Atheist's Dodge, Part 2

Atheists argue that evolution is the case of our moral sense.
When the atheists admit that humans have a sense of right and wrong, they need a cause for that fact other than God. Not surprisingly, they say that evolution caused our moral sense. Now for someone who denies the existence of God but accepts the presence of evil, this argument is very compelling. When a Christian says that only God could give people a sense of right and wrong, the skeptic usually has an answer read. "Who needs God? Why can't evolution explain our moral sense?"
Again, however. there are holes in the atheist's argument.
Here are two:

• First, it's fascinating that atheist's want a cause for suffering or a design for suffering, but they have already denied that either of these are necessary to account for the effects we see every day.
• Second, no evolutionist has explained how an impersonal, amoral, "it-just-happened" beginning of the universe--combined with the amoral process of evolution--has produced a moral basis of life.

Doesn't it seem odd that of all the billions of permutation and combination that a random universe could produce that we would end up with ideas of the true, the good, and the beautiful? In fact, why call anything good and evil? Why not call them orange and purple? That way, we settle from the start that what we perceive to be good and evil are merely different preferences, one as good as the other. (By the way, Bertrand Russel tried that approach and looked quite pathetic at it.)

The claim that evolution produced our moral sense must not feel like solid footing even to some atheists, because some try a final, despeate maneuver.

Some atheists argue that evil doesn't really exist.

Listen to this far-fetched explanation by one of atheism's champions, Richard Dawkins of Oxford. Sooner or later in school you will hear about Dawkin's, a brilliant scientist whose books sell far and wide. His eloquence, however, can mask the absurbity of his arguments.

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no other good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to it's music. (Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 133.)

Do you see what has happened? The skeptic started with a long list of life's most horrible things, saying, "These are immoral; therefore, there is no God." But evolutionists can't afford to raise these problems, since their own system has no way to create the sense of right and wrong that almost all of us recognize. So what then does the skeptic do? Some conclude that there really isn't such a thing as evil after all.

The next time you show up in science class with your homework unfinished, tell your teacher that Richard Dawkins said you could dance to your DNA. Actually, don't.

Let's see how well Dawkin's theory works to explain the horrors of life. Could you tell a rape victim that her rapist merely danced to his DNA? Would it make sense to the victims of Auschwitz that their tormentors were fulfilling their genetic juices? In lectures to the British Humanist Association in 1992, Dawkins made another astounding assertion. Having debunked the idea of God and explained away evil as DNA's dance, he tackles another problem: How should we explain, then, the sense of morality that we find in the human experience? Why do we even ask questions about good and evil? Dawkins has the "answer"--viruses. A virus scrambles the data within the human gene and spits out this misformation. If we could somehow delet the virus that led us to think this way, we would be stripped clean of these "irritating ideas" of God, good, and evil.

In Dawkin's--speak, those who asked Jesus what caused a blond man's loss of sight needed an antivirus program. In fact, Jesus Himself would need to be scanned with up-to-date virus definitions. And, I suppose, anyone who complains about the Holocaust needs to be quarantined and his blood sample mailed off to the antivirus research labs.

Let's not forget that Dawkins is, of course, free from the virus and therefore provide us with the correct moral programming. More seriously, let's not forget that we have circled back to the beginning of the atheist's argument--and if evil is denied, then how can evil be said to disprove God's existence?

Slicing up Baby

I put Dawkin's theory to the tes with some students at Oxford University. I asked a group of skeptics, "If I took a baby and slicd it to pieces before you, would I have done anything wrong?" They had just denied that objective moral values exist. At my question there was silence--and then the lead voice in the group said, "I would not like it, but no, I could not say you have done anything wrong."

My! What sensitivity! He would not like it. My! What irrationality. He could not brand it wrong. But would he think it wrong if I carved him up?

All we have to do to prove that objective moral alues exist is to push to the extreme, and suddenly we find that yes, all reasonable people will declare that they are absolutely sure there are indeed behaviors that are absolutely wrong. And if these objective moral values exist, the best explanation is that God exists, because the best answer of the atheist--evolution--can't produce these values.

How would other religions answer the question behind the disciples' question :Is God cruelly responsible for evil? . . .

This excerpt was taken from Ravi Zacharias' book Jesus Among Other Gods, youth version. Sorry if there were some typos . . . it took a long time to type and I don't feel like reading the whole thing, lol. Have a great day everyone! :0)