Continued from as a Christian, want the claims I have embraced about Christ to be true, and I accept the fact that I want that desperately. I would be absolutely devastated if the claims of Christ were proven to be untrue. I would have no reason for living. But Tony, Russell is not being honest with us is he? Why? Because there is an equally obvious emotional factor behind atheism!
Why do I say this? Because as an atheist, speaking out publicly and in writing of the non-existence of God, isn’t the very last thing that Russell wants – the existence of a righteous and holy God – the existence of the God of the Bible? Isn’t this the least desired, the most terrible thing conceivable for Bertrand Russell? Yes, the worst news Russell could imagine would be the confirmation that God does exist, and by the way, he is summoned to give an account of his life before Him on the Day of Judgment. Here is the motivation behind atheism – the desire to live independent of a Holy and Righteous God.
Here, as I said, the double standard Russell uses is obvious. He appealed to feelings of pride, courage, freedom and self-worth as a basis for those listening to him to say no to Christianity, yet attacked the Christian for having feelings which drove them to accept the Lordship of Christ.
Tony, isn’t it obvious that all of us need to admit that as to the existence of God, none of us is without bias. A Christian desperately wants Christ’s claims to be valid and true, and an Atheist desperately wants them to be invalid and untrue. Scripture leaves no room for neutrality in this regard. No one is neutral. Either we are God lovers or God haters. So to attack the Christian for his feelings in this shows double standard par excellence!
If Russell was honest, he would have to admit that both the atheist and the Christian possess a great deal of bias when it comes to this issue of God’s existence, but that doesn’t mean that both propositions are wrong. The issue of course is not our feelings about God’s existence, but whether or not God actually exists in reality. If God does not exist, then all my feelings of love and empathy towards Him won’t conjure Him up! If He exists, then all of Russell’s feelings against His existence won’t kill Him!
Russell has to stoop to obvious prejudice, to use logical fallacies in his argumentation, and shows no basis for his philosophical arguments. I am left with the Apostle Paul to conclude that Russell simply suppressed the truth he knew about God because he was desperate to avoid the God who really is. Even Russell’s most ardent followers would have to admit that this essay is open to much criticism, and Tony, I have to conclude that his rejection of God in his thinking was not based upon any sound or intellectual basis at all but only on a prejudicial bias in the extreme.
I hope that these comments help you to see through the issues clearly. As I conclude, I would ask you to read a couple of passages of scripture to meditate upon. The first I have already mentioned in Romans 1:16-23; and the second is found in 1 Corinthians 1:18 – 2:16. As you read these through, I believe that you can be very thankful to God for the wondrous and amazing grace He has given you in revealing His truth to you. It wasn’t your wits or intelligence that caused you to see His truth, but the Sovereign gracious gift of God (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Though the message of the cross is foolishness to others, to the called, to those being saved, it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). In verse 19 Paul goes on to say that God will “destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” I can’t help but think of men like Bertrand Russell at this point.
As we read further in 1 Corinthians 1, we find a series of four questions posed to us.
1) Where is the wise?
2) Where is the scribe?
3) Where is the disputer of this age?
4) Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
The obvious point of these questions is to provoke us to answer that the world’s wisdom is not real wisdom at all, for it starts in the wrong place, without God.
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (v. 20, 21)
Because you are part of the company called “the called” you know that Christ is the power and wisdom of God. (v. 24)
God leaves the debaters to themselves, knowing that without acknowledging Him, they are sure to end up only in intellectual cul de sacs, never getting anywhere. However this same God is pleased to reveal the truth to those He calls. What grace!
As you reflect on these things Tony, I pray that your faith will be strengthened even after you have considered some of the main arguments of atheism and that you will be stronger in your faith because of it.
I will get this off in the mail to you and will wait a couple of days before calling you again. I am confident that after reading this, “your faith might not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Cor. 2:5).
If there is anything else I can help you with, or if I can clarify any of these things further, just let me know and I’ll be happy to try to answer any questions you have or else I can point you to resources that I think would be of help to you. I look forward to hearing good news about you when I call. Keep the faith Tony!
In the Perfect Savior,
Rev. John Samson
Continued from he articulated a quite foolish notion. In fact, not only is this argumentation foolish on Russell’s part, it is sinful. Russell has to use something for which he can give no reason or foundation for existing (the laws of logic) to try to argue that the only logical “reason” for their being in existence, God Himself, does not in fact exist. God does exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. Let me explain.
Science declares that the universe is here, and that it is definitely something, and that it had a definite beginning. Though science affirms that there was a time or a point in space (big bang theory) when we can’t go back any further and predicate anything, it still affirms that the universe had a beginning. What was the universe before it had a beginning? Well, it is hard to say scientifically, except that there was a time when it was not. Yet even so, I think we must all conclude that there was a time when this universe was not, before it came into being. Science tries to steer as far away from the idea of an Eternal Universe, as much as is possible because all the evidence points to a time when it came into being i.e. a beginning. So both the atheist and the Christian needs to have a rational explanation as to why there is in fact something, and not nothing.
Why is that? Well try for a moment to imagine nothing. Now I grant you that it is very hard to think of nothing, because nothing is not a thing – it is no-thing. But go with me in your imagination to the time when there was nothing.
What would happen if it (nothing) was left alone for 10 minutes? How about 10 years? How about a few billion? Would nothing change into something given enough time to do so?
No, of course not. It doesn’t really matter how long nothing is left to be by itself – nothing cannot change into something, no matter how long it is left to become something. If there ever was a time when there was nothing, all there would be today would be nothing, for “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
How does the atheist explain this something (everything around us), when science today affirms there was a time when there was nothing? Well lets look at a mathematical formula. The atheist would have to believe that:
Nothing + No One = Everything
This is absurdity in the extreme, I am sure you will agree Tony.
So what formula does the Christian propose?
The opening declaration of the Bible is that “In the beginning (when there was nothing), God created the heavens and the earth.” This is creation ex nihilo or “out of nothing.” God has always existed, and so when we speak of a time when there was nothing, I am referring to the physical material realm. God is a Spiritual Being, who existed eternally before anything came into being. What would this look like as a mathematical formula? It is a proposition that is both rational and satisfying. The Christian believes that:
Nothing + God = Everything
When we add God to the formula it makes this a valid and rational argumentation. God, being God, can obviously make something out of nothing. When there was no light, God said, “Light be!” and light was. Again, God created everything, out of nothing.
The clear teaching of the Bible in Romans 1 is that mankind is made in the image of God and knows of God’s existence but suppresses (holds under) that knowledge. The fact that Russell knows anything at all is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. The truth is that no one is morally neutral before God. Men are culpable because God’s existence, His power and Godhead are clearly seen and understood. Scripture declares that this knowledge of God “is manifest in them for God has shown it to them.” Therefore, all of mankind, including Bertrand Russell is “without excuse,” or literally “without an apologetic” as they rationalize the clear evidence within them and all around them. All argumentation against the knowledge of God then is pure and simple rebellion. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, and despite his brilliance, Russell has not started in the realm of true knowledge, because it begins in dependence and the fear of the Lord.
I find it fascinating that instead of honoring the Creator, Russell propagated the worship of creation, just the very thing Romans 1 says happens when suppression of God’s truth takes place. He entreats men to “worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance…” (Why I am not a Christian; p. 115,116)
I am sure Tony that you noticed, when reading Russell’s essay that he resorted to arguing ad hominem (against the man) as he directed everyone’s attention to the personal character flaws of Christians. Even if these charges were accurate, which I do not believe they are, the fact would remain that he resorted to arguing against a truth claim on the basis of the defects of the person/s that held that claim. For a person of Russell’s intellectual prowess, this is not acceptable at all, and I am sure Russell would be upset at any person who would try to do such a thing himself. He simply should have known better.
He attacked the Christians for their cruelty, for the wars they have waged, for the inquisitions, etc. but isn’t it amazing that Russell didn’t even stop to acknowledge the atrocities perpetrated by those who have not made a profession of faith in Christ. Russell didn’t mention the atrocities of Stalin or Genghis Khan, for example. No, these things were just swept under the carpet. Of course, he didn’t mention the great good done by Christians – the schools and hospitals built by Christians, and the care they have shown for the poor, etc.
There are other holes in Russell’s arguments. One obvious one is that he presumed to know the motivation of someone in becoming a Christian – even the motivation of all Christians, including those who lived in ages past. He did this based on a miniscule sampling of his own experiences with them. Then Russell goes on to use double standards in his arguments against the Christians. Russell tried to show that there was an emotional factor in a person becoming a Christian.
It is here, that I would have to acknowledge that Christians do have emotional reasons for accepting Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I accept that one motivation would be the fear of not doing so – the result being an eternal punishment in hell. I would have to agree with him that there is dread, and dread alone, awaiting those who do not believe in Christ. With Christ there is an endless hope, without Him, there is a hopeless end!
Continued in Part 3