Are Their Reasons Sound?

DO YOU believe that man can get along without reference to God? It may be true that he tries to get along in this way. But does he succeed?

What you see happening in the world today is a result of man’s trying to get along without God. True, some of the world’s leaders claim to be believers; but the French philosopher Voltaire once correctly pointed out: “Most of the great men of this world live as if they were atheists. . . . The knowledge of a God, his presence, and his justice, has not the slightest influence over the wars, the treaties, the objects of ambition, interest, or pleasure, in the pursuit of which they are wholly occupied.”

What has been the fruitage of this ‘living as if they were atheists’? Hunger, oppression, crime, disease and unhappiness. Human existence is made miserable by pollution and overcrowding. A newspaper article dated March 6, 1979, listed a number of lands with populations totaling a quarter of mankind that, on that particular day, were embroiled in terrorist activity, civil strife or outright war.

The Bible insists that man cannot rule himself successfully without help. At Jeremiah 10:23 it states: “The course of man is not in his control, nor is it in man’s power . . . to guide his steps.” (The Jerusalem Bible) Events today bear out the truth of this. However, the Bible tells us that God’s guidance is there for those who really want it.

Do We Need God Emotionally?

Atheists feel that man can “get along . . . emotionally . . . without reference to God.” Is that so?

The evidence shows that man is religious by nature. All civilizations throughout history have featured some system of worship.

And what happens when people resist what has been described as their “need to believe”? They may turn to the worship of money, power, science, political dogmas or self. Even atheism can become a religion. Psychiatrist Stafford-Clark says of those who argue in favor of atheism: “The passion with which they will defend this . . . is yet further vivid evidence of the emotional necessity of belief.”

How About Intellectually?

Is it not true that men can explain the existence of things without referring to God? They try to. There has been a growing movement to relegate God to the background.

Do you agree with that point of view? If so, reflect for a moment. To what extent is this due to your own thinking? And how much is due to the influence of the “intellectual climate” that exists in the world today?

Philosopher Leslie Dewart, as quoted in the book Religion in a Secular Age, says that “contemporary men . . . are shaped by the scientific culture of the day, as medieval men were shaped by the theological culture of their day.” In the Middle Ages, most people believed in God. That was the kind of society that existed then. Besides, it was often dangerous not to! However, their belief was often unreasoning and superstitious. Sometimes the “theological culture” of those days tended to block the progress of science. Hence, when Galileo came up with his revolutionary discoveries, the religious leaders then tried to make him “recant” (although, in fact, what he had discovered in no way contradicted what the Bible said).

These days, the shoe is on the other foot, as it were. There is almost as much pressure not to believe in God as there used to be to believe in him. Even clergymen abandon parts of the Bible in favor of modern theories such as evolution. Some even reject Bible standards of morality and approve such things as homosexuality and fornication.

Is either of these situations, the medieval or the modern, correct? The fact that the medieval superstitious view was unbalanced does not make the modern, materialistic view right. For example, Doctor Wernher von Braun, prominent American rocket engineer, is on record as saying: “It is as difficult for me to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe, as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Can Evolution Replace Belief in God?

Before Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, most people supposed that there had to be a God, since there was no other way to explain the existence of things. But with acceptance of the theory of evolution, many apparently felt that there was no longer any need for belief in God.

However, if you believe in evolution, you may be interested in the comments that appeared in a recent issue of Harper’s magazine as to what shaped Darwin’s thinking. Was it really based on an objective analysis of living things and of the fossil record? Stephen J. Gould, a professor of biology at Harvard University, is quoted as saying: “Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assumption from the start—it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks; it expressed the cultural and political biases of nineteenth-century liberalism.” In other words, Darwin’s thinking was conditioned by the society in which he lived. Karl Marx is quoted as saying: “It is remarkable how Darwin recognizes among the beasts and plants his English society with its divisions of labor, competition, [and so forth].”

Many scientists today raise serious questions as to the validity of theories set forth in support of evolution. Why, then, is belief in Darwin’s teaching still advocated? The article goes on to say: “There are those who argue that the abandonment of the evolutionary mechanism would inevitably lead to doubts that evolution had occurred at all. That is undoubtedly why Darwin is still defended so stoutly . . . because [his supporters] are materialists.”

But their unwillingness to consider an alternative does not mean that evolution has to be right, does it?a No more than the stubbornness of the religious leaders in Galileo’s day meant that he had to be wrong. Emotion and prejudice can blind scientists just as easily as it can blind religious leaders.

The truth is that, in spite of all the pressures of “modernism” to abandon belief in God, or at least to relegate him to the background, many persons are firmly convinced as to the existence of God. And the increase of scientific knowledge in our days only makes their conviction stronger.

[Footnotes]

[Box on page 5]

“In the Middle Ages, most people believed in God. That was the kind of society that existed then. . . . These days, the shoe is on the other foot.”

[Box on page 6]

Scientists Raise Doubts

Are scientists united in accepting evolution? That is what many have been led to believe. However, literally thousands of reputable scientists in the United States alone reject evolution or question it on scientific grounds, and evolutionary scientists themselves often admit great flaws in the theory. Note the observations of some of these:

“In recent decades, the interpretations about man’s possible origins have changed so considerably that there’s room for caution in saying where man came from and when. A lot of scientists just give back the party line. But there are adequate grounds to question evolution without any religious presuppositions.”—King’s College biologist Wayne F. Friar.

“It’s dogmatism, not science. It doesn’t make sense in terms of today’s scientific knowledge.”—Michigan State University natural scientist John N. Moore.

“I should remind the reader that some of the oldest and most troublesome questions about human evolution remain unanswered. . . . As in the past, the present proponents of various hypotheses may be wrong on the very points on which they are surest they are right. . . . all views of human evolution are built on seeming facts that vary widely in their degree of reliability.”—Professor of Physical Anthropology Sherwood L. Washburn, University of California at Berkeley.

Could any microscopic life-form that supposedly evolves from the inanimate reproduce itself?

“It is particularly pertinent to point out that the eminent theoretical physicist, Eugene P. Wigner, in a little known publication, gave an elegant and rigorous proof from group theory, that the probability for spontaneous existence of a self-reproducing unit of any kind is zero.”—Edward A. Boudreaux, Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of New Orleans.