Hamlet-typing Monkey (by Peter Kreeft)

photo courtesy of www.kopeikingallery.com

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance.

But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys.

Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?

Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist.

At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.

Where Was God? (By Mike Huckabee)

Former U.S. presidential candidate Mike Huckabee shares his insights on the recent Connecticut school shooting tragedy.

Transcript:

Maybe it's simply the attempt to express our collective shock when we say we're trying to make sense of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But we're not gonna make sense; not from that which is totally disconnected from the cognitive capacity of any rational human being. The Governor of Connecticut, Dan Malloy, got it right when he said, "evil has visited this community". President Obama, in an emotional statement from the White House, spoke more as a parent than a politician and he quoted the Bible to bring comfort to the nation. Churches were filled in Newtown, Connecticut last night as candlelight vigils were held to grieve for the 27 innocent people killed and the countless lives of those shattered by a few seconds of crazed carnage.

On Friday, Neil Cavuto asked me,

"Where was God?"

I said,

"For 50 years we've systematically attempted to have God removed from our schools (and) our public activities but then at the moment we have a calamity we wonder where He was."

The predictable "left" lit up the airwaves and blogosphere with a violent, vicious reaction and jumped to the conclusion that I said that if we had prayer in school the shooting wouldn’t have happened. I said nothing of the sort.

It's far more than just taking prayer or Bible reading out of the schools.
It's the fact that people sue a city so we aren’t confronted with a manger scene or a Christmas carol; that lawsuits are filed to remove a cross that's a memorial to fallen soldiers.
Churches and Christian owned businesses are told to surrender their values under the edict of government orders to provide tax-funded abortion pills.
We carefully and intentionally stop saying things are sinful and we call them disorders; sometimes, we even say they're normal.
And to get to where that we have to abandon bedrock moral truths…

Then we're asked,

"Where was God?"

I responded as I see it,

"We escorted Him right out of our culture and we've marched Him off the public square, then we express our surprise that a culture without Him actually reflects what it's become."

As soon as the tragedy unfolded, I think God did show up.
He showed up in the lives of teachers, who put their lives between a gunman and their students.
He showed up in policemen, who rushed into the school not knowing if they would be met with a barrage of bullets.
He showed up in the form of hugs and tears for children, parents and teachers, who had lived through the slaughter.
He showed up at the overflowed church services, where people lit candles and prayed. 
He showed up at the White House, where the president invoked His Name and quoted from His Book.
 
In a few days or weeks we'll probably ask God to excuse Himself from view. And we will announce in our arrogant pride that we are now enlightened and educated and we've evolved beyond needing Him. And somebody's gonna suggest that we pass a law to stop all this kind of thing. I might want to point out that we don't have to pass a new law; there's one that's been around a while that works if we teach it and observe it:

"Thou shalt not kill."

Oh, there are about 9 others; but to tell you about them would require bringing God back and we know how unacceptable that might be.

* Video courtesy of: http://www.foxnews.com/

True Hypocrisy

photo courtesy of Selina Mayer

“A man once said to me: I don’t go to church because I don’t want to be with a bunch of hypocrites.

I replied: Well, one more won’t hurt!”

- Mother Angelica

Hypocrisy is often used as propaganda against Christianity. To my mind, this is due to misunderstanding what the word hypocrisy truly means.

What is hypocrisy? St. Thomas Aquinas defined hypocrisy as not failing to be good but rather pretending to be good.

In other words, hypocrisy is not failing to live up to an ideal but rather the pretense of being ideal. Therefore, a philandering husband who feigns fidelity to his wife in order to gain the admiration of others is a hypocrite. In this regard, we note that:

Philandering discredits the philanderer, not fidelity.

Hypocrisy is not failing to practice what one preaches but rather failing to believe what one preaches. Therefore, a father who forbids his children to lie but doesn’t really put stock in honesty himself and is unremorseful about his own lying is a hypocrite. In this regard, we note that:

Lying discredits the liar, not honesty. 

Jesus Christ commanded His followers to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Sanctity, without the grace of God, is not just hard, but impossible. For this reason, we should always pray for the wisdom, strength and courage to live our lives according to God’s will. And each time we fall, we can pick ourselves up by repenting, confessing and resolving to sin no more. What we cannot and should not do is give up our aim for holiness because we fear being called hypocrites.

It’s also been said that “hypocrisy is the price that vice pays to virtue”. If this is the case, then Christians should be willing to pay that price. In this regard, we note that:

Hypocrisy discredits the hypocrite, not Christianity.

An Essay on Morality: The Natural Law (Part 4)

photo courtesy of Chot Touch

Of the natural or moral law, St. Paul wrote: “the demands of the law are written in their hearts” (Romans 2:15). Indeed, that man should “do good and avoid evil” is self-evident to anyone endowed with reason. Natural law gave birth to what is known as natural or human rights. It’s a key element in the creation of the United Nations; its truth makes possible for people from different countries, cultures, ideologies, and religions to come together for a common good.

Man-made laws are valid only if they conform, and not conflict, with the natural law.

And, as with man-made laws, we can also choose not to obey the natural law – to our own detriment. To illustrate, consider the following example:

Alcohol consumption in moderation is acceptable and may even be beneficial health-wise; that being said, drunkenness is wrong and against the natural law, since, besides being harmful to one’s health, it also impairs one’s reasoning which is required for moral discernment. Initially, the penalty for the night’s intoxication is “only” the next day’s hangover. However, the penalties only get worse should one continue a lifestyle of alcohol abuse; it is common knowledge that alcoholics sooner or later suffer serious health problems and personal/social relationships issues.

Once again, this illustration makes perfect sense within the Christian religious framework, for to disobey the natural law is to sin and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). In light of this, we can conclude that the natural law is “written in our hearts” for our own good. As C.S. Lewis wrote:

“In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.”

Therefore, when we’re in disharmony with the natural law, we’re harming ourselves; and when we choose sin, we choose death.

1. Introduction
2. Christian Morality
3. The Conscience 
4. The Natural Law

An Essay on Morality: The Conscience (Part 3)

photo courtesy of JaveFoto

What is conscience?

Conscience is the tool which enables man to discern morality – the distinction between what is good/right from what is evil/wrong.

C.S. Lewis illustrates the meaning of conscience with the following example:

Imagine you suddenly hear a stranger’s voice crying for help.

At that moment, you will probably feel two opposing impulses:

• First impulse is to run towards the stranger and help (herd instinct).
• Second impulse is to run away from the stranger for your own safety (survival instinct).

But then a third voice comes into play, urging you to follow your first impulse and ignore the second; this third voice is what we call the conscience.

Conscience can then be defined as the calling within, to always do what is good/right despite personal inclinations or feelings.

What are the properties of conscience?

The conscience is fallible

Earlier, we defined conscience as a “tool which enables man to discern morality”; and, like any other tool, improper use can lead to serious damage. Indeed, the conscience is not always right and can be mistaken. The conscience, man’s internal moral compass, is said to be broken when it does not point to the “true north” – that which is true and good. This can result from the deliberate and habitual breaking of the moral laws. Within the Christian religious framework, our conscience can be in a state of blindness by constant living in sin.

It is one’s responsibility to ensure the development of a well-formed conscience. For this reason, Christians are called to practice daily self-reflection and examination of conscience; this is necessary as we are often distracted by life’s trivialities. Christians use the Word of God as a guide to determining whether a conscience is well-formed: if in conformity then it is; if in conflict then it is not.

The conscience is authoritative

Peter Kreeft observed that granting consciences may differ, there remains an undeniable moral absolute: “never disobey your own conscience”. Of course one can deliberately choose to disobey one’s own conscience. But to do so is not without consequence. Indeed for some, one time disobedience can lead to a lifetime of guilt. The reason for this is, while the conscience is fallible, it is authoritative. Where does its authority come from? For the same reasons as with morality, the conscience’s authority cannot come from evolution, nature, or culture (man); its only plausible source is God.

1. Introduction
2. Christian Morality
3. The Conscience  
4. The Natural Law
   

An Essay on Morality: Christian Morality (Part 2)

photo courtesy of mick y

Is morality only for Christians?

No. It is possible for an atheist to live a moral life, as it is for a Christian (or other theists) to live an immoral one. After all, everyone inherently share the desire for goodness and truth and the disdain for evil and lies. There are however, by default, differences in how morality is viewed by Christian believers and non-believers:

Source of morality

Christians:

• God – Christians believe that moral laws presume a Moral Law Giver.

Atheists:

• Evolution – a poor candidate as the source of morality. Morality simply has no place within the mechanics of natural selection. Altruism, for instance, cannot work within a system of “survival of the fittest”.
• Nature – is amoral and thus, cannot be the source of morality. Again, using a lion’s behavior as an example, it cannot be judged immoral for attacking and devouring its prey; it’s simply acting on its survival instinct.
• Culture (Man) – is dismissed as the source of morality by Peter Kreeft through the use of the following analogy (based on Immanuel Kant’s moral theory): A locksmith who locks himself in a room is not really locked-in for he can unlock himself. Kreeft further asks: “how can the one bound and the one who binds be the same?” In other words, it is impossible for man to impose morality on himself.

Judgement of morality

Christians:

Christian morality is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Thus, a person who commits a violation of any of the commandments, such as murder of innocent lives, is guilty of committing sin/immoral act.

Atheists:

Atheists often turn to nature and evolution to explain the existence of morality. However, neither explanation can account for how and why we judge certain acts as right or wrong; this is due to the following reasons:

• Nature’s indifference – As previously explained, nature is amoral; it knows not of good or evil. If morality comes from nature, then nothing can be judged as moral or immoral. But how can this be? For instance, how can someone view the Holocaust as anything but evil? As Scott Hahn wrote: “People will usually recognize evil, even if they are reluctant to recognize good”.
• Survival of the Fittest – Moral standards, according to the mechanics of evolution, works as follows: anything that aids self-survival is “good” and anything that aids self-extinction is “evil”. This is the morality of Nazism – an ideology responsible for the perpetration of the worst crimes against humanity. They alleged that the Jews and other “inferior” groups threaten the purity of the Aryan race and is therefore “evil”; they then justified the murder of millions of innocents as “good” because it aided to the survival of the “master race”.

Reason of morality

Christians:

The Christian answer is based on 2 premises:

• 1^st Premise – Morality is based on God’s nature
• 2^nd Premise – Man is made in God’s image and likeness.

In light of the aforementioned premises, man's moral obligation makes perfect sense:

Man is called to love because God is Love; Man is called to the truth because God is Truth.

Atheists:

In the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote that in a world without God “everything is permitted”.

Why love and not hate?

Why the truth and not the lie?

Why be good and not be evil?

If God is not, then indeed, why not?

Despite the differences, everyone - Christian believers and non-believers alike, are called to live a moral life. There is an inner voice - the conscience, within all of us, urging us to do good and avoid evil. This is further proof of God’s love for us all; as Dinesh D’Souza wrote: “while the atheist may have rejected God, God has not rejected him”.

1. Introduction
2. Christian Morality
3. The Conscience 
4. The Natural Law

An Essay on Morality: Introduction (Part 1)

photo courtesy of Daniel Sanculi

What is morality?

Morality comes from the Latin word moralitas, meaning "proper behavior". It can be defined as the distinction between what is good/right from what is evil/wrong.

What are the properties of morality?

Morality is distinctly human

While some display behavior that might seem like moral sentiments, animals primarily act on instinct. For example, a lion will mate with as many partners and as often as possible because it simply has no choice on the matter and only acts on its instinct to propagate. Humans, on the other hand, know that at the very least, there has to be limits on sexual behavior. This is the reason why we put sexual offenders in prison.

Morality is universal

Consider the following facts:

• Every known culture has a system of morality; every known culture has their own version of the Golden Rule/Law (“One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”).
• Everyone prefers virtue, though more often practice vice; e.g., even a cheat don’t want to be cheated on.
• Everyone endowed with reason knows that one ought to be good and not be evil; anyone who believes otherwise belongs either in a mental hospital or in jail.

Morality is absolute

The following are examples of moral relativist/subjectivist self-refuting ideas:

• The relativist/subjectivist says “there is no absolute”; yet this itself is an absolute statement.
• The relativist/subjectivist says “there is no truth”; yet this itself is a statement claiming to be true.
• The relativist/subjectivist says “you should not impose your morality on me”; yet this itself is a statement of moral imposition.

The fact is we all have absolute moral standards that we use to judge the behavior of others. And while there are differences in the particulars, there is agreement on the fundamentals. For instance, while we may argue on the morality/immorality of capital punishment, we all agree on the value of protecting innocent life.

1. Introduction 
2. Christian Morality 
3. The Conscience 
4. The Natural Law

2 Scientists, A Rocket and A Painting (by Peter Kreeft)

photo courtesy of scottbush

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side.

One was a believer, the other an unbeliever.

The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?"

The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance?

We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket."

"Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket?

Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe?

There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket.

We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe.

I wonder who can?"

Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store.

The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?"

"No one," joked the believer;
"it just happened by chance."

The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

photo courtesy of www.telegraph.co.uk

Since my taste in music is not sophisticated enough to be familiar with Bach, please allow me to share my (dumbed down) version of Kreeft and Tacelli’s “Argument from Aesthetic Experience” (original found here):

On a clear and cloudless night,

I look up to the sky and see the stars,

And know in my heart that there is a God.

You either get it or you don’t.

The Argument From Desire

photo courtesy of Ben Heine

 “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” – C.S. Lewis

1st Premise: All natural desires can be satisfied by something that exists in reality.

There is sleep, for instance, to satisfy our longing for rest; food for hunger; knowledge for curiosity, and so on. These are all examples of natural desires, so called because it is in our nature to desire them.

Other than natural desires, there are also artificial longings, and it’s important to distinguish both. Philosopher Peter Kreeft noted 4 key differences:

1. Unlike natural desires, not all artificial longings can be satisfied by something that exists. Peter Kreeft gave the example of young boys’ desire to fly like Superman; but we know flying men don’t exist. Moreover, not everybody share the desire to take to the skies. This leads us to the next difference:
2. Natural desires are universal; artificial ones are personal. Going back to our earlier examples, the desire for rest, food, and knowledge are felt by everybody; artificial desires like power, fame and money are not. This second difference is due to the third:
3. Natural desires come from within and we innately long for them; artificial desires come from without and are only acquired from an outside source (i.e. culture, advertising, etc.).
4. The fourth difference is that unless our natural desires are satisfied, we feel depravity or a deep sense of lacking. Restlessness, hunger, and ignorance are experienced when somebody is deprived of rest, food, and knowledge. But can we live happily sans power, fame and money? Saints like Mother Theresa lived lives that prove that yes, it’s possible. In fact, they have shown us that freedom from artificial longings is the only path to real and lasting happiness. 

2nd Premise: There exists in all human beings a natural desire which nothing in this world can satisfy.

I’m happiest during get together with family and friends. But it’s bittersweet at best, for I must accept that in this life, all good things come to an end and goodbyes often come too soon. But suppose it doesn’t?  I imagined what would happen if the party went on forever and it didn’t take long for me to conclude that things would eventually get boring and cease to be fun.

No matter how well someone is doing in life, there will always be something missing. Peter Kreeft observed that even for atheist, there comes a time when one wonders: “is this all there is?”

In other words, everybody is longing for something that would give eternal happiness and at the same time, would never get boring; an indescribable, perpetual feeling of “joy-ness”. This natural desire which can neither be described nor found nor satisfied by anything in this world is actually our longing for heaven and our desire for God. Taking these two premises together bring us to the unavoidable…

Conclusion: God exists in reality.

The two most common objections to this argument are the following:

1. "If only I had more ____, I would be perfectly happy."

More what?

• Money? Studies show that suicide rates are directly proportional to wealth.
• Fame? Today’s so-called “hotties” will be tomorrows “has-beens”.
• Power? History has taught us that power tends to corrupt, and that the only power worth striving for is the one to overcome worldly desires.

This is a lesson that seems impossible for us to learn: nothing in this world satisfies; only in God can we find true and everlasting happiness.

2. "I am already perfectly happy and desire nothing more."

Feelings are subjective and thus, cannot be refuted. Therefore, the best response for such objections (or delusions) is, as Peter Kreeft suggests, making an appeal to honest introspection by asking:

"Are you really?"

Quote of the Dei (# 2)

photo courtesy of Joep R.

“There are only three types of people;

those who have found God and serve him;

those who have not found God and seek him,

and those who live not seeking, or finding him.

The first are rational and happy;

the second unhappy and rational,

and the third foolish and unhappy.” 

- Blaise Pascal

Faith and Grace

dmbpphoto

A recent survey reveals that around 90% of the scientists from the prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are either atheist or agnostic. I wonder why belief in God’s existence is rejected by today’s most brilliant minds. A few years back, one of the most successful entrepreneurs I know told me his reason for unbelief: “the problem with faith is that it has so many gray areas”. A sharper man I’ve never met, but I plainly can’t bring myself to agree with his logic; for me, faith simplifies and paints everything in black and white.

I remember a joke I heard: “It’s good that being smart is not necessary for salvation, otherwise we’d have to get a master’s degree to get into heaven”. Kidding aside, faith and reason are equally essential in the quest to know God. Pope John Paul II wrote: “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”; we simply can’t hope to see God, hence Truth, without one or the other.

Discussing the correlation (or lack of) between intelligence and a/theism with a friend, I proudly shared my conclusion: “Faith is a gift”, only to be humbled seconds later by my friend’s: “Faith is not a gift but is rather a grace”. “The difference?” I asked. “A gift is something that can simply be given to anyone; grace is given only to those who ask for it.”  I couldn’t have been happier to be corrected.

“In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.” – Blaise Pascal

In the Beginning… was the Multiverse?

In a previous entry, we noted how the universe is seemingly fined-tuned to support life. How precise is this level of fine tuning? Consider the following examples:

Gravity: “If gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (1 in 10⁴⁰), then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.”
– Brandon Carter (theoretical physicist)

The Big Bang: “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (1 in 10¹⁷), the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
– Stephen Hawking (theoretical physicist)

These are just two of many so-called anthropic coincidences – extraordinary calibration of the laws of physics without which life as we know it would not be possible. In fact, to describe this fine tuning as a miracle would be by no means an exaggeration - the odds for our existence is astronomically improbable (or incalculable, whichever you prefer) the fact that we’re here fits the definition of one. Astronomer Fred Hoyle seems to agree: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology…”

Thus, the conclusion is as unavoidable as it is obvious: the reason why the universe looks fine-tuned for life is because IT IS fine-tuned by an Intelligent Fine Tuner.

To avoid this theistic implication, atheists turn to the so-called Multiverse Hypothesis. There are several variations of the theory but the basic premise is the same: our universe is but one of multiple universes (hence the name), each with its own set of physical laws. For instance, according to the theory, it is possible that in one universe the force of gravity is stronger than our own and in another it is weaker. It may also be that in other universes, the force of gravity is just the same as ours, but greatly differ in some other fundamental physical constant (e.g. speed of light). In any of these cases, the development of any form of intelligent life would have been very unlikely. It just so happens that by an unbelievable amount of luck, we live in one that has met all the necessary conditions to make life possible.

The Multiverse Hypothesis is so fascinating that it has inspired a number of Hollywood movies. And it may as well stay in the realm of science fiction, as there is absolutely no scientific basis of such universes existence. The irony of the situation is this: those who dismiss the notion of a Supreme Being due to lack of evidence, are the very same people who’ll wholeheartedly embrace an equally un-testable hypothesis designed to discredit the existence of one. Astronomer Owen Gingerich hit the nail on the head when he said: “anyone who can believe in multiple universes should have no problem believing in heaven or hell”. 

Reference/s:
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator.
D’Souza, Dinesh (2008). What’s So Great about Christianity. Kaveri Printer Pvt. Ltd.

The Skeptic's Prayer

Taken from “The Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli:

Skeptic's Prayer

God, I don’t know whether you even exist.
I’m a skeptic.
I doubt.
I think you may be only a myth.
But I’m not certain (at least not when I’m completely honest with myself).
So if you do exist, and if you really did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now.
So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever it is and wherever it is.
I want to know the truth and live the truth.
If you are the truth, please help me.

My friends, if you have doubt in your hearts, then I hope you’d give this prayer a chance. The Bible tells us that God reveals Himself to those who sincerely seek Him. After all, it’s difficult to find something (or in this case, Somebody) if you're not really looking.

“When you search wholeheartedly for Me, I shall let you find Me” (Jeremiah 29:13)

Designer Universe

“I think the world is just awesome, because, I mean, Mars is too cold, Venus is too hot, everyplace else is too far away.” - Jamie Hyneman

In the previous quote, the myth buster was referring to the earth being in the “Goldilocks Zone” – just the right distance from the sun to sustain life. This is an example of what physicists call the Anthropic Principle, which states that the observable properties of the universe must be compatible with its living observers. Simply put, it means that the universe seems “fine tuned” to support intelligent life.

Think about it. If the universe were any other way, life would not exist. Another example would be the gravitational force. Like earth’s distance from the sun, if the force of gravity was changed in the slightest degree, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. This, along with other finely tuned constants (electromagnetic force, strong/weak nuclear force, etc.), prove that the odds for our existence is improbably small.

Given these facts, it’s unthinkable for any sane and rational person to believe that life is a mere product of random chance or luck. At the very least, anyone endowed with reason should consider the possibility that an Intelligent Being is responsible for the undeniably deliberate existence of life.

As I began this entry with a quote, let me end it with another, this one from Stephen Hawking, by acclamation the most brilliant physicist since Einstein:

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

In the Image of Man? Part 3

“In a world without God, everything is permitted" - Fyodor Dostoyevsky 

Parts 1 and 2 briefly discussed atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach’s contention that God and religion are merely human inventions. His ideas would greatly influence those of Karl Marx (“religion is the opium of the people”) and Friedrich Nietzsche (“God is dead”), forerunners of two ideologies both atheistic and brutal, Communism and Nazism. In his book Reason to Believe, Dr. Scott Hahn reasoned that “it was Feuerbach who made Stalin and Hitler possible, because he assured them that they acted in the absence of God”. Tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot believed that God, the source of all morals, does not exist, and so there was nothing left to hold them back from perpetrating the worst of acts except the limits of their own power. They asked: Genocide is wrong? Says who? 

Those who deny the existence of God ultimately renounce that of morality. They believe that whatever they do in this life will have no repercussions in the next - because to them, the afterlife does not exist! If this was true, then it means anyone can do anything in life, even the most heinous crimes, without fear of God’s judgment after death. Can you imagine the consequence if people with penchant for violence buy into such delusions? We shouldn’t have a hard time, for not too long ago, the world has witnessed it happen. As Dr. Hahn suggests, we only need to read “the history of the wars and genocide of the atheist regimes of the 20th century: Nazi Germany, Communist China and Cambodia, and the Soviet Union” to remember the result of such a horrific thought turn into reality.

In the Image of Man? Part 2

As noted in Part I, philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach believed that God and religion are human inventions, created to serve as a form of wish fulfillment. For instance, according to him, Christianity‘s belief in eternal life was invented to deal with man’s fear of death.

From a Christian’s perspective, Feuerbach’s logic is simply in error. Christians fear something worse than the death of the body, and that is the damnation of the soul. And while it’s true that Christians hope for eternal life in heaven, the same faith demands their belief in the everlasting fires of hell.

Does it make sense for man, in order to take away fear of something, invent something else more fearful? As author Dinesh D’Souza observed: “Wish fulfillment can explain heaven, but it cannot explain hell.”

In the Image of Man? Part 1

Student: “If God didn’t exist, we’d invent Him anyway. And we did. What do you say to that?”
Dr. Scott Hahn: “I say, if God did exist, we’d invent atheism anyway. And we did.”

Dr. Hahn narrates this exchange with his student in his book, Reasons to Believe. He tells us that the student’s argument was originally made by philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach. For Feuerbach, God and religion were invented to fulfill man’s desires and needs (read more about this on parts 2 and 3).

Dr. Hahn proceeded to remind his student that Christians believe in, and worship a God who is not only Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, but is also All-Holy and commands man to be perfectly holy as well; a God who knows our most innermost thoughts and desires, and can see clearly everything that we do even in the darkest of places (“There’s no place to run and hide from Him, no place where we might secretly indulge a favorite vice”). Dr. Hahn’s point is that if man had really tried to invent a god, we’d probably invent one who is more “congenial to our whims”. Perhaps one who’d give Moses a single commandment instead of ten? Or how about one who would not include “thou shalt not commit adultery” on the list? In other words, if man had really tried to invent a god, we’d surely never invent one such as the Christian God.

The Greatest Conceivable Being

St. Anselm was an Italian philosopher who served as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. He is best known for his “Ontological Argument” for the existence of God, which is based purely on reason. It goes like this:

1. St. Anselm defines God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” or “The Greatest Conceivable Being”. Theist and atheist alike would generally accept this as a valid definition.
2. If one says that “The Greatest Conceivable Being” exists only in the mind, then it is NOT a valid statement since one could conceive of a greater being: “The Greatest Conceivable Being” that exists in reality.
3. Therefore, God or “The Greatest Conceivable Being”, by definition, exists in reality.

"The fool has said in his heart: There is no God" -  Psalm 13:1

Reference/s:
D’Souza, Dinesh (2008). What’s So Great about Christianity. Kaveri Printer Pvt. Ltd.
Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2005). How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Regnery Publishing, Inc.

An Atheist's Faith

An atheist and a priest debating about the existence of God...

Atheist: "Prove to me that there’s a God and I’ll become a Christian."

Priest: "Oh, no, you don’t. You’re in the minority in this world. You prove to me that there isn’t a God and I’ll become an atheist!"

Atheist: "We’ll, I can’t."

Priest: "What? You believe in something you can’t prove? My dear, that means you have faith. Faith is believing in something you can’t prove. And if you’re right, if there is no God, you’re never going to know it. But if I’m right, and there is a God, you’re going to know it forever and ever!"

Reference/s:

Angelica, Mother M. and Christine Allison (1996). Mother Angelica's Answers, Not Promises. Ignatius Press.