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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

enjoyable experience to be exposed to the slings and barbs of infidelity. Nor is it pleasant to be labeled as dumb, stupid, or ignorant because you hold to a belief different than your opponent’s. Yet it is those very labels that have been applied to those of us who are willing to defend the existence of God or the concept of creation. Several years ago, the famous atheist/evolutionist of Oxford University, Richard Dawkins wrote: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid,or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (1989a, p. 34, emp. added). The old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” may be easy to parrot in such instances, but it is difficult to believe and does not offer much comfort. Truth be told, words do hurt. No one enjoys being thought of (or actually called) ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. In this day and age, it is increasingly common to encounter those who once knew what they believed and why they believed it, yet who end up dazed, confused, and faithless because they have been intimidated intellectually. The “cognitive dissonance” mentioned by the young man is the label for the internal struggle one experiences when presented with new information that contradicts what he believes to be true. As the student struggled for consistency, he realized that he had only two choices. He either had to: (1) alter what he previously believed; or (2) disregard the new information being presented to him by “a rocket-scientist intelligent” professor whom he respected. This young Christian—like so many before and after him—once knew what he believed, and why. But by the time his letter arrived in my office, he no longer knew either. He pleaded: “I am a confused young man with some serious questions about my mind, my faith, and my God. Please help me.” That agonizing plea—“please help me”—has been echoed countless times through the centuries by those who languish in the “cognitive dissonance” that results from replacing the wisdom of God with the wisdom of man. The young gradu- -89
ate student asked: “Hundreds of thousands of scientists can’t be wrong, can they?” This question may be addressed as follows. First, any argument based on “counting heads” is fallacious. Philosophy professors instruct their students on the various fallacies of human thought, one of which is the “fallacy of consensus.” In his book, Fundamentals of Critical Thinking, atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci discussed the “argument from consensus,” and explained in detail its errors (1986, p. 175). Interestingly, however, in the pages immediately prior to his discussion, Ricci had offered the following as a “proof” of evolution: “The reliability of evolution not only as a theory but as a principle of understanding is not contested by the vast majority of biologists, geologists, astronomers, and other scientists” (1986, p. 172, emp. added). Mr. Ricci thus fell victim to the very fallacy about which he tried to warn his readers—i.e., truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by a small minority. The history of science is replete with such examples. British medical doctor, Edward Jenner (1749-1823), was scorned when he suggested smallpox could be prevented by infecting people with a less-virulent strain of the disease-causing organism. Yet his vaccine has helped eradicate smallpox. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) of Austria is another interesting case study. He noticed the high mortality rate among surgical patients, and suggested that the deaths resulted from surgeons washing neither their hands nor their instruments between patients. Dr. Semmelweis asked them to do both, but they ridiculed him and refused to comply (thereby endangering the lives of thousands of patients). Today, the solutions posed by this gentle doctor are the basis of antiseptic techniques in surgery. Scientific successes often have occurred because researchers rebelled against the status quo. Sometimes “consensual validation” must be set aside—for the sake of truth. The cases of Jenner and Semmelweis document all too well the fact that “the intellectuals,” although in the majority, may be wrong. -90
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: But science is no synonym for spiri
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 and 118: ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 119 and 120: tain actions are sanctioned by God
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?