Evangelist Ray Comfort recently sensationalized the atheist blogosphere by saying he’d pay $20,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for the opportunity to debate Dawkins.
Comfort’s proposition is that atheists base their skepticism on their supposed intelligence, but in reality they are some of the most thoughtless people in the world. If you believe there is no God, then you believe, without any scientific proof, that the universe could have come into existence from nothing.
I’ve explained the impossibility of this from the pure standpoint of physical science in another blog post.
Even better is Chuck Missler’s succinct explanation from his book, The Creator Beyond Time and Space:
The creationist’s model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used intelligent design, expertise or know-how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!
In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)” (Genesis 1:1).
The atheist’s model begins with an even more impressive miracle – the appearance of all matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason. A supernatural event. A miracle! However, the atheist does not believe in the outside or transcendent “First Cause” we call God. Therefore, the atheist has no “natural explanation” nor “supernatural explanation” for the origin of space-time and matter. Consequently, the atheistic scenario on the origin of the universe leaves us hanging in a totally dissatisfying position. He begins his model with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it.
In short, I cannot be an atheist because to believe in the spontaneous appearance of the entire universe out of nothing makes no sense.
As a thinking person, I have to be some type of theist. I’ll reserve for another post why only Christianity among the world’s theistic religions has to be correct.
Here I want simply to point out that much of the postmodern atheist strategy is simple posturing. Dawkins routinely refuses to debate Christians because he wants to put forth the idea that debating theism would give it credibility. He simply wants to ridicule faith and portray any belief in the supernatural as impossible to reconcile with his superior intelligence. I saw an interview with Dawkins and the so-called “Rational Responders” in which they admitted that their entire strategy was riducule and abuse Christians, not giving theism the dignity of a public hearing. It’s much easier to do guerilla tactics, hit-and-run, ridicule — and other forms of diversion — and never face the fact that everything that exists had to have an antecedent. The atheist never faces this existential paradox — that something in the natural world can never come from nothing. The only answer to the existential paradox is a supernatural one.
At the very least, the atheist should admit that his belief in no God is as much a supernatural faith as is Christianity in that no known natural laws can account for an ex nihilo creation of the universe.
I have no doubt Dawkins is intelligent. However, Christians ought to view him as a useful idiot. His books and atheist activism are a good opportunity to expose the soft underbelly of post-modernism — the retreat into pure emotion and subjectivity — that is the entire undergirding for today’s atheism. In fact, this atheist’s refusal to engage in formal debate is the proof of this retreat from rationalism.