Nil Nisi Verum

Home » Atheism

Category Archives: Atheism

Beauty is Not in the Eye of the Beholder

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” has been the response for as long as I can remember when someone disagrees with what is “beautiful”. Art, music, poetry, or architecture, all of them have had their critics and fans. It is therefore at least fair to question if this is true? Is beauty truly in the eye of the beholder? I would say no. It cannot be. There must be things that are truly beautiful and those that are truly hideous. How do we determine what is counted as “beauty”? It must have 3 things.
1. It must be true
2. It must be good
3. It must be beautiful
Then who defines what is beautiful? In short, God does. God is the only one who sees absolute truth thus He is not affected by sin or passions. When we are seeing through the lens of faith in Christ, then we can see what is beautiful because we may be able to perceive it how God does. We don’t see something exactly as God does, because no one can, but we don’t have to understand something 100% to know it is true.
This is why art that is vulgar or beautiful is what it is. That which is beautiful will remind us of God. That which is vulgar will detract from God and remind us of that which we are to be aligned against.

Why God Isn’t Like a Unicorn

One of the arguments against Atheism is that it doesn’t give us anything, it only takes away and then thinks this is adequate. What atheist fail to understand is, when they simply walk into the discussion and claim “I don’t believe in God”, this isn’t exactly contributing. I think it’s because they also fail to see what is actually being spoken about. They fail to understand adequately the “object” of their objection. They fail to understand what/who is God.
 
This is demonstrated to us in their apathy and/or in their contrasting objections. For example, they may have an understandable reason for objecting to belief in God, but they stop there. It generally looks like they have been looking for a reason to walk away from God or their faith all along. They walk away still holding to objective morals but not really thinking about how or why those morals exists. They claim science but never pursue the evidence to it’s conclusions. Or they grasp to atheist philosophers but want to depart when those ideas become too “weird”. So they have taken God out but really, they don’t care what replaces Him. The answer becomes too hard, so they just stop caring. They become apathetic. Their motto is “I don’t know, and I don’t care”.
 
This other group of atheist have clever mottos such as “I don’t believe in God just like I don’t believe in unicorns.” At first it seems like this is a response that almost makes Christians pause. Why don’t I believe in unicorns? Or Leprechauns? Or fairies? The biggest problem here is the object being compared. If you say you don’t believe God exists because unicorns don’t exists, then you have failed to understand what is being discussed. Why? Because unicorns and any other made character are dependent. They are never creatures or beings that everything depends on. They can be here or not and their existence doesn’t matter. God on the other hand is the exact opposite. Not only does His existence begin to explain our existence, but His existence explains all existence. 
 
God is the only being whose reason for existence doesn’t lie outside of himself. He depends on nothing yet everything depends on Him. Not just the creation of the universe. But when we use abstract concepts (numbers) or transcendentals such as logic or morals. These are found in God, not simply things we make up. We have access to the mind of God because we’re made in His image. Therefore when God is removed, what fills the void created? This is sometimes referred to as a T.O.E. (theory of everything) generally it is used in physics, but the point is made here. God is not simply an idea, but He is what everything hinges on. To simply take Him out of the picture is not where it ends. As we study God we learn not only more of Him but more of everything else.
 

Dr Albert Mohler Discusses his Book on Atheism followed by Q&A

Surfing in La Jolla with Gabe and Thomas

On Saturdays I go surfing with some buddies from my church . Friday I managed to talk my cousin Gabe into surfing with us (Thomas and I). He came out and it was great. Talking with Gabe on the way out to the beach it was good to have the chance to just dialog about what was going on in his life. He has just finished his second year at USD, studying engineering and physics. As we talked I simply posed to him one of the philosophical problems that perhaps he had never thought of. It is generally known as the uniformity of nature. We don’t think on it often but simply stated it says “Why does everything act the same?” It may seem like a silly question but a thoughtful person can’t simply take these things for granted. Actually it becomes quite problematic for the naturalist who refuses to allow for the existence of God. A short example electrons and protons. They all repel and this is general knowledge. But how do we account for the fact that they do? It becomes quite deep quite fast. It is the assumption the naturalists makes that becomes their downfall. Again this points to another basic reason why a Christian worldview makes more sense than those that aren’t.

Gabe did great surfing. He learned to get up on the board and took a good pounding on the head a couple of times. Thomas played in the white water as he is still getting used to his new board. He’ll get the hang of it soon enough. The water was good, the waves were big, and the company was the best.

Just the Facts

When speaking with someone of an opposing view (which it seems I frequent either voluntarily or not) we will eventually get to a point of exchanging facts. Facts and evidences that have brought us to our current position. Generally areas I enjoy discussing are the ones that matter. Those of religion, politics and opinions on culture. Seriously, is there much to discuss outside of these areas that really matters? Then why waste time. Honestly when I meet someone and we have our general small talk, I really could care less what they have to say. When we start discussing our world views then they have my total attention. Back to my point.

When we are having a discussion about the facts or evidences of a matter we will come to it with certain presuppositions. That would be certain things we already assume or “pre-suppose” to be true from the beginning. With these certain pre-suppositions I believe (and rightly so) that we ought to focus. Why do you have the presuppositions that you do? Why do I? Specifically, I would be directing this question to the person who holds to a naturalistic view while I admitidly have a super natural view of the world. For the sake of brevity let me get to my point.

In analyzing facts or evidences the real question ought to be “What kind of universal can give the best account of the facts.” Put another way, “Which universal can state or give meaning to any fact?” Can there be more than one “universal” that can five meaning to many facts? The Christian holds that cannot be so. For the Christian there is only one universal. That universal is the triune God of Christianity. The Christian must presuppose that without the triune God of Christianity we cannot interpret even one fact correctly.

Note, the point isn’t that non-theists cannot view facts like the Christian can. The point isn’t that the Christian can always get the analysis of a fact correct. The point is that without God, you cannot interpret anything correctly. The belief or commitment to God isn’t what is being stated here but the fact that without the existence of the triune God facts and evidences would have no intelligible relation to one another. Thus they could not be known by man.

Do not be mistaken to assume that just because the secular sciences are so, that they are in agreement because they are not. Physical sciences seem to have arrived at some definite conclusions about spiritual life. Social science seems to have come to some definite conclusions about the origin and nature of human society, and historical science seems to have come to some definite conclusions about the course of historical events. All however have a common negative attitude toward Christianity among them.

However, if there is disagreement in the results there is agreement in the methodology. However for the Christian it is our contention that upon Christian presuppositions that we can have a sound methodology. So Christianity and science are not opposed but the individuals that use the sciences are. Thus it becomes a battle that is not found in the sciences but in the philosophy of science.

 

Count of Monte Cristo and CS Lewis

One of the first questions I ask someone when they recommend a movie is “What’s your favorite movie?” I actually think this is a good and fair question because it gives me insight to the type of movies this person prefers and allows me to grade their opinion to some kind of standard. If the person says their favorite movie is “Sister Act 2” then this would tell they either don’t get out much or their exposure to some of the renowned films in the last several decades have managed to meet millions minus one.

The second thing I do is keeping tabs on movies the person recommends. This becomes helpful over time of course. My father in Texas is currently at 3 stars in movies he’s recommended. Some were great others well…that’s why he has 3 instead 4. But again, this one takes time. If someone recommends a movie and they are willing to put their “rep” on the line, then they know what is at stake. Thus, to give a movie your highest recommendation could potentially reflect well or poorly on your taste in the cinema.

About a month ago, my bride and I met for dinner with my in-laws. A small pizzeria that interestingly was championed as having the finest pizza in San Diego but it was empty (Perhaps the polling sample was small). In the course of the meal my father in-law spoke of a movie, “The Count of Monte Cristo”. I simply replied “never seen it…” and continued eating. It brought a reaction from all present company almost as if I had said “my favorite movie is Sister Act 2”. My father in-law insisted that the movie was worth watching and though I had obviously heard of it I had no interest in seeing it. I briefly gave him my criteria for taking movie recommendations and he remained persistent to his claim. A few weeks later, the netflix shows up in the mail “What is it?” “Count of Monte Cristo” to which I sighed and in all honesty, I wasn’t too thrilled. I’m one of those types who doesn’t mind going to the restaurant and ordering the same meal I like every time. That way I know I’ll like it. I don’t care what the specials are, I’m not interested in deals or values. Every once in awhile however, I break and try the special. So here’s my review of the special (“The Count of Monte Cristo”).

The movie starts out in the setting of France in the time of Napoleon. Now as for me, I’m not a big fan of France. So movies about France are even less interesting. But I stuck it out. Two friends Edmond and Fernand have grown up with each other. They work on a ship and the captain falls ill. In an emergency act they land on the one island that is being used as the island of exile of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon trusts Edmond with a letter back to Paris. Edmond is true to his word but shortly upon his arrival in Paris he is accused of treason for carrying a message from Napoleon. Edmond (who is illiterate) pleads ignorance and all is excused till a wicked twist occurs and he is sentenced to a prison located on a remote island.

While Edmond is imprisoned he falls into deep despair and the audience can’t help but feel insanity setting in and taking its rightful place. From his imprisonment Edmond meets with a priest who helps him get into a position to avenge his false imprisonment of 13 years and the theft of his fiancee Mercedes.

The movie is one of those “has it all” films with parts that will make you laugh, cry, cringe and make you thankful for the comfy couch your sitting on. It did well in its focus on character development but I think a fair critique would be of the lack of development of Mercedes. I am told the movie isn’t true to the book (I wouldn’t know, because if I didn’t want to see the movie to begin with it is pretty obvious I hadn’t read the book). However, in all fairness the writer of the movie claims he was tasked to make a movie and the book wouldn’t have been a good movie.

So in the end, I liked the movie and frankly speaking, I’m glad I did. I would have hated to have wasted my time. Instead I was able to add another movie to the list of movies I like and Dad kept his movie rep.

One part in particular left me intrigued. I have reflected on it and I think I can share with you without spoiling the movie. When Edmond is brought to the prison he pleads that he is innocent. He claims to have been falsely arrested though knowing the warden has heard this from every prisoner prior to Edmond’s arrival. To Edmond’s amazement, the warden confirms Edmond’s claims but continues to process him as an inmate. Edmond stood bewildered that this man knew Edmond was innocent yet was going through with this act of injustice.

My point? As we watch this we know that justice is deserved. Yet we are seeing the opposite and arrive at a conclusion somewhat saying “that isn’t right!” Where does this sense of justice come from? You see, the fact that the writers of the movie know they can play to our sense of justice tells us there is a common thread among humans. We have an innate sense of justice that doesn’t escape us and in the end points to a transcendental quality that can only be rationally grounded in a supernatural being. God. C.S. Lewis recognized this and it was one of the reasons he cast down his atheism and eventually converted to Christianity.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity