Trust me, this is no joking matter.

I first want to state that Nietzsche was right.

If God is dead as Nietzsche suggested, or if metaphysics is dead as Heidegger suggested, then we have no basis for an understanding of human significance, morality or purpose.

That’s only a big deal if these things are important to you.

It’s totally possible for someone to have purpose and adhere to a basic set of morality without believing in God.  I have friends who fit this category well.  It’s just impossible to explain the basis or origins for said values from a naturalistic worldview.  At some point you have to explain the “ought” behind moral imperatives.  Why “ought” we do one thing instead of another?  Says who?

If there is no God then O.W. Holmes was right:

The 2004 CBS article, America’s Deep, Dark Secret, summarizes the atrocities of the practice of eugenics in America.  In the early 1900’s hundreds of thousands of children were warehoused because they were categorized as “feeble-minded.”  Another awful practice was compulsory sterilization, used to keep less desirable humans from contributing to population growth.  A parody of this practice can be seen in the Darwin Awards.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, supported this practice.  The 1953 Time Magazine article The Nation: A Clear Voice?, credits Holmes for removing the “premise upon which all law had been built.”

“I see no reason”, says Holmes, “for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand.”

If there is no God it is impossible to find a basis for human significance.  Without God we have no standard for dignity or morality.

Holmes understood this.  “Men make their own laws,” he explains, “that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite.”

Holmes practiced what he preached.

He is often remembered for the 1927 court Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, in which he argued for the sterilization of an individual whom he described as, “a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble- minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child.”

Here you can read a longer quote from that case if REALLY want to be offended:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

This sounds like a quote that could be attributed to Adolph Hitler. But wait, Hitler was actually a fan of America’s dark secret.  This is summarized in the 2003 article published by George Mason University’s History Network with the title, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.

While Hitler did closely follow America’s practice of compulsory sterilization, the term was not invented in America.

It was the English scientist Francis Galton, who coined the phrase in 1883.  Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin.  He progressed the theory of evolution and natural selection by applying it as a theory for creating a more perfect human race.

And so it comes full circle.

You can have purpose without God, but you cannot have a coherent, logical and rational basis for it.  If you take naturalism to its natural conclusion you are left without a basis for human dignity, personality, or morality.

Galton progressed Darwin’s philosophy and Hitler took it to its natural conclusion.

I know this seems harsh and there are many who would think I’m going too far.  For example, Daniel J. Kevles, Professor of History at Yale University, argues in a PBS article that, “Some supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution have misapplied the biological principles of natural selection – ‘survival of the fittest’ — to the social, political, and economic realms.”

Wait a minute. If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, and survival of the fittest is the law of nature, then what is unnatural about applying his theories to social, political and economic realms?  If there is no God then by what standard do you deem such applications to be wrong?  Applying a theory that “describes the origin of the species” to all of life seems very natural.  At least O.W. Holmes and Adolph Hitler thought so.

This has been a long post and if you have read this far let me finish by simply saying that I’m profoundly thankful for the truth expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Francis Schaeefer summarized this well, “If God exists and we are made in his image we can have real meaning, and we can have real knowledge through what he has communicated to us.”

God exists and we have purpose.  I believe it.

In the Alumni Memorial Chapel Building I have been challenged by some of the worlds greatest preachers who have visited our campus: D. James Kennedy, John Piper,  C.J. Mahaney, David Platt, Alistair Begg, R. C. Sproul, Adrian Rodgers, John MacAthur, and the list could go on and on…

Today’s chapel sermon will be added to the list of providential words that will forever be etched in my mind.

Dr. Russell Moore’s sermon from 1 Corinthians 3 and 4 resonated with my understanding of Scripture as well as my own lived experience.  You can watch the video from his sermon here.

Today I was reminded that apologetics is important but insufficient.

Because we are clearly told to have an answer for anyone who asks about our hope in Christ, apologetics is an act of obedience and therefore a part of our sanctification.  Because we see in the Apostle Paul a pattern of reasoning with his audience, we know that apologetics is a critical part of evangelistic endeavors.

But it’s not enough.

I believe defending our faith is important.  But it’s not enough.

I believe understanding secular philosophy is important. But it’s not enough.

I believe challenging secular propaganda is important.  But it’s not enough.

Only the clarity of the gospel aided by the power of the Spirit can open blind eyes and awaken dead hearts.

I believe there is a Messianic metanarrative that has the exclusive power to satisfactorily answer humanity’s questions and heal its heartaches.

Only the power of God working through the Spirit can convict hearts of the truthfulness of the gospel.

Your logic and ability to reason will help.  But they are not enough.

We need the Spirit.

I’m not sure if they’ve ever met, but I have a difficult time imagining the two of them hitting it off.  I can’t see Rev. Warren in his short sleeve, button-up Hawaiian top palling around with the well-groomed, British scholar Richard Dawkins.

As such, I was surprised to read both of their names in the same chapter of Greg Epstein’s recent book Good Without God.  Epstein reprimands one and recommends another.  Can you guess which one received the glowing endorsement?

I’m not sure I would call it altogether positive, but Rick Warren takes up about three times as much space as the brief reference to Dawkins in the third chapter of the book.  Epstein reprimands Dawkins for having no hope to offer one of his followers who was contemplating suicide.  Dawkins pointed the student to find help in sharing his story on the Richard Dawkins Foundation blog or even to seek comfort from a campus chaplain.

Needless to say, Epstein felt that this was a poor counseling technique:

“Is that the best we can do? Rage, against the dying of the Enlightenment, then shoo our troubled youth right back to religion because we’re too distracted or cerebral or both to spend a few minutes of our deep thoughts on how to be more loving, more helpful? I admire Richard Dawkins and am thankful for the majority of the work he does.  But that essay of his stands as part of the public record, and it is troubling, because Dawkins has been cast as something of a world atheist spokesman in recent years and he can be emotionally tone-deaf on this crucial issue.”

In contrast, Epstein discusses the popularity of Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life.  Epstein argues that humanity’s longing for meaning is not to be found in God, but in Humanism.  Interestingly, both Rick Warren’s book and the movie Facing the Giants are sited as sources of inspiration for Epstein.

While he admires the purpose and meaning found in Christianity, he completely rejects its truthfulness:

Next I asked myself why I was having so much trouble finding the right words to offer, and finding so much inspiration in this Christian message, when I was convinced that Christianity’s supernatural story of a resurrected God, born of a virgin, dying for our sins, was simply a human-created myth.  Thankfully I then finally realized what attentive readers most likely figured out many paragraphs ago.  That Rick Warren was right about the way I was approaching my work.  He wasn’t right about Jesus, or God, or heaven, or hell.  He was dead wrong on gay marriage, abortion, and about atheists being more arrogant than Christians.  But he was absolutely right in the sense that I’d fallen into the trap of thinking that my work, in this case writing this book, was all about me.

I think Epstein provides a winsome presentation for a rebranding of atheism.

In my humble opinion, Humanism is essentially a “PR” buzzword hoped to replace atheism. Webster defines Humanism as, “a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.”

In comparing Humanism with Atheism I’m reminded of the line from the Herman’s Hermits’ song, “Second verse – same as the first.”  Its differences are more of style and attitude than of substance.  Perhaps we could call it “Atheism With a Smile” or “How to Have Your Best Atheism Now.”  Because I think a search for morality in a godless universe is an impossible quest I prefer the title “The Atheist Delusion.”

I think a more honest depiction can be found in the statement deduced from Dostoyevsky’s character Ivan Karamazov, if there is no God, everything is permitted.  In a similar way, Friedrich Nietzsche spoke through a character to declare, “God is dead.”  In both writings you get the sense that there is something of a moral abyss or a lack of moral restraint apart from the existence of God.

In the end I’m not sure Greg Epstein provides a compelling case.  I think you are either with Rick or you are with Richard. I’m not sure Greg offers a valid third option.  You either have a morality that can only be derived from a lawgiver, or you are left with nothing significant to say to a suicidal student.

I think we should find a clue in the fact that a book with the title Good Without God sparks our curiosity.  We all perk up to hear how a naturalist might explain morality.  There is just something very unnatural about it.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Things were beginning to unravel.

The darkness of the moment was palpable.

Jesus’ immanent death had been illustrated by the observance of the traditional Passover meal.  Peter’s forthcoming denial was prophesied.  The abundant life that Jesus had spoken so much of seemed to be very distant from this precarious scene.

In the fourteenth chapter of the gospel of John we see the Messiah speaking words of comfort to his disheartened disciples.

On the eve of his death he encouraged them with these words:

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.”

They would be able to endure the pain of seeing him brutally murdered because they knew there was more to the story.  The grave would not be the end.  His resurrection would provide the courage they needed to take the gospel beyond the city limits of Jerusalem at the risk of their very lives.  Death was about to be undone.

I’m thankful for a disciple who is known for doubt.  His name is Thomas.  He asked a simple question in response to Jesus’ promise, “Lord, we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way?”

Jesus’ response is epic, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.”

Perhaps the most abiding joy and confidence we can experience today will come as a result of grasping and being grasped by the truth of Jesus’ words.  He alone is the way, the truth and the life. Our frail lives are but a vapor and death will come for us all.  But in Christ death will be undone. One day we will be with him.  This is joy and this is peace, to know the Undoer of death and the Savior of our souls.

Scripture taken from John 14:1-6, NASB

Everyone cannot be right. Some questions really are dumb.  Many answers are even worse.

In an earlier post, I spoke of the Devil in disguise.  I referred to pseudo preachers who are sometimes known for filling convention centers with eager audiences attune to spiritually shallow pep talks.  Whether they are known for writing a new kind of book or telling you how to have the best kind of life, it seems that agreeing with Jesus is something they are reluctant to do.

Jesus said he was the only way to the Father.

Quit apologizing for Jesus.

Quit masking his claim with your need for acceptance, affirmation and applause.

He said he was the only way to the Father.

Quit censoring him.  He was either right or wrong.

He wasn’t neutral.

Quit placing him in a middle category.

Religious relativism was thought to be the cure to rid the world of religious fanatics. It has really turned out to be a curse. It has innoculated western minds to truth and has infected them with indifference.

We must fight our intrinsic instincts to accommodate the culture and dilute the claims of Christ.

Don’t do it.

Don’t dilute the Gospel.

One popular preacher when asked on Larry King if followers of other religions would go to Heaven responded with the wimpy words “I can’t be their judge.”

He’s right.  He’s not their judge.

But he is called to be a witness.

You too will feel the pull to concede the truth.

Don’t do it.

Don’t concede.

Speak the truth in love.

Political correctness and religious relativism are not a cure.

They are a curse.

They are the Devil in disguise.

“All religions are not the same.  All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same.  At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life’s purpose.  Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.”

-Ravi Zacharius