and 122: of unbelief. I suppose that some wo
Page 124 and 125: 4 CONCLUSION Every person familiar
Page 126 and 127: This latter observation needs a lit
Page 128 and 129: REFERENCES Abelson, Phillip (1964),
Page 130 and 131: Durant, Will (1980), “We Are in t
Page 132 and 133: Huxley, Thomas Henry (1896), Darwin
Page 134 and 135: Raymo, Chet (1998), Skeptics and Tr
Page 136: Watkin, Edward I. (1936), Theism, A
show all

The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?