“Nationally, in 2014, 23% of all American adults identified themselves as atheists,” claims a news report from The Wall Street Journal (June 4-5, 2016). “Secular Voters Raise Their Voices” by Laura Meckler analyzes the religious faith of voters. While it is pointed out that the largest voting block among Democrats is neither Catholic, Evangelical, or Protestant—but rather non-Christian faiths, no affiliation, or atheist/agnostic (36%)—that is not the subject of these comments (A4). Instead, we want to notice the rise of the atheist affiliation, which has risen from 16% to 23% during the years 2007 and 2014.
How can such a leap be explained? Some influences are obvious, such as public education (especially in politically liberal areas of the country and in universities), the ACLU, political correctness, the entertainment media, and probably others. Of course, what masquerades as Christianity these days may also be a negative factor as so much of it neglects the Scriptures. But these influences aside, families no longer teach their children the Bible.
Fifty years ago, most children had some knowledge of the Word of God and were taught Biblical principles in the home, in school, and in the community. Such is no longer the case. National standards of morality are fuzzy at best—with public figures telling lies and a large segment of society not caring. In fact, when crimes are committed, it does not matter what they have done but who they are as to whether or not they will be held accountable. Community standards are generally higher, but again it depends on the area.
Public schools no longer teach the Bible nor uphold what the it teaches. Society has become more and more “tolerant” of what it will accept. In fact, immorality will likely be vaunted while taking a moral stand will often be frowned upon. After all, who are we to “judge” others? Those who take this approach never realize that in saying those things they have just pronounced a judgment upon us. However, the root of the problem is that the Bible is not respected, and its teachings are largely not known.
Children do not practice Biblical morality because more and more parents do not, either. In the absence of a genuine spiritual influence, many are growing up ignorant, which is a factual statement and not intended as an insult. God, through Hosea the prophet, wrote, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge…” (4:6). In their case, they were willfully ignorant; the next line of the verse is: “Because you have rejected knowledge….” Some probably have intentionally avoided the Bible, but many have simply grown up apart from any New Testament teaching. It is not uncommon to find a family or a young couple who does not possess a copy of the Bible. And of those who possess them, how many have never read them?
Therefore, many may not be atheists by choice; they may not be committed to it; the situation might be that they have always been devoid of a spiritual emphasis in their lives. Those claiming to be atheists, then, may not have ever thought about the situation that much.
But for those who have thought about it, what can the attraction be? It would be difficult to know, without some sort of study or investigation, what all the reasons for wanting to be an atheist might be. One reason is apparent, however, and that is that the atheist can invent his own morality. God is the author of objective morality, and His requirements are set forth in the Scriptures. Being an atheist means not having to submit to any of those commandments. If God does not exist, then His moral principles are not valid.
Does that mean that atheists are seriously immoral? No, it only means that they can choose to be, if they so desire. Some atheists may never drink alcohol; some may oppose abortion. Many may choose to be faithful to their mates, but if they do, it will not be due to any precept such as “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). It may not result from their having studied Matthew 19:3-9. Their morality in this respect may be based on genuine love and practicality.
But if God does not exist, then all people are free from objective moral truth, which means they are free to be as selfish as they wish because they can ignore the golden rule (Matt. 7:12). They are free to make up their own morality, which may mean they might determine to get away with whatever they want. Can they use drugs without getting caught? Then they will. Can they steal from others in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves? Then it is all right, as far as they are concerned. Obviously, some try to get away with even murder, and who knows how many actually have? Until the development of forensic evidence, people actually did get away with murder—so far as man is concerned. Sure, many had suspicions in various cases, but nothing could ever be proven. Now, more murderers are being caught and convicted.
Some, then, are attracted to atheism because they believe it frees them from morality. However, it does not liberate them from the punishment of God, Who shall bring their actions into judgment (2 Cor. 5:10). That Day is not the time to find out that one has been wrong about God’s existence. No excuses will be accepted because He has left ample evidence for all (Rom. 1:18-20). Living a life of denial concerning God does not change the fact of His existence. His precepts were given for our good (Deut. 10:12-13)—both in the present and in eternity. Considering the stakes, all should do their best to have the correct theology.
According to the article, “Non-religious congregations—sometimes called godless churches, which offer songs, readings and speakers, but no prayer—have popped across the country.” Probably, they are not doing the Lord’s Supper, either. How about giving? Can they trust each other? If an apostle of Jesus (Judas) was tempted to steal, how much more might be someone without moral restraints?
Why not pray? The Pharisee prayed with himself. He credited his own glorious personage with all his moral goodness and evaluated himself by how rotten others could be (Luke 18:9-14). He never called on God for forgiveness or His providential care or wisdom. He just told Him how good he was. What would prevent atheists from doing the same? Why couldn’t they address a prayer in this fashion: “Our Ego who art within us”? The conclusion would simply be, “For mine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever.” How is that for man’s overinflated sense of worth?
Now what kind of songs do they sing, pray tell—“How Great I Amst?” A great many songs are hymns of praise to the Father or to Jesus; surely they can’t sing those. Imagine an atheist group singing, “Yes, I Believe God is Real”! “Standing on the promises” would not work since they cannot believe there have ever been any. They could not be longing for that “Paradise Valley” or sing, “When We All Get to Heaven.” On the other hand they could just change a few words to make some fit, like, “This World’s My Only Home.” These words might also work: “There’s a mansion now empty where I’ll never live, At the end of life’s troublesome way. Many friends and dear loved ones I won’t see again, Because death is the end, we all say.”
Okay. Well, maybe they sing secular songs. John Lennon’s, “Imagine,” seems appropriate. Probably they would shy away from, “Fire,” performed by the Crazy World of Arthur Brown. They could sing songs of love, peace, and harmony—based on no lofty principles or ideals whatsoever. As for “readings,” two recommendations are given in the next column.
On June 4, 2016, some of these individuals hosted a “Reason Rally” at the National Mall. They say their “beliefs are centered on reason and science rather than the divine….” This claim is laughable. For 200 years evolutionists and modernists have tried to separate faith from reason—ignoring the fact that faith is based on reason. With a smirk on their faces, atheists like to claim, “We believe in science; you Christians just have faith.” This statement is not accurate. The faith of the Christian is based on evidence, some of which is scientific. The atheist ignores the evidence. Atheists cannot be allowed to get by with this phony illusion. They defy logic rather than abiding by it; the proof follows.
The Warren-Flew Debate occurred in 1976. It was Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. (Christian), who presented one logical argument after another. It was Antony G. N. Flew (atheist) who did not, even resorting once to saying, “Can’t you just see that?” instead of presenting evidence. In the 40 years since this debate, not one atheist has yet to answer Warren’s arguments. In fact, Flew, several years after the debate, became a theist.
Christians are the ones who point out the logic of the New Testament. The gospel of John supplies the answer to an important question—“Why did people believe Jesus in the first century?” No one can make such claims as to be the light of the world, the judge of all mankind, to have come down from heaven, or to be equal with the Father without people thinking He was nuts. So why did they believe Him? Because, unlike modern skeptics, they were convinced by the evidence that Jesus provided for them in His miracles. When they exclude the Divine as a source of proof, they have cut themselves off from crucial data.
The fact that an entire genre of Apologetics exists demonstrates that Christians believe in reason and argumentation. One of the greatest evidences for the beauty and power of the Scriptures is the Bible itself. Atheists could see God more clearly if they would read it and know its contents. The fact is that many of them only get to know it for the purpose of finding flaws and inconsistencies, most of which are superficial and easily harmonized. To this day, they cannot answer even the most fundamental question: “If God does not exist, why ought anyone to be moral, loving, good, or kind?” In fact, the very concept of oughtness does not exist in the philosophy of atheism.
The fruits of atheism are seen in the following two readings (provided from “Tom’s Pen” (June 1, 2016). Clarence Darrow, famed atheist of the last century, was reported to have said these words at the age of 78:
I am waiting to die, without fear or enthusiasm. I no longer doubt. I know now that there is nothing after death—nothing to look forward to in joy or in fear…I am not the agnostic any more, I am a materialist. It took me more than fifty years to find it out. All my life I have been seeking some definite proof of God—something I could put my finger on and say ‘This is fact.’ But my doubts are at rest now. I know that such fact does not exist. When I die—as I shall soon—my body will decay. My mind will decay and my intellect will be gone. My soul? There is no such thing.
The great agnostic of the last century, Colonel Robert Ingersoll, spoke at his brother’s grave. What an orator he was! What an intellect was his. What a great power for God this man could have been. President Garfield, who was one of the pall bearers, said that the Colonel broke down and cried like a child in the delivery of that speech. Among other things, Ingersoll said:
“Whether in mid-ocean, or amidst the breakers of the farther shore, a wreck must mark the end of each and all. Though every hour is rich with love, and every moment is jeweled with a joy, it will at its close be a tragedy as deep and dark as can be woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death. Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities; we strive in vain to look beyond the heights; we cry aloud, and the only answer is our wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word.
Tom correctly responded to and concluded:
This, dear reader, is the epitome of despair. How much better to be able to say, “I have fought the good fight of faith,” or “I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him.” Ingersoll’s words are a fair representation of the hopelessness of disbelief. No wonder the man broke down and wept such tears of disbelief!