15.11.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

than Oxford pr<strong>of</strong>essor Richard Dawkins conceded as much.<br />

In his book, <strong>The</strong> Selfish Gene, Dr. Dawkins discussed at great<br />

length the gene’s role in the naturalistic process <strong>of</strong> “survival<br />

<strong>of</strong> the fittest” <strong>and</strong> admitted that, according to the evolutionary<br />

paradigm, genes are “selfish” because they will do whatever<br />

it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are<br />

stored produces additional copies <strong>of</strong> the genes. In commenting<br />

on the effects <strong>of</strong> such a concept on society as a whole, he<br />

then lamented: “My own feeling is that a human society based<br />

simply on the gene’s law <strong>of</strong> universal ruthlessness would be a<br />

very nasty society in which to live” (1989b, p. 3).<br />

When men act consistently, when men act congruously,<br />

<strong>and</strong> when men act correctly—in keeping with the cardinal doctrines<br />

<strong>of</strong> their respective world views—which system has more<br />

to recommend itself, belief or unbelief? To ask is to answer, is<br />

it not? One system—belief—teaches that we should esteem others<br />

better than ourselves, love our neighbors, <strong>and</strong> be self-sacrificing<br />

even unto death. <strong>The</strong> other—unbelief—teaches a “survival<br />

<strong>of</strong> the fittest” concept that makes nature “red in tooth<br />

<strong>and</strong> claw” so that the strong subjugates the weak, might makes<br />

right, <strong>and</strong> “selfish genes” ensure that it is “every man for himself.”<br />

Truth be told, whom would you rather have for your<br />

neighbor—the believer, or the unbeliever?<br />

UNBELIEF<br />

When you see the above section heading <strong>of</strong> “<strong>Unbelief</strong>”<br />

listed as a cause <strong>of</strong> unbelief, you might think that surely I<br />

have erred. How, pray tell, could unbelief be a cause <strong>of</strong> unbelief?<br />

Please allow me to explain.<br />

It is my contention that unbelief engenders more unbelief.<br />

In his book, <strong>The</strong>refore St<strong>and</strong>, Wilbur M. Smith compared<br />

unchecked unbelief to<br />

...a contagious disease. Unless it is restrained it grows<br />

in intensity, <strong>and</strong> will infect an increasingly large number<br />

<strong>of</strong> people. It is difficult to determine whether this<br />

is an age <strong>of</strong> unbelief because so many men do not believe,<br />

or many men do not believe because it is an age<br />

- 115 ­

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!