Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Is Atheism Stuck In The Present?

I can't seem to escape atheism lately. It's on my TV, in the magazines I read, and proliferating online.

While blog-surfing the other day I clicked on a link that gave no indication that it was an atheist blog. Reading through the posts and comments was interesting, and I responded to one of them. One of the other commenter's statements set a tangential thought through my brain. He was expressing frustration that, when discussing atheism and evolution with non-atheists, things always come back to Ultimate Origins. He wanted the conversation to take place from The Big Bang and go forward from there. Well, there are a lot of reasons why that is simply ridiculous. You can't argue scientifically from a set of assumed facts that you haven't justified. I addressed some of my thoughts about The First Cause problem for atheists in an earlier post.

However, thinking about this commenter's remark, I realized the atheists' aversion to the past and the future. That may seem a silly assertion to make when considering atheists' attachment to evolution, the geologic record, and The Big Bang theory. After all, isn't the past the point from which most of their arguments are made?

Yes and no.

They do rely heavily on what they believe about the past formation of Earth and Life on Earth, but their arguments do not address the true beginning of the past--First Cause. Dwelling on the beginning of all things is uncomfortable because they have no scientific explanation for it. Instead, they begin to join the conversation in medias res.

So, why do I say that they also have an aversion to contemplating the future? It seems another silly statement when considering atheistic contributions to science fiction and speculations about what might happen to Earth and humanity in the future. They seem to look forward to the continuing evolution of man.

Yes, but the future is not solely about what will happen, but about where things are going. Evolutionists believe that natural selection is a process that is random and operates with no forethought or intelligence directing it. In this view, mutations and adaptations are meant for the here and now, not preparation for a different set of circumstances that will occur 50-100 years later. There is no "gearing-up" for the future of a species. To admit that mutations take the future into consideration would be to admit that something, other than physical matter, was operating. The ability to predict a set of circumstances that hasn't yet occurred, requires forethought and higher intelligence. While atheists would concede that humans possess the ability to speculate and accurately predict some future events, that is seen as a higher function that has evolved within us. If we go back into the past and try to assign that higher function to lower life forms or to a cellular level, evolutionists would be quick to attempt to obliterate such thoughts.


The past and the future are what give events meaning. The fact that we started somewhere, and are headed somewhere else, is what defines the Journey. But, of course, atheists would deny that there is any meaning to humanity's journey. Meaning implies purpose. Purpose implies intention. Intention can only come from a higher intelligence. Thus, to dwell too profoundly on where everything came from and where everything is going, would be uncomfortable for those who are assured in their own hearts that there is no Higher Intelligence.

Any opinions about this?

P.S....I am an evangelical Christian, but all of my posts about Atheism are being dealt with purely from a point of reason. I am not quoting Scripture, or trying to prove anything from the Bible, simply because it would be meaningless to someone who doesn't even believe there is such a thing as God.

6 comments:

Makarios said...

excellent post. an atheist from australia, lui, says that the mutations in question are not random. a needed leap i suppose

Jihad Hernandez said...

splendid. I do appreciate a fellow Christian employing the brains God has given her in scintillating intellectual discussion. Thanks for the comment.

Capo di tutti capi said...

"They do rely heavily on what they believe about the past formation of Earth and Life on Earth, but their arguments do not address the true beginning of the past--First Cause. Dwelling on the beginning of all things is uncomfortable because they have no scientific explanation for it. Instead, they begin to join the conversation in medias res."

Maybe because atheism is not a religion that tries to give answers at any cost (Religion gives answers at the cost of truth - all their answers are false), but it's an attitude regarding all the other opinions.

The real answer to the question "what created it all?" is WE DON"T KNOW.

You seem to suggest it's more important to have an answer, ANY answer instead of admiting the truth.

Capo di tutti capi said...

"But, of course, atheists would deny that there is any meaning to humanity's journey. Meaning implies purpose. Purpose implies intention. Intention can only come from a higher intelligence. Thus, to dwell too profoundly on where everything came from and where everything is going, would be uncomfortable for those who are assured in their own hearts that there is no Higher Intelligence."

You mean this like atheists voluntarily deny an obvious fact such as "the meaning of life".
Please, show evidence for such a given meaning.

Why would it be unconfortable for an atheist to ponder the future?
Have you talked to an atheist about this or you just like to imagine atheists have it really bad without their invisible friend?

IMO, it's a lot more easier to think about the future if you don't have the threat of the Judgement Day looming over you.


"If we go back into the past and try to assign that higher function to lower life forms or to a cellular level, evolutionists would be quick to attempt to obliterate such thoughts."

There are animals that show some consideration for future events but that's only as they get closer and closer to us on the evolutionary tree.

terri said...

Welome everybody.

makarios...I don't think I have heard an atheistic evolutionist say that there is anything other than randomness acting in mutation. Of course, not every evolutionist is a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. There are a few who have some religious leanings.

jihad...thanks.

capo....."WE DON'T KNOW"..That's exactly my point. I have a belief about the universe that includes God. That's fine if you don't believe it or think it's silly. However, it isn't very scientific for atheists to base all of their theories on assumed facts.

It's like coming up with the theory of evolution by picking an arbitrary starting point, like the frog, and working forward from there. That would be simply ridiculous.

The assumption dictates the findings. Because there is an adamant refusal to consider Higher Intelligence, based on one's own inner belief, all of the thought and science underpinning atheistic evolution has already dismissed any findings that might lead to the contrary.

When confronted with things that seem too elegant and well-designed to be random, atheists simply refuse to consider the possibility that it might not be random. We are simply assured that it just "seems" to be elegant. But what is that assurance based on? It is not science, but belief, or rather, disbelief.

Capo di tutti capi said...

"When confronted with things that seem too elegant and well-designed to be random, atheists simply refuse to consider the possibility that it might not be random. We are simply assured that it just "seems" to be elegant."

Having questions about the world and answering them with a deity does not mean the problem is solved.

God is just another name given to our ignorance (and I don't mean it in a demeaning way) instead of looking for answers.

This illustrates my point very well: http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/thencallit.jpg

Answering tough questions with "God did it" does not solve those questions at all.

If we need a Higher Power to explain away the complexity of the world, we just move the problem one step higher up the hierarchy and assume that the Higher Power can just "be" complex (while the world can't).