Some view Christians as being brainless zombies who simply believe whatever their religious authorities tell them. While this observation may characterize Christendom as a humanized form, the Bible encourages people to diligently seek understanding and commends those who do: “The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge” (Prov. 18:15).
Biblical Christianity is not a set of systematized teachings per se, but rather it is the opportunity to experience union with Jesus Christ. Oneness with Christ secures eternal life and affords the believer an opportunity to enjoy a life that is meaningful and pleasing to God (Luke 9:23-26). The main distinction between biblical Christianity and world religions is that it teaches a vital need to be saved from spiritual death by solely trusting in a Savior, whereas the world’s religions present a system of doings to merit salvation, to improve one’s spirituality, or to obtain a good afterlife. Biblical Christianity, however, is not a religion; it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Apart from Christ, there is no forgiveness of sins, no life, and no hope.
Biblical faith is not blind belief as some skeptics claim. On the contrary, the Bible challenges its readers to test and reason out Scripture. “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Biblical Christianity has this distinction over the religious movements of the world—the seeker is challenged to test Scripture to validate its truthfulness (Acts 17:11). Religion imposes propaganda without permitting an opportunity to validate its reliability against available evidence. God knows man will only faithfully live out that which he has first proven to be true.
Despite what some think, Bible-believing Christians have not been hoodwinked by religious nonsense. If individuals will put aside preconceived notions and intellectual bias to examine the evidence, there is more than sufficient cause to believe that biblical Christianity is a rational choice. To arrive at this conclusion, three assertions must be affirmed: First, there is a knowable supernatural presence. Second, there is only one holy God, who exists beyond the observable. Third, the Bible is God’s exclusive and accurate revelation to humanity and must be believed to enter into a right relationship with Him.
If these assertions are valid, then every individual is understood to have an inherited fallen nature which ensures that no one can behave perfectly, as God demands. The only solution the Bible offers man for falling short of God’s perfect standard of behavior is to recognize our need (sin) and accept God’s only solution, Jesus Christ as Savior (Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2). In so doing, we receive a righteous standing before God (1 Tim. 2:5). The above assertions cannot be accepted as true without first realizing that atheism and agnosticism are irrational as absolute positions.
Is Atheism Logical?
The atheist is generally governed by two principles: All beliefs must be supported by observational evidence; and beliefs that contradict this evidence cannot be accepted as fact. Yet, atheism states that there is no God, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe had a cause at its conception, but this cause cannot be detected observationally. Despite the lack of evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and also that there is no God. This conclusion contradicts the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence, and this position violates the atheistic worldview—it is an irreconcilable dichotomy.
Although the atheist may present arguments for not believing in a Creator, he or she cannot offer a single irrefutable proof that He does not exist. The only undeniable means by which the atheist may emphatically say that, “There is no God anywhere at any time,” is if the atheist is omniscient (all-knowing), or omnipresent (all-present), and eternal. The only way to say, with surety, that there is no God is if the atheist has the wherewithal to exist eternally everywhere simultaneously or to have an eternal consciousness that permeates the universe.
The logic of atheism collapses on two fronts. First, no reasonable human being would claim to be omnipresent, omniscient, or self-existing independent of time. Secondly, if an individual did claim to possess these attributes, would not he or she be God? In fact, when the atheist asserts that there is no God, what he is really implying is that he is God. In either case, the claim of atheism is not logical. He cannot say for sure that there is no God, and if he does, he can only do so if he is God—meaning that in truth he is not an atheist but merely a humanist. Hence, it is illogical for the atheist to assert that there is no God.
Is Agnosticism Logical?
Aldous Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, coined the term agnostic to describe a person who professed “not to know” about God. The agnostic being more sensible than the atheist, would conclude “I don’t know whether there is a God or not, but if there is a God, you cannot know Him.” Since neither the atheist nor the agnostic understands all of natural law, neither can logically say that “God has affected no influences within natural order—He has given no knowable revelation of Himself.” Unfortunately, many who say, “You cannot know God” have abandoned all hope of ever knowing Him. Such a biased conclusion is contrary to the very spirit of science which ever challenges man to plumb beyond the fathomable and to continue evaluating new evidence and new information.
The theist and atheist are similar in that they hold a position that is partially based on faith. As there is no known means of substantiating life having arisen from dead chemicals, the atheist requires a great deal of faith to believe a cell could be randomly formed from primordial soup. The agnostic is different from the atheist in that he requires little or no faith to operate comfortably within a worldview of not knowing—ignorance being the acceptable status quo. In reality, both the atheist and the agnostic have chosen to ignore observable divine revelation and the possibility that future evidence may prove that God has uniquely influenced nature and, therefore, may be knowable.
Ignoring the Evidence
What evidence is being ignored by atheists and agnostics? The following are at least ten evidences for divine influence within natural order that should be considered by those searching for the truth:
- The Uniqueness of the Earth
- The Testimony of Nature
- The Authenticity of the Bible
- The Uniformity of the Bible
- The Prophecy of the Bible
- The Human Conscience
- The Human Spirit’s Need
- The Inflammatory Name of Jesus
- Changed Lives
Each of these statistically improbably evidences stimulate man to peer beyond his physical surroundings and to ponder the possibility of what lies beyond. Though reason is present, one cannot enter and emerge through these spiritual corridors leading to God without exercising faith. Thus, man is presented with a divine test. Faith compels a soul to stretch beyond what is verifiable through the five senses to actively trust in what God has revealed. We cannot please God without exercising this kind of faith (Heb. 11:6). Thus, a purely intellectual recognition of God is only a hypothetical possibility, for science cannot validate God’s existence and intellectualism can be easily swayed by philosophy, deceit, and traditions (Col. 2:8). In conclusion, it is illogical to state that there is no God (Ps. 53:1). It is premature to say a person cannot know Him; and, it is impossible to know God without reasoning out what is revealed and exercising faith for that which cannot be verified apart from God’s help.