Truth Really Matters

buy Neurontin canada “He wouldn’t like me for saying this, but Dawkins put me on the road to Christian faith (which is not belief without evidence but placing your trust in what the evidence shows you.  He shook me out of my apathy and insisted I follow the evidence where it led.”  This is part of former atheist Peter Byrom’s public thank you to Richard Dawkins, in his chapter of the 2023 book, Coming to Faith Through Dawkins:  12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity, edited by Denis Alexander and Alister McGrath.

Your typical committed atheist, well into adulthood, is not looking to follow the evidence where it leads.  But the younger, uninformed atheist may still have a chance because his conscience has not been fully hardened into concrete.

One of Dawkins’ well-published compatriots, Christopher Hitchens, mentioned in his book, God is not Great:  How Religion Poisons Everything, how he appreciated a quote from Gotthold Lessing, who insisted that “if God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for Truth,” he would choose the left hand even if he knew that he would forever err in his search.  Now that’s commitment!

What explains the futility of such a hopeless stance?  Only a hatred for God and a love for sin, only a rabid arrogance that the atheist determines his own morality and that no god or God can tell him what to do.  Namely, only a heartfelt denial of reality can explain the pointless path of the atheist.  He doesn’t know what he wants, but he is sure that God and the Gospel are not it!

In McGrath’s introduction to Coming to Faith through Dawkins, he suggests that the rise of the ‘New Atheists’ was jumpstarted by the terrorist attacks on 9/11.  The apparent ideological cause was Islamic religious fanaticism, which was shortly recast by anti-theists as religious fanaticism, and then religion.  In the West, the principal target was Christianity, especially biblical Christianity.  This was a brilliant ploy by Satan, fostering a supposed equivalence between one of his own false religions and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Imagine . . . now atheists could preach that the real culprits behind 9/11 were serious Christians, who are essentially no different from Islamic jihadists!  I note, however, that the famous anti-theists have no stomach to attack Islam publicly, but eagerly denigrate biblical faith.

Four days after 9/11/2001, Richard Dawkins wrote, “To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns.  Do not be surprised if they are used.”  “Abrahamic kind” – that’s the trick to claim equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

An unexpected consequence of the rise in activist atheism was, however, a reawakened interest in exploring spiritual matters.  McGrath’s own experience in speaking publicly on the relationship between science and faith was a dramatic increase in attendance, expecially after the so-called “Four Horsemen,” Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, ‘went viral’ with their anti-Christian books and appearances.

As I read the twelve essays in the book I noticed some common themes:

• Young atheists, initially impressed by the wit and passion of the activists, eventually reacted to the over-the-top name-calling, realizing that most of the arguments were not rational at all, but superficial and pejorative.
• Apologetics helped along the way toward conversion, but not immediately.
• A typical ingredient was one or more kind, patient, and composed Christians in their life whose witness was personally credible.
• The transformation from atheist to Christian may take many years.
• If the Christian witness has some compromise (doctrinal defects, a worldly church culture, etc.), the convert may not grow effectively.
• If the compromise is too serious, the atheist may convert to theism, but not be born again – he may become a Roman Catholic, for example.

Our western culture is ‘rich’ in satanically-sown corruption, including atheistic / evolutionistic indoctrination.  The enemy is relentless, as we well know, working through the educational systems, entertainment media, government sanction, news sources, etc., to divert souls from Truth.  Accordingly, Christians must be relentless in sowing Gospel seeds through personal witness, Gospel tracts, social media, and in speaking up in season, out of season when Truth is challenged.  I’ve worked at designing thoughtful and challenging tracts on a variety of themes, as you can see at ThinkTracts.com.

The first chapter of the book recounts the testimony of Sy Garte, a PhD biochemist, whose parents were members of the American Communist Party.  He was taught that science rules out the supernatural – a false assertion because science is simply a method to analyze the material world around us.  Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.  Nor is it capable of explaining any nonmaterial concept, including logic, mathematics, justice, integrity, hope, meaning, or love.  Science must be built atop a foundation that includes rational thought, logic, mathematics, and values.  It is a tool to make sense of matter and its interactions; it is a small part of a much wider human experience.

Garte, like me, was also taught about the evil practices of religions historically.  Explorations into religious history was also helpful to me in my youth, to provoke me to reject the Roman Catholic Church of my upbringing.  My path to Christ necessarily led through the atheistic wilderness.

In Sy Garte’s life, the New Atheists overplayed their hand, eventually.  Sy saw Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, as disturbingly vitriolic.  He also found the alleged ‘rational’ arguments to be weak.  For example, morality is supposedly due to evolution.  Humans have ‘evolved’ to do good things for merely reciprocal benefits, or for their kin, to benefit the transmission of genes (kin altruism).  Evil supposedly evolved from selfishness driven by survival impulses.

But Garte had read enough to realize that genes (DNA molecules) do not code for behaviors – they code for proteins.  Which genes can make us nice?  How does that work?  Invoking evolution is just raw assertion.

On the origin of life, Garte discovered that the activist atheists gloss over the vast difficulties in the supposed emergence of biology from chemistry.  This is consistent with my experience, and is extended well beyond theist / atheist debates.  Atheists / evolutionists rarely engage in polite fact-based debates or discussions with Christians / creationists.  Rather, they insult or cancel or persecute (in the schools) anyone who doesn’t kneel down to their dogma.  Similarly Marxists / leftists / Democrats won’t engage in honest policy debates with conservatives / free market / liberty advocates.  Why should they, when personal attacks and censorship work so effectively?

Garte cites Daniel Dennett’s assertion that human consciousness is a myth and Sam Harris’ insistence that free will is an illusion.  Such assertions are trivially discredited.  Does Harris freely write his books or are they the result of mechanistic brain chemistry?  Why should we take the ravings of brain chemistry seriously?  Was Dennett conscious when he wrote his books?  Whom does he expect to read them?  Unconscious people?

Another chapter is authored by the historian Sarah Irving-Stonebraker, who argues that science’s experimental methods are based on the Christian distrust of human sensory and cognitive abilities, with uncertainties rooted in sin and our fallen nature.  She cites historian Peter Harrison, that “the attainment of knowledge was not a natural, easy process, but rather one that called for the imposition of external constraints, rigorous testing of knowledge claims, repeated experiments, . . . the use of artificial instruments to amplify the dim powers of the senses, and the corporate rather than individual production of knowledge.”

In reading the history of science, Sarah was disturbed to discover the intimate compatibility of science with Christian theology, in contradiction to what she had been told by the activist atheists.  She was then shaken by attending a series of lectures at Oxford by the famous atheist philosopher, Peter Singer, who claimed that the innate preciousness and equal value of human beings is a Christian myth.

She realized that in the atheist worldview, with no God there is no purpose for humanity, no love, and that reality is mere biology.  Her conscience was still alive and offended at assertions that the disabled or otherwise undesirable people have no basis for the preservation of their lives.

At age 27 she was already quite successful, a Cambridge PhD, a published author, a fellowship at Oxford, good friends . . . life was great.  But it wasn’t enough.  She hungered for meaning.  Wandering into the theology section of the library, she opened a book of sermons and found them intellectually robust.  The biblical references introduced her to the idea that man is made in the image of God, and that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:  for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”  (Galatians 3:28)  It resonated.  There were many more steps along her path, but eventually she found Jesus.

In Peter Byrom’s essay, he relates a common testimony . . . raised in a Christian home, he dropped his superficial faith when he got to college.  A drama student, he came to view Christians as backward simpletons who saw the world in black and white and believed it to be only six thousand years old.  Interesting.  Even drama students rely on the evolutionary myth to buttress their rejection of the Christian faith.  That’s one reason why I publish a number of tracts refuting the idiocies of evolution.

Byrom attended a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig.  Byrom reports that Craig delivered a detailed, knock-down refutation of Harris’ moral theory, but in Harris’ rebuttal he gave no response to the criticisms.  Namely, he showed up for the debate, but then spoke as if Craig wasn’t even there.  I recently watched a debate between James Tour and an evolutionist on origin of life issues.  Tour delivered a number of very specific challenges and criticisms.  His opponent ignored every one of Tour’s points.  There must be a playbook used by the Devil’s team.

When Johan Erasmus sought entry to the theology program at a South African Christian university, he was interviewed by a panel of faculty.  Asked, “Why do you want to study theology?”, he answered, “I want to know if it is true.”  Wrong answer.  A professor told him, “Brother, you don’t study theology to gain faith; you have faith and then you study theology.”  He switched to humanities.

Interestingly, he came across Kent Hovind’s materials and young-earth creationism.  But a friend with a science background discouraged him from that perspective – unfortunately, Johan provides no details on his rejection of simple biblical truth, despite the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence.  Several times, in fact, he makes disparaging comments about young-earth creationists.  Accordingly, when Johan did become a Christian, he brought along some compromising errors with him.

Still only 19, it wasn’t rational apologetics that helped or hindered him.  His hormones still raged, provoking Johan to find any excuse to avoid repentance.  Johan explains, “When we want something to be true, we find the relevant arguments to support it.  Laurence Peter describes me well:  I was looking for God the same way a thief looks for a policeman.”

Johan read the New Atheists, plus a variety of famous scoffers, back to Friedrich Nietzsche.  But a Christian introduced him to William Lane Craig on morality and design and N.T. Wright on the resurrection.  Eventually, it was a wide variety of sources and arguments, but above all a yearning for “something more” that turned him to Scripture and salvation.

Johan observes that it is not surprising that the Gospel has taken hold much more in Africa than in prosperity-mad Europe.  Mockingly, he suggests that you’ll never see the headline:  “Somalian Pastor Now Atheist After Reflecting on the Problem of Evil in His Underground Church.”  Where suffering is real and widespread, hearts are more open.  He mentions the idea of imagined suffering in the West, where you experience the pain of others more intensely than they do, which leads to virtue signaling and other woke madness in Western culture.

I agree with Johan on another point – Atheism is not the big problem in Western society.  Apathy is.  Indeed.  Apathy sends a lot of souls to Hell.  In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, it was easy and generally interesting and satisfying to get into a debate with skeptics on spiritual issues.  In the last generation, though, it’s much harder to get people to engage, or even lift up their eyes from their phone.

Nick Berryman eventually noticed that The God Delusion exhibited a consistent pattern of ridicule – as opposed to argument – and that the person of Jesus was hardly mentioned.  Odd, that the Center of the Christian faith was ignored in the diatribe against that worldview.  Nick eventually found the Bible to be incredibly honest and realistic about human nature, both in virtues and in flaws.

Another essayist reports how her ultimate conversion resulted in joining the Roman Catholic Church.  Oops.  How did this essay get past the editors?  They must see all of Christendom as Christian.

A testimony from another South African relates how he discovered a church that had a strong emphasis on apologetics.  This church seemed to attract a variety of people who struggled with the faith, but the Christians there provided articulate answers.  They even featured Q&A during worship services.  His experience there was a key factor in his conversion.

I have visited a large number of churches as I’ve traveled around the country.  There is very little interest in apologetics.  Why?  Apologetics focuses on forming coherent and cogent answers to those with objections to the Christian faith, whether atheistic / evolutionistic, or Mormon, or Roman Catholic, or New Age, or whatever.

Such studies are vital defenses for Christians growing in their faith, but also vital on offense for those who want to share their faith.  Anyone practicing 1-2-1 evangelism will be driven to apologetics, so they can answer and help those they share the Gospel with.  So why is there so little interest in apologetics?  Simply because there is so little interest in personal evangelism.  This current generation of evangelical Christians in the West cares not whether the people around them go to Hell.  Yeah, it’s that simple.  They don’t want to play offense.  Furthermore, it is clear that young people growing up in church depart from their supposed faith at a rate of perhaps 90% when they leave home.  Ergo, their parents and church’s pastoral staff are not training the next generation to defend the faith.  They care not whether their children go to Hell.

Most of the testimonies in Coming to Faith Through Dawkins are stories of genuine conversions, no doubt.  But it strikes me that the paths were far too long and tortuous.  They should have encountered far more Christians along the way who cared for their souls.  The Christians they did encounter should have been far more prepared with answers.  Non-Christian worldviews are intrinsically self-contradictory and incoherent, as I’ve discussed on this site many times.  With a little work, Christians can easily help an open-minded unbeliever over his obstacles.

Additionally, it is vital that Christians be prepared with right answers.  Many of the conversion stories end with, yes, a genuine Christian, but a weak one in several ways.  If a Christian, although born again, holds onto errors, his growth will be hindered, and he will hinder others.  Such errors fall into areas such as a literal Genesis (creation in 6 days is what God said He did), Calvinism, Pentecostalism, eternal security, inerrancy (versions), eschatology, and ecclesiology, among others.   My “10 Heresies . . .” essay discusses some of the issues.

That South African church that focused on apologetics – what a rare gem!  Perhaps in your church you could start a small group that focuses on and practices 121 evangelism and apologetics.  You can use the material on this website, however you find it useful.  The books you study – pick the right ones.  I’ve recommended quite a number on this site, and provided cautionary notes in the essays on books that I consider a mixed blessing.

Get busy!

• drdave@truthreallymatters.com