Epicurus: Some more thoughts on the problem of evil

I'd written a post several years ago dealing with the Epicurus riddle. As is often the case, though, there's a lot that can be said on certain subjects and this is one such subject. I still stand by what I wrote then but, since this is a very broad issue and one that is discussed frequently, I thought I'd refine some of the points I'd made back then and maybe add a thing or two.

The Epicurus Riddle goes like this:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Being Greek, and having lived before Christ, Epicurus certainly wasn't talking about Christianity, but his same arguments have been used to attack the God of the Bible. It's a series of questions meant to highlight the “problem of evil” and create some sort of dilemma for Christians: if God is good and omnipotent, why does He allow evil? The conclusion the critic wants us to draw is that God doesn't stop evil because there really is no god. As is always the case, any opinion that is not founded on the rock of Christ is founded on sand and cannot bear scrutiny. I see a few failings with this argument.

If an unbeliever wants to leverage evil to prove the nonexistence of God, he must first explain what he means by “evil.” As simple as that might sound, this is a real problem for unbelievers. If there were no god, then there is no greater being who administers justice. The universe would be all there is and the universe doesn't care what happens. An apple falling from a tree, a lion eating a zebra, one man killing another man, are just inconsequential events that happen while an indifferent cosmos just chugs along for billions of more years.

A star 1 billion light-years away goes nova and destroys a solar system? The universe doesn't care.

A meteor strikes the earth 60 million years ago and kills all the dinosaurs? The universe doesn't care.

A tsunami hits the coast of Japan and kills tens of thousands of people? The universe doesn't care.

A man pushes an old lady down and steals her purse? The universe doesn't care.

Of course, some things affect us more than others. I might not care about the rabbit fleeing from a wolf or a distant star going nova. However, I do care about a tsunami or an old lady being assaulted. What makes some things evil and not others? Does “evil” mean only “things we don't like”? Without an objective, transcendent standard of what makes a thing “evil,” Epicurus might as well have asked, “Why does God allow things I don't like?” Of course, that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

Unbelievers regularly display a sort of schizophrenia. They claim to believe there is no god, yet still live their lives as though there were. It's like a deluded person who claims not to believe in gravity but still knows better than to step off a building. You cannot question God about the existence of evil without first acknowledging that there is a such thing as evil. Yet evil can only exist if God exists, so to even claim there is “evil” is to tacitly acknowledge there must be a God.

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that evil is just a term we use to describe anything that affects the greater good of humanity. Something like stealing, for example, might be called evil because it helps one person but harms another. Never mind that it's not evil when a lion steals a zebra that a cheetah has killed. We can all agree that it's wrong for one human to steal from another... unless maybe it's to help someone. I mean, what if I stole a loaf of bread from a rich person so that I could feed my poor, starving family for a day? Does the skeptic believe God should not allow me to do this? A quick thinking skeptic might point out that, if God is willing and able to do good, then my family shouldn't be starving. I raise this point only to say that there is a spectrum of what we consider right and wrong.

Is rape wrong? Is pedophilia wrong? Is incest wrong? Is homosexuality wrong? Is adultery wrong? Is premarital sex wrong? Is viewing pornography wrong? Since the skeptic has no transcendent standard that says what is right and what is wrong, where to draw the line is somewhat subjective. Different people will draw the line at different places and who is to say which is the correct place? Many will say there is nothing wrong with looking at porn even though the Bible equates lust with adultery. So, does the skeptic mean God should not allow pornography? Should He not allow premarital sex? Which of his own sins does the skeptic expect God to punish him for? You see, most people who would use this argument really only mean for God to stop the really bad people but let the unbeliever practice his own pet sin. Anyone can justify his own sin by saying someone else is worse but if you expect God to deal with sin, be prepared for Him to deal with your sins as well!

I've watched several videos made by Ray Comfort where he asks people on the street to judge themselves. He asks them, for example, is it wrong to lie? Most people will say, yes. Of course, these same people will all admit to telling many lies. In fact, every one of us has broken all of God's commandments and so are guilty before God. You want God to do something about sin? OK, since we're all guilty, how would you feel if God just destroyed the world now? That would be just. It's certainly within His right. The fact that He allows evil to continue for a while is not because He is uncaring but rather because He is merciful. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

We sometimes expect God to act a certain way. When Jesus came into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the people praised Him saying, “Save us, Son of David.” They thought Jesus would be a conqueror who would deliver them from Roman tyranny. They were looking for the Lion of Judah. They didn't understand that Jesus first had come to be a Lamb. In a very real sense, He did come to save them – just not they way they expected.

God has a different plan, a better plan, for dealing with sin. He took on flesh, became a man, lived a perfect life – one undeserving of death, and then shed His blood on the Cross as the payment for our sin. If we repent of our sins and believe in Him, we pass from death unto life. One day soon, the worries of this world will seem like a fleeting moment, the blink of an eye that is over as we go on to live an eternity in a paradise He has prepared for us. God is not only willing and able to deal with evil, He has already done it!!

If you ask me, it is unbelief that is truly a riddle. People want to deny God. They want to mock the sacrifice of His Son. They want to flout the Law and live their lives however they want, indulging the most base desires of their flesh. Then they have the nerve to ask why God allows bad things to happen to them?! Incredible!

Galatians 6:7, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Related articles:

What is morality?

Can God forgive really really really really really bad people?

A Friendly Atheist Has 78 Questions for Christians

Rejecting a straw god

God sent a Lamb

A Rebuttal to the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God

Dan Barker is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of another post.

I was watching a video on YouTube where Barker was debating Matt Slick of CARM.org about the existence of God. I normally invite people to watch the whole video but it's pretty long. If you're interested in watching, the part I'll be discussing was raised by Barker in his opening comments beginning at about 20 minutes into the video but, for the sake of brevity, I found an article online where he explains his point more concisely. He calls this, The Freewill Argument for the Non-existence of God (FANG, for short). In his article, we find the following summary:

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

As I listened to Barker make his point, it reminded me a little of the Omnipotence Paradox people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In that case, critics ask, “Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?” The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and has been described before as the Omniscience Paradox. At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.

I believe the flaw in Barker's argument lies in his definition of free will. His definition just sounds unusual. For example, Barker adds the qualifier, “This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.” Since when is uncertainty a condition of free will? When I googled a definition, I found that free will commonly means, “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.” That certainly describes God since He is not bound by either fate or necessity. I found no mainstream definition that included any discussion of indecision, uncertainty, or knowing the future.

If you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the outcome. Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the future, He cannot exist. What? You can see how Barker's argument is completely non sequitur. The Bible attests that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: what we call the “future” is simply the coming to pass of the things He has already purposed. It's not a prediction as though God's some kind of psychic; He writes the future and then brings to pass what He has already decreed. He had the ability to make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exists. //RKBentley shakes his head//

Free will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans have free will. We may have choices but we have little say in the consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but I then I couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breath, but then I couldn't choose to keep living. Sometimes it seems life is like a game of chess we are playing against a better opponent. We might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until, finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!

As we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.

In the theological realm, especially, Christians have often debated if we have free will. If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has commanded. This debate has raged for centuries. But Barker fails to see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how is that an argument for their non-existence?  Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will?  Do rocks exists?  It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!

There is much more that could be said on this subject but why bother? Just the few paragraphs above show that Barker's argument is a tangle of logical fallacies. If I say I will do something, and then I do it, it may not be proof I have free will but, at the very least, it's evidence that I exist. God has declared the end from the beginning. He spoke to the prophets centuries in advance of things that would come to pass and they came to pass! It's laughable to say that's evidence He doesn't exist. If anything, that is proof of His existence!

Related articles:

Because there cannot be a married bachelor, there is no God. Um... what?

Thus Saith the Lord

A Monopoly on Words?

The subtle lie of definition

Let's pretend, for a moment, that we have no ideas how mountains were formed so I put on my thinking cap and begin making observations. On beaches, I notice how the waves sometimes make ripples in the sand. In the desert, I notice how sand dunes are formed by wind. These observations lead me to hypothesize that mountain formation is the cumulative effect of millions of years of wind and water moving dirt around. Sounds plausible, right?

Working on this theory, I look around to find examples of mountains being made taller by the wind and rain – but I can't find any. All I find, instead, are mountains being worn by erosion caused by wind and rain. In other words, they're becoming shorter, not taller. Not willing to abandon my theory, I define “mountain forming” to mean “any change in the elevation of a point of land.” Now, even examples of erosion can be used to support my theory.

Instances of erosion may fit my definition but they do nothing to support my claim that these processes can form mountains if they just continue long enough. Ideally, I should abandon my theory. At the very least, I should change my definition to include, “a rise in the elevation of land....” But I do neither. Instead, I double down on my definition and begin arguing that even a lowering of land elevation is mountain formation because it creates valleys!

Clever, huh? Employing such an ambiguous definition actually thwarts criticism of my theory. It may make my theory somewhat unassailable, but it doesn't make my theory true. Vague definitions like this probably hinder science more than help it. Using this definition, I could continue citing new instances of erosion, call them examples of “mountain formation,” and never once find an example of a mountain truly forming!

So where am I going with this? I've often written about the word games evolutionists play. They constantly want to define terms in their favor. And it's not just scientific terms, they also want to redefine words like “faith.” The word they equivocate over the most is evolution. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines evolution as, “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. ” When we talk about “evolution,” most people think of things like fish becoming frogs, dinosaurs becoming birds, and apes becoming men. Am I right? Yet, when we look around, we never seen examples of things like this happening. Oh sure, we see animal populations change, but they don't change into other kinds of animals.

Enter the ambiguous definition.

Talk Origins, a rabidly pro-evolution website, prefers this definition:

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Wow, that sounds fancy. This is THE definition used by most, militant evolutionists. Notice, though, that it doesn't do anything to qualify the kind of change. There's no condition that the change has to add any new characteristics to the population, for example. If a population of gray and black mice were to go from 50% gray to 45% gray over successive generations, then they've evolved according to this definition. Yet it doesn't explain how something like a mouse could turn into something like a bat over “millions of years.”

For evolution to be possible, biological populations have to acquire new characteristics. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, you would have to add feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The supposed first common ancestor didn't have feathers or hair. Neither did it have skin or scales or bones or blood or organs of any sort. How many new traits would you have to add to make turn molecule into a man? So just to say a population has “changed” doesn't mean the population is on its way to becoming something else unless the change adds something. Removing the gray mice from a population, for example, can't add new colors to the population.

The definition of evolution most favored and championed by evolutionists, the one cited above, is very much like my ridiculous definition of mountain formation. Any change in a population is called evolution, even though it doesn't add anything new to the population. Indeed, no new traits ever need to be found and evolution could still be said to be happening. In fact, I believe that's precisely why zealous evolutionists prefer it. Consider this except from the Talk Origins article I cited:

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring....”

I have to shake my head. They're right, it's hard to debate whether evolution is occurring if they are allowed to call any kind of change, “evolution.” Just like no one could question my theory of mountain formation as long as I'm able to include mountains being eroded as examples of mountain forming.

This is why evolutionists spend so much time haggling over terms. They want to bolster their arguments by defining words in their favor. It may be clever but it's still a gimmick. It's subtle. It's lying by definition.

Related articles

“Kinds” versus “species”

A Monopoly on Words

Why must “faith” mean “blind faith”?

Evo Speak

Breaking News: Charles Darwin was an evolutionist!

Evidence for “Creationism”

Is eternal punishment unfair?

I'm in many apologetic groups on FaceBook. In one such group, a member made the following statement:

I've never understood the claim that a sin, no matter how small (say, a failure of cognition) against an infinite God, requires infinite punishment. I understand that many Christians also find that claim to be fatuous, and inevitably adjust their theology to one of universalism, annihilation or a finite punishment.

I've heard similar points made many times so rather than replying on FaceBook, I thought I'd make my reply into a post here. I have several points I can make.

So what if it were unfair?

I've always found it curious how some people have this expectation that the universe must be fair. A cat will kill a mouse. Is it “fair” that the mouse really has no defense against the cat except to hide from it? Where do people – especially atheists – believe cosmic justice would come from? The universe doesn't care what happens. “Fairness” can only exist if there is a real God who administers justice. In the absence of divine justice there in nothing but cruel, indifferent reality.

But assuming that God is real, why must He be limited to our sense of justice. I might think it's unfair to pay a $35 fine for failing to put 25¢ in the parking meter. Apparently, the city of Cincinnati doesn't think that's unfair since that was the amount I had to pay them for my last parking ticket. The laws are made by the person (or people) in authority and they also set the penalties for the people who break the laws. The guilty might feel his punishment is too great for his crime. That doesn't matter.

Now, I'll explain in a moment why God's law is fair. But even if it were to seem unfair by every measure of our sensibilities, what are we supposed to do? Should I conclude that God can't be real because He's not fair? You can see how that doesn't follow. Perhaps you could argue that He isn't worthy of our worship because He is unfair. That is foolhardy because your indignation toward the law doesn't excuse you from being bound by the law. The mouse can protest all it wants but, in the end, the cat will still eat the mouse.

It is far, far better to simply acknowledge the reality of the situation. There is a God who judges sin. Your protests, your finite understanding of justice, and all your moral outrage will not be a defense.

We're all guilty

The question asked on Facebook was why only one little sin will send someone to hell. It's rather optimistic to believe there is anyone who has committed only a single sin. Is it wrong to lie? Most people will say yes. OK, if it's wrong to lie then how many lies have you ever told? It's just you and the computer right now so at least be honest with yourself for a moment. How many lies have you told today? This week? This month? This year? Let's face it – we're all habitual liars.

Thou shalt not bear false witness is just one of the Commandments (Exodus 20:16). How about the other Commandments? Have you always put God first? Have you ever taken His name in vain? Have you always kept the Sabbath holy? Have you always obeyed your parents? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever coveted anything? You can see where I'm going with this. It's not like there's someone out there who has committed just one sin; everyone of us broken every Commandment many, many times. We're all guilty. If we want to talk about the fairness of going to hell over a single sin, then perhaps we should ask what is the just punishment for someone who is a habitual, unrepentant sinner?

God is more than fair

In Jeremiah 18:1-6, we read this haunting account:

The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

The point of the story is simple. The potter shapes the clay however he sees fit. If he doesn't like how the clay is formed, it is the right of the potter to destroy it and start over. We are God's creation and, so, are subject to His will.

God created a perfect universe where there was no death or suffering or toil. He gave mankind dominion over the entire earth and everything in it was for our benefit. Yet we rebelled. God had no obligation to us. He did not have to forgive Adam nor does He have to provide salvation to any of us. If He destroyed all of creation at the very moment Adam sinned, that would have been fair. But that's not what He decided to do.

If God decided He should destroy us at the very moment we sin, that would be fair. But that isn't what He decides to do.

God could have required us to earn our salvation. If He put some tremendous burden on us, where we had to do 1,000 good deeds to atone for each sin we commit, that would be fair. But that's not what He decided to do.

What God did do is leave His heavenly glory to put on a body of flesh, He came to earth in the most humble of circumstances, He lived a sinless life, He was scorned and shamed, and finally He was tortured and put to death on the Cross to pay the penalty that we owed for our sins. After this, Christ rose from the dead and currently sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. Finally, the Bible tells us that God will restore the creation that was marred by our sin and we will live forever with Him in a home He prepared for us.

What exactly do these critics think is fair? Do they believe they can live their life however they want, they can indulge their flesh, they can spurn God, they can mock the death of His Son – but if God punishes them for it, then He's being unfair? Yes, I think that's exactly what they want to believe.

Given all these things, the original question seems rather absurd. There's no reason unbelievers should expect fairness. We haven't committed just one sin – we are each one habitual sinners who do things every day which, by anyone's standard, we know are wrong. We've been told the consequences of our sin but the lost continue to rebel against God. Yet even then, and even though He is under no obligation, God still makes eternal reward available to those who will simply confess their sins and accept the free gift of Christ. Why do people still claim that God isn't being fair?!

Who's really indoctrinating whom about evolution?

There's a term used often on the internet called Poe's Law. It basically means that it's impossible to distinguish extremists' comments from parodies of extremists' comments. Let me give you an example. Phil Plait is a self-described “science evangelizer” and blogger for Slate.com. A while back, he wrote an article titled, Give Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test, where he lamented elementary students being taught creationism. In the article he said:

My complaint is one of simple reality. Young-Earth creationism is wrong, and it’s certainly not science. For that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, all of science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no modern invention would work. Since you’re reading this on a computer, that right there is proof enough. [Italics and bold in original]

Really, Mr. Plait? “All of science shows creationism is wrong”? “No modern invention would work” if creation were true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments are hilarious and he means them! No exaggeration I could make about his comments could be any more extreme than what Plait is actually saying. It's a perfect example of Poe's Law.

I shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that Charles Babbage, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's something else that Plait said that piqued my interest.

What really makes my heart sink is the reality that this is actually being taught to young children. Kids are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible, encouraging them to seek more answers—and more questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This isn’t learning. It’s indoctrination. [bold added]

Indoctrination is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate” is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children to speak English; does that mean I indoctrinated them to speak English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's called raising them. We also tend to raise our children to share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of ad hominem.

What I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the 4^th grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be, “screaming in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.” Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, “I am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.”

Worshipers of scientism virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to stamp out science deniers. Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt. They are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.

THEY LIE

Think about the things Plait said in this article:

• all of science contradicts creationism.
• no modern invention would work if creation were true.
• Creationism goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of science.

If he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster their theory. I've even written a series about 10 lies evolutionists tell but there are many more than 10. I've been thinking of doing a sequel, adding another 10. When people tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of propaganda.

THEY SQUELCH

Several years ago, the Cobb County Board of Education placed a sticker in school science books that said, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion. Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully, critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a staple in educating our kids. Questioning everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science – except when it comes to evolution. No one is allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed. Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks losing his job.

Groups have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education, whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the state. On their website, NCSE bragged, “NCSE, of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of science education, including in Arizona.” By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What was their complaint? One example from the article says, “First, although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse. The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is studiously agnostic.”

It seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact. Oh the horror! I'm not sure if evolution is the only scientific theory with its own political lobby but I'm certain it is the only scientific theory that is protected by law.

THEY PROSELYTIZE

Education is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included learning about different economic philosophies: capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. Do you think it's possible to understand an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.

Remember in Plait's bio, he is described as a “science evangelizer.” What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked, “do you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and stealing away with it?” Nye's answer is very telling:

A man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever. By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.

“We got a shot”? We should be concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.

I came across an article in The Conversation that says, “The best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics first.” That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to teaching evolution. In the following except, pay attention to the parts I've highlighted in bold:

An understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not understand it. We found that students typically accepted evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class.....

We also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to accept it.....

Whatever the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding, if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.

So there you have it. They are not coy about their intentions – they want to indoctrinate our kids. They are just angry that parents and religious liberty keeps getting in their way!

Related articles

Evolution: A Religion of Death

Bill Nye thinks kids need to be better educated about evolution

Stop spouting facts... the science is settled!

Evolutionists treat science like a religion

Why even teach evolution?

Another “best” argument from atheists

As a Christian apologist, if I may presume to be one, I would feel slack in my duty to God if I only answered the easiest arguments skeptics make rather than the most difficult ones. Over the years, I've responded to many “best arguments for atheism” articles I've found on the web. It's been my experience, though, that none of them are very good. Indeed, many can't even stand against their own criticism. For example, Carl Sagan is quoted as saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course, Sagan didn't present a shred of evidence to support this claim! What a riot. //RKBentley chuckles//

Anyway, I recently came across still another article titled, 3 Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments. As I clicked on the link, I went through my usual cycle of emotions: curiosity, hopefulness, disappointment, and finally, determination to at least find something in the article worth blogging about.

Most of the arguments in the article have been addressed on my blog already. Perhaps those really are the best arguments for atheism because I've heard them repeated so many times. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to write more about them because they are certainly arguments Christians will hear often. Regardless, there was one point raised in the article that I don't believe I have written about. It's certainly not an original argument, but it's been raised often enough that I'm rather embarrassed that I haven't addressed it before now. So let me remedy that today.

Religion is Desperation

I've also noticed this painful truth about religion. It's made up of people who are intensely afraid of reality, and of the truth of the human condition. Religion comes from our hatred for our loathsome existence and our deep desire to deny the actuality of death and future loss. However, if we can be united in our dissociation from real life, we can be happy. We can call this dissociation "faith" and together we can be free from the horror of existence.

The article attributes this argument to Richard Dawkins but it well predates Dawkins. The earliest and most famous (infamous) person who raised this point is perhaps Karl Marx who said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” Wiki actually cites the full quote as saying, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” The implication is, life is really hard and people use religion like a drug to escape from reality. There is such a tangle of problems with this argument that it's difficult to find the best order to unravel them.

IT'S AN APPEAL TO MOTIVE

I believe I should dive right in and start with the obvious: this is a text book example of the fallacy, appeal to motive. Think about it. Suppose I really do believe in Christ only because I'm afraid to die. How would that make Christianity not real? It would be like a person, dying from cancer, rejoicing when the doctor says, “I have good news. Here's a cure!” The sick person certainly has a reason to want to believe the doctor but his eagerness (or even his skepticism if he doubted) has no bearing on whether he is really sick or whether the doctor really has a cure. To question the motive of believers, by saying they believe in God only because they are afraid of the world, does nothing – NOT ONE THING – to establish atheism as being correct or theism as being wrong.

If we looked at the opposite side of the coin, I could make this same argument against atheists – that God is real and atheists deny there's a God so they can live their lives however they want and pretend there is no God who will judge them after they die. I could say that Hell is real and the thought of eternal torment scares atheists so much that they try to convince themselves it isn't real. I could talk about the amazing historical evidence for the Bible, about the evidence for the Flood, about the evidence against evolution but atheists won't accept any of it because to acknowledge any point means they would have to accept the possibility of a God and that's not an option for them.

If Dawkins truly thinks God isn't real because Christians want Him to be real (I still can't quite figure out what point Dawkins is trying to make), then he needs to examine his own motives. Romans 1:18-20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” I believe the evidence for God is overwhelming. Everything I know about reality affirms over and over that there is a God behind it all. The Bible says we intuitively know there is a God, I shouldn't even have to present any evidence of Him. So when atheists deny what should be obvious, I do question their motives. Are you ready for a dose of irony? Many atheists only claim to be atheists because they know God is real!

IT'S A HASTY GENERALIZATION

Besides its faulty appeal to motive foundation, Dawkins deftly piles onto his argument still another fallacy of logic, the hasty generalization. It's true there may be people out there who fear death so much that they would leap at any promise of eternal life – even an empty promise. Yet even if that's true, it's no basis for Dawkin to suggests this applies to all Christians or even most Christians.

The majority of Christians believe in God and the Bible for the same reasons people believe anything, namely, they are convinced that these things are true. We become convinced through many different lines reason: logic, evidence, and our experiences. It's factually wrong for Dawkins to suggest the primary factor why Christians choose to believe is fear.

IT'S AD HOMINEM

It's hilarious when an atheist acts “holier-than-thou,” but in his typical, condescending fashion, Dawkins suggests that atheists are enlightened thinkers who fully grasp reality while theists are quivering cowards who couldn't leave their house without an assurance that someone “up there” is going to keep them safe. I'm not sure exactly why he does this. It could be simple ridicule borne out of his habitual contempt for theism. It could be a tactic aimed at shaming people who claim to believe. Whatever the reason, it's rather shameful.

No one wants to look like a coward. No one wants to be thought of as a person who can't face reality. Yet that's what Dawkins claims Christians are. It may be possible to embarrass a person to the point he is afraid to admit what he truly believes to be true but it's just a gimmick. It does nothing to prove what the person believes isn't true.

IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF

If people invent religion to quell their fears of reality, why invent a religion with hell? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's beyond senseless for someone who already fears death to create a religion where a worse punishment might await him after death! If fear were truly the motivating factor for people to believe in God, some form of universalism, the belief that all people can live happily ever after, would be the most popular religion.

In conclusion, let me remind you of the title of the article that raised this point: 3 Famous Atheists & Their Best Arguments. I'll repeat that, “Their best arguments.” Really? Saying, “You only believe in God because you're afraid of reality,” is one of the best arguments for atheism? I'm sorry but it's not one of the best. It's not even a good argument. It does nothing to support atheism and the author should be embarrassed that he even included it in his article.

Further reading

The best argument atheists have is that they have no argument

Why is atheism the default belief?

What is the evidence for atheism?

How can someone eat an entire elephant?

There's an old riddle that goes something like this: Q: How do you eat an entire elephant? A: One bite at a time! There's a certain amount of wisdom in that riddle. It's true that what seems like an impossibly big task could be accomplished in small enough increments. This is the principle that evolutionists apply when comparing macroevolution and microevolution.

I was online the other day when an evolutionist made this comment:

Because macroevolution is just microevolution repeated over long time periods, it's often been said that if you accept microevolution, but deny macroevolution, you are essentially saying that it's possible to walk from Los Angeles to San Francisco but impossible to walk from Los Angeles to New York.

So, I'd like to hear your best explanation as to why it's impossible to walk from Los Angeles to New York.

I didn't respond online because, frankly, too many of those forums are overrun with trolls. Instead, I thought I'd offer an explanation here.

This is lie #3 from my Ten Lies Evolutionists Tell series. At first hearing, the above argument sounds very persuasive. In fact, in the way it's worded here, I really can't argue with it. Obviously, if a person can walk a small distance, he could also walk a long distance if he has enough time. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't fairly represent what happens when animal populations “change.” There are at least three reasons why this analogy fails to explain how “microevolution” could make “macroevolution” possible over time.

THE CHANGE MUST BE IN ONE DIRECTION

Even the most famous examples of “evolution” usually involve slight variations back and forth around the mean. When Darwin observed the finches in the Galapagos, he noted the differences in the sizes of their beaks. In the 150 years since then, we've seen that beaks tend to be larger during periods of drought and smaller during periods of rain. In other words, after a century and a half of observation, there has been no accumulation of small changes. There has only been back and forth variations in response to back and forth changes in the environment.

For evolution to be possible, the changes must continuously be in one direction – like finch beaks only getting bigger. Back and forth changes over time means there are no net changes – not even microevolution. No matter how long he tries, a person cannot walk from LA to NY if he only walks in a circle!

THE CHANGE CANNOT HAVE A BOUNDARY

In another famous example of “evolution,” the peppered moth, a population of moths changed from mostly light, to mostly dark, to mostly light again in response to changes in the environment. You can see immediately that this is another example of back and forth variation like I just discussed in my first point. However, there is something else at work here.

Suppose the change did occur in only one direction. In the case of the peppered moths, for example, what if the population only continued becoming dark? Eventually, the entire population would become 100% dark and the change would stop. The change in the frequency of the dark allele could not increase any more. If anything, it could only decrease and the population would start becoming light again (see point number one).

Clearly a person cannot walk from Honolulu to NY!

THE CHANGE MUST BE ADDING SOMETHING

In order to turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The imagined first-living-thing didn't have hair. Neither did it have scales or even skin. It didn't have bones or blood or organs of any kind. For evolution to be possible, organisms would have to acquire new traits. To turn a microbe into a man, it would require millions of traits being continuously added generation after generation. “Changes” in a population, that don't add new features to the population, cannot allow a population to evolve.

There are species of fish that live in caves and are born without eyes. They are obviously descended from seeing fish but, in a dark environment where you can't see anything, having eyes is not an advantage. In fact, swimming around in the dark means you could bump into the wall and scratch your eyes which could lead to a deadly infection. In a cave where there is no light, a mutation that causes a fish to be born without eyes actually means the blind fish has an advantage over the seeing fish. This is what is called a “beneficial mutation.”

Beneficial mutations are an observed phenomenon. They convey some benefit to the host but it comes by way of losing something. For evolution to happen, populations have to acquire traits. You can't acquire traits by continuously losing traits – it doesn't matter how long it continues! Observing a population of fish being born without eyes does nothing to explain how eyes evolved in the first place.

You cannot turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt. You can't grow a company by losing a little bit of money each year. You can't walk from LA to NY by walking away from NY!