http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101
The Moral Argument for the Existence of God
In
November 2006, several of the world’s leading atheistic evolutionary
scientists gathered in La Jolla, California for the first “Beyond
Belief” symposium (see
Lyons and Butt, 2007), which the scientific journal
New Scientist called
“an ‘atheist love fest’” (Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The conference
was held to discuss science, religion, and God, and specifically whether
science should “do away with religion” (Brooks, 2006, 192[2578]:9).
New Scientist writer
Michael Brooks summarized the overall attitude of the attendees in the
following words: “science can take on religion and win” (p. 11). The
participants were ready to roll up their sleeves and “get on with it”
(p. 11). They were ready to put science “
In Place of God,” as Brooks titled his article.
Fast-forward one year to 2007—to the “Beyond Belief II” symposium—where
some of the participants apparently approached the idea of a
Supernatural Being much more cautiously. Even
New Scientist,
who covered the conference for a second year in a row, chose a
drastically different article title the second time around—from “In
Place of God” to the more sober, “
God’s Place in a
Rational World” (see Reilly, 196[2629]:7, emp. added). Author Michael
Reilly gave some insight into the meeting by recording what one
attendee, Edward Slingerland of the University of British Columbia (and
founder of the Centre for the Study of Human Evolution, Cognition and
Culture), openly acknowledged.
“Religion is not going away,” he announced. Even those of us who fancy ourselves rationalists and scientists, he said, rely on moral values—a set of distinctly unscientific beliefs.
Where, for instance, does our conviction that human rights are
universal come from? “Humans’ rights to me are as mysterious as the holy
trinity.... You can’t do a CT scan to show where humans’ rights are,
you can’t cut someone open and show us their human rights.... It’s not
an empirical thing, it’s just something we strongly believe. It’s a
purely metaphysical entity” (p. 7, emp. added).
Although some at the conference had the naïve belief that “[g]iven time and persistence, science will conquer
all of
nature’s mysteries” (Reilly, p. 7, emp. added), it is encouraging to
know that at least one person alluded to one of the greatest proofs for
God’s existence—the moral argument.
OBJECTIVE MORALITY
Why do most rational people believe in objective morality? That is, why
do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some
actions are “wrong,” regardless of people’s subjective opinions? Why do
most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to
walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in
sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an
adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for
parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually
every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland
noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond
what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2011)—and “rely on
moral values.” The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have
admitted that real, objective good and evil exist.
Antony Flew
During the last half of the 20
th century, Dr. Antony Flew,
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading in Reading,
England, was considered one of the world’s most well known atheistic
philosophers. From 1955-2000, he lectured and wrote extensively on
matters pertaining to atheism. Some of his works include, but in no way
are limited to,
God and Philosophy (1966),
Evolutionary Ethics (1967),
Darwinian Evolution (1984),
The Presumption of Atheism (1976), and
Atheistic Humanism
(1993). In September 1976, Dr. Flew debated Dr. Thomas B. Warren,
Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Christian Apologetics at Harding
Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee. Prior to this
four-night debate on the existence of God, Warren, in agreement with the
rules of the debate, asked Flew several questions in writing, including
the following: “True/False. In murdering six million Jewish men, women,
and children the Nazis were guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.”
Flew answered “True.” He acknowledged the existence of “real (objective)
moral wrong” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 248). [NOTE: In 2004, Flew
started taking steps toward theism as he acknowledged the impossibility
of a purely naturalistic explanation for life. See
Miller, 2004 for more information.]
Wallace Matson
In 1978, Dr. Warren met Dr. Wallace Matson, Professor of Philosophy at
the University of California in Berkeley, California, in a public debate
on the existence of God in Tampa, Florida. Once again, per the
agreed-upon guidelines, the disputants were allowed to ask up to 10
questions prior to their debate. Once more, Warren asked: “True/False.
In murdering six million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were
guilty of real (objective) moral wrong.” Like Flew, Matson answered
“True:” “real (objective) moral wrong” exists (Warren and Matson, 1978,
p. 353). Matson even acknowledged in the affirmative (i.e., “true”) that
“[i]f you had been a soldier during World War II and if the Nazis (1)
had captured you and (2) had given you the choice of either joining them
in their efforts to exterminate the Jews or being murdered, you would
have had the
objective moral obligation to
die
rather than to join them in the murder of Jewish men, women, and
children” (p. 353, underline in orig.). Do not miss the point: Matson
not only said that the Nazis were guilty of objective moral wrong, he
even indicated that a person would have the “objective moral obligation
to die” rather than join up with the murderous Nazi regime.
As Easy as 2 + 2
Although objective morality may be outside the realm of the scientific
method, every rational person can know that some things are innately
good, while other things are innately evil. Antony Flew and Wallace
Matson, two of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20
th
century, forthrightly acknowledged the existence of objective morality.
Though at times atheist Michael Ruse has seemed opposed to the idea of
moral objectivity (see Ruse, 1989, p. 268), evenhe admitted in his book
Darwinism Defended that “[t]he man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is just as
mistaken
as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275, emp. added). Indeed,
one of the many reasons that “religion (i.e., God—EL) is not going
away,” to use Edward Slingerland’s words, is because moral values are a
metaphysical reality (cf. Romans 2:14-15). Philosophers Francis Beckwith
and Gregory Koukl said it well: “
Those who deny obvious moral rules—who
say that murder and rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a
vice, and that cowardice is a virtue—do not merely have a different
moral point of view; they
have something wrong with them” (1998, p. 59, emp. added).
THE MORAL ARGUMENT
The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a
variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic
argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and
Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: God exists.
Thomas B. Warren worded the argument in a positive, more detailed
manner in his debates with atheist Antony Flew (p. 173) and Wallace
Matson (p. 285).
-
If the moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can
properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong), then there
must be some objective standard (some “higher law which transcends the
provincial and transient”) which is other than the particular moral code
and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.
-
The moral code and/or actions of any individual or society can properly be subjects of criticism (as to real moral wrong).
-
Therefore, there must be some objective standard (some “higher law
which transcends the provincial and transient”) which is other than the
particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be
recognized.
The “society” that Warren used as a case study in his debates was Adolf
Hitler’s Nazi regime. In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi Germany committed
state-sponsored genocide of so-called “inferior races.” Of the
approximately nine million Jews who lived in Europe at the beginning of
the 1930s, some six million of them were exterminated. The Nazis
murdered approximately one million Jewish children, two million Jewish
women, and three million Jewish men. The Nazis herded them into railway
cars like cattle, shipping them to concentration camps. Sometimes the
floors of the railway cars were layered with quicklime, which would burn
the feet of the prisoners, including the children. The Jews were
starved, gassed, and experimented on like animals. Hitler slaughtered
another three million Poles, Soviets, gypsies, and people with
disabilities (see “Holocaust,” 2011 for more information).
So were the Nazis guilty of “real (objective) moral wrong”? According
to atheist Antony Flew, they were (Warren and Flew, p. 248). Atheist
Wallace Matson agreed (Warren and Matson, p. 353). Whether theist or
atheist, most rational people admit that some things really are
atrocious. People do not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be
wrong; they
are wrong—innately wrong. Just as two plus
two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that
some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively
evil. However, reason demands that objective good and evil can only
exist if there is some real, objective point of reference. If something
(e.g., rape) “can properly be the subject of criticism (as to real moral
wrong)
then there must be some objective standard
(some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’) which
is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory
character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284, emp.
added).
DOES ATHEISM PROVIDE A LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR MORALITY?
Recognition by atheists of anything being morally wrong begs the
question: How can an atheistlogically call something atrocious,
deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but
matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over
billions of years. But who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral
minerals,” “corrupt chemicals,” or “sinful slime?” People do not talk
about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs
are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo
dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet consists of younger
Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Black widows are
not exterminated simply because the female often kills the male after
copulation. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear to
forcibly copulate with females (cf. Thornhill, 2001). Dogs are not
depraved for stealing the bone of another dog.
The fact that humans even contemplate morality testifies to the huge
chasm between man and animals. Atheistic evolutionists have admitted
that morals arise only in humans. According to Antony Flew, man is a
moral being, yet “value did not exist before the first human being”
(Warren and Flew, p. 248). Flew believed that morals came into existence
only after
man evolved, not beforehand when allegedly
only animals existed on Earth. Though George Gaylord Simpson, one of the
most recognized atheistic evolutionists of the 20
th century,
believed that “man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic
process that did not have him in mind,” he confessed that “[g]ood and
evil, right and wrong,
concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become
real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because
morals arise only in man” (1951, p. 179, emp. added). Atheists admit that people (i.e., even “atheists”) have “their own
innate
sense of morality” (“Do Atheists…?, n.d.). No rational person makes
such admissions about animals. As evolutionist Edward Slingerland
stated, “
Humans,” not animals, “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7).
Atheistic evolution cannot logically explain morals. Real, objective
moral right or wrong cannot exist if humans are the offspring of
animals. Young people (who are not allowed to act like animals at
school) are frequently “reminded” in public school textbooks that they
are the offspring of animals. According to one Earth science textbook,
“Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion
years ago” (
Earth Science, 1989, p. 356).
When I graduated from high school in 1994, millions of public high
school students in America were introduced to a new biology textbook by
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. What sort of amazing things did they learn?
For one, they were informed, “
You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms” (Johnson, 1994, p. 453, emp. added). Allegedly, man not only
descended from fish and four-footed beasts, we
are beasts. Charles Darwin declared in chapter two of his book
The Descent of Man: “My object in this chapter is solely to show that
there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (1871, 1:34). More recently, evolutionary environmentalist David Suzuki was interviewed by Jo Marchant of
New Scientist magazine. Suzuki proclaimed: “[W]e must acknowledge that
we are animals....
We like to think of ourselves as elevated above other creatures. But
the human body evolved” from animals (as quoted in Marchant, 2008,
200[2678]:44, emp. added). One has to look no further than Marchant’s
title to know his view of humanity. Allegedly, “
We Should Act Like the Animals We Are”
(p. 44, emp. added). The fact is, as Thomas B. Warren concluded in his
debate with Antony Flew, “[T]he basic implication of the atheistic
system does not allow objective moral right or objective moral wrong”
(1977, p. 49).
ATHEISM: CONTRADICTORY AT BEST, HIDEOUS AT WORST
Atheists cannot logically condemn the Nazis for objective moral evil,
while simultaneously saying that we arose from rocks and rodents. They
cannot reasonably rebuke a child molester for being immoral, while at
the same time believing that we evolved from slime. Reason demands that
objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective
reference point. As Warren stated: “[T]here must be some objective
standard (some “higher law which transcends the provincial and
transient”) which is other than the particular moral code and which has
an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p.
284).
Atheists find themselves in a conundrum: (1) They must admit to
objective morality
(which ultimately means that a moral lawgiver, i.e., God, Who is above
and beyond the provincial and the transient, exists); or, (2) They must
contend that
everything is relative—that no action on Earth could ever be objectively good or evil. Rather, everything is subjective and situational.
Relatively few atheists seem to have had the courage (or audacity) to
say forthrightly that atheism implies that objective good and evil do
not
exist. However, a few have. Some of the leading atheists and agnostics
in the world, in fact, understand that if there is no God, then there
can be no ultimate, binding standard of morality for humanity. Charles
Darwin understood perfectly the moral implications of atheism, which is
one reason he gave for being “content to remain an Agnostic” (1958, p.
94). In his autobiography, he wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever
present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future
existence with retribution and reward,
can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see,
only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones”
(1958, p. 94, emp. added). If a person has the urge to suffocate
innocent children, like a snake may suffocate its victims (including
people), then, if there is no God, there is no objective moral law
against suffocating children. If a person impulsively drowns a kind
elderly person, similar to a crocodile drowning its prey, then, if
atheism is true, this action could neither be regarded as objectively
good or evil.
According to Richard Dawkins, one of the early 21
st century’s most famous atheists, “[L]ife has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA” (1995, 273[5]:80):
So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process.
Genes don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care about
anything…. DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its
music…. This universe that we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference (p. 85, emp. added).
Although Dawkins could never prove that life’s sole purpose is to
perpetuate DNA, he is right about one thing: if there is no God, then
there is no good and no evil, only “pitiless indifference.” “It does not
matter” to atheistic evolution “who or what gets hurt.”
Like Darwin and Dawkins, atheistic evolutionary biologist William
Provine implicitly acknowledged the truthfulness of the first premise of
the moral argument as stated by philosophers Craig and Cowan (“If God
does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”). In 1988,
Provine penned an article for
The Scientist titled, “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible” (2[16]:10). Although
true science and Christianity live in perfect harmony with each other, Provine, in so far as he was referring to
evolutionary science and its implications, was exactly right: evolutionary science and religion are incompatible. According to Provine,
No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless
mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely
with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make
choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of
heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No
inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding
principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we
have no ultimate meaning in life (1988, p. 10, emp. added).
Provine went on in the article to accuse evolutionists who fail to take
their theory to its logical conclusion of suffering from the “trying to
have one’s cake and eat it, too” syndrome. He supposed that they may be
acting out of fear or wishful thinking or may just be intellectually
dishonest. Why? Because they do not boldly admit what he does: atheistic
evolution is true. Therefore, “No inherent moral or ethical laws
exist.”
Atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sartre summarized atheism well in a
lecture he gave in 1946 titled “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Sartre
stated, “
Everything is indeed permitted if God does not
exist…. [H]e cannot find anything to depend upon either within or
outside himself ” (1989, emp. added). “If God does not exist,” Sartre
recognized that we have no “values or commands that could legitimise our
behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous
realm of values, any means of justification or excuse” (1989).
Though few they may be, atheists such as Provine, Sartre, and others
refuse to walk down the road of contradiction. That is, rather than deny
the premise: “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not
exist,” they acknowledge it: “[e]verything is indeed permitted if God
does not exist” (Sartre, 1989). Yet, if atheists refuse to admit that
real moral objectivity exists, then they are forced to admit that, for
example, when the Jews were starved, gassed, and experimented on “like
the animals” they reportedly were (cf. Marchant, 2008), the Nazis did
nothing inherently wrong. They were, to borrow from Provine, merely
complex organic, meaningless mechanisms that chose to follow the orders
of the Fuhrer. Or, to apply Dawkins reasoning, how could Hitler be
guilty of wrong doing if he was simply trying to perpetuate the survival
of the “best” DNA possible? “[I]t does not matter who or what gets hurt
in the process,” right? “So long as DNA is passed on” (Dawkins,
273[5]:85). Should we not just react with “pitiless indifference” since
atheism implies that objective good and evil do not exist (p. 85)?
What about most of humanity’s condemnation of rape as an objective
moral evil? Is it really an inherently evil act? Although evolutionist
Randy Thornhill, co-author of the book
A Natural History of Rape,
“would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (Thornhill and
Palmer, 2000, p. xi), he touted in a 2001 speech he delivered in
Vancouver that rape is actually “evolutionary, biological and natural….
Our male ancestors became ancestors in part because they conditionally
used rape” (2001). According to Thornhill and Palmer, “Evolutionary
theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on
both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific
reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape…. Human
rape
arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a
high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates”
(2000, pp. 55,190). If God does not exist, and if man evolved from lower
life forms, in part because they “conditionally used rape,” then even
rape cannot be called an objective moral evil. In fact, that is exactly
what atheist Dan Barker admitted.
In his 2005 debate with Peter Payne on
Does Ethics Require God?, Barker stated: “All actions are situational.
There is not an action that is right or wrong.
I can think of an exception in any case” (emp. added). Four years
later, Kyle Butt asked Barker in their debate on the existence of God,
“When would rape be acceptable?” (2009, p. 33). Although Barker tried to
make his response as palatable as possible, he ultimately admitted that
rape would be permissible if, for example, it meant saving humanity
from certain destruction (pp. 33-34). [NOTE: One wonders how Barker can
logically say that no actions are right or wrong, but then claim that
situation ethics is right? Such a claim is a self-defeating statement.
“Nothing is right. But situation ethics is right!?” Furthermore, on what
basis does Barker think it is “right” to save humanity? His entire
answer ultimately contradicts his already contradictory contentions.]
Barker went on to admit (and even disturbingly joke) that it would be
acceptable to rape two, two thousand, or even two million women, if,
say, it resulted in saving six billion people from hypothetical alien
invaders (p. 34). [NOTE: Alien invaders are not really all that
imaginary in the world of atheism. After all, since life supposedly
evolved on Earth, according to atheistic evolutionists it had to have
also evolved in one form or another on some other distant planets in the
Universe.] Do not miss the point. Dan Barker admitted that rape would
be acceptable given certain circumstances. One obvious question is:
who gets to decide the circumstances that warrant the rape of innocent women?
Who is Barker to say that a man would be wrong to rape a woman for
revenge, say, because she crashed into his new car? Or, who is Barker to
say that it would be wrong to rape a woman for stealing $1,000 from
him, etc. The fact is, once Barker (or any atheist) alleges that (1) God
does not exist, and (2) therefore, “[n]o inherent moral or ethical laws
exist” (Provine, 1988, 2[16]:10; a logical deduction if God does not
exist), then no one can logically be criticized for anything. As Sartre
put it: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist” (1989).
Rape, child abuse, multiple murder, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. cannot
be condemned as objective evil, if God does not exist.
What happens when atheistic evolutionists take their godless philosophy
to its logical conclusion, at least theoretically? They unveil the
true, hideous nature of atheism. Consider, for example, the comments
evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka made in 2006 in Beaumont, Texas where
he was recognized as the Distinguished Texas Scientist of the Year.
According to Forrest M. Mimms, III, Chairman of the Environmental
Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, Pianka condemned “the
idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe” and
“hammered his point home by exclaiming, ‘We’re no better than
bacteria!’” (Mims, 2006). Pianka followed up this comment by expressing
his concerns “about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth”
(Mims). According to Mims,
Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without
drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this
number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth
is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.... His
favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population
is airborne Ebola (
Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years (2006; for more information, see
Butt, 2008, 28[7]:51-52).
Although most people (a good 90% anyway) find Pianka’s suggestion
appalling, if atheism is true, and humanity really “evolved from
bacteria” (
Earth Science, 1989, p. 356), there would be nothing
inherently wrong for a man to attempt to murder billions of people,
especially if he is doing it for a “good” reason (i.e., to save the only
planet in the Universe on which we know for sure life exists). [NOTE:
Again, such a reason that is deemed “good” can only exist if God does.]
CONCLUSION
The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the
self-contradictory, atrocious philosophy that it is. Atheists must
either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise
(“If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist”) and
illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow
arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s
second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane,
utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse,
etc. can
never once be condemned as objectively
“wrong.” According to atheism, individuals who commit such actions are
merely doing what their DNA led them to do. They are simply following
through with their raw impulses and instincts, which allegedly evolved
from our animal ancestors. What’s more, if atheism is true, individuals
could never logically be punished for such immoral actions, since “no
inherent moral or ethical laws exist” (Provine, 1988, p. 10).
For those who refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), life
will forever be filled with the self-contradictory, unreasonable,
inhumane lies of atheistic evolution. Indeed, “The fool has said in his
heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1a). When atheists actually follow
through with their godless philosophy and let it complete its journey of
indifference, they peel back the phony charming façade of atheism and
reveal it for what the psalmist said that it actually is: corrupt and
abominable, where no one does good (Psalm 14:1b). On the other hand,
when theists follow the evidence to the Creator (cf. Psalm 19:1-4), they
discover a benevolent God Who is good (Psalm 100:5; Mark 10:18) and Who
demands that His obedient followers “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10).
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan and Peter Payne (2005),
Does Ethics Require God?, http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ethics_debate.php.
Beckwith, Francis and Gregory Koukl (1998),
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker),
http://books.google.com/books?id=JulBONF0BKMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false).
Brooks, Michael (2006), “In Place of God,”
New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11, November 18.
Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Bitter Fruit of Atheism—Part 1,”
Reason & Revelation, 28[7]:49-55, July,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=603.
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009),
Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Cowan, Steven (2005), “The Question of Moral Values,”
The Big Argument: Does God Exist?, eds. John Ashton and Michael Westcott (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Craig, William Lane (no date), “Moral Argument,”
Reasonable Faith, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/documents/podcast_docs/defenders_2/Existence_of_God_Moral-Argument.pdf.
Craig, William Lane and Michael Tooley (1994), “Dr. Craig’s Opening Statement,”
A Classic Debate on the Existence of God, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley1.html.
Darwin, Charles (1871),
The Descent of Man: Volume 1 (New
York: Appleton), http://books.google.com
/books?id=ZvsHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA126&dq=The+Descent+of+Man+volume+1&hl=en&ei=vzwwTtjoDurc0QH7
mNWFAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Darwin, Charles (1958),
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).
Dawkins, Richard (1995), “God’s Utility Function,”
Scientific American, 273[5]:80-85, November.
“Do Atheists Have Morals?” (no date), http://www.askanatheist.org/morals.html.
Earth Science (1989), (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich).
“Holocaust” (2011),
Encyclopedia.com, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Holocaust.aspx#1.
Johnson, George B. (1994),
Biology: Visualizing Life (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,”
Reason & Revelation, 27[1]:1-5, January,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3195,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=585.
Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,”
New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.
“Metaphysical” (2011),
Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Atheist Finally ‘Sobers Up,’” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1467.
Mims, Forrest (2006), “Meeting Doctor Doom,”
The Ecologic Powerhouse, http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/mims-506.html.
Provine, William (1988), “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,”
The Scientist, 2[16]:10, September 5, http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/8667/.
Reilly, Michael (2007), “God’s Place in a Rational World,”
New Scientist, 196[2629]:7, November 10.
Ruse, Michael (1982),
Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Ruse, Michael (1989),
The Darwinian Paradigm (London:
Routledge), http://books.google.com/books?id=
4iAhPbYwHOUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+darwinian+paradigm&hl=en&ei=3dgtTomSOofagAeiqLH7Cg&
sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Sartre, Jean-Paul (1989), “Existentialism is Humanism,” in
Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre,
ed. Walter Kaufman, trans. Philip Mairet (Meridian Publishing Company),
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1951),
The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Mentor).
Thornhill, Randy (2001), “A Natural History of Rape,” Lecture delivered
at Simon Fraser University,
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/Thornhill_on_rape.pdf.
Thornhill, Randy and Craig T. Palmer (2000),
A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge: MIT Press).
Warren, Thomas and Antony G.N. Flew (1977),
The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press), info@nationalchristianpress.net.
Warren, Thomas B. and Wallace I. Matson (1978),
The Warren-Matson Debate (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press), info@nationalchristianpress.net.
The
view of Jesus that prevails in popular culture is one that portrays Him
as unconcerned with logic and correct attention to doctrinal detail.
Diluted Christendom has conjured up a Jesus that is non-confrontational,
“politically correct,” and would never be “judgmental” or “intolerant.”
Nevertheless, the New Testament—the only source for ascertaining the
identity of Jesus—depicts Him in a completely different light.