Atheists Are Not Intellectually Superior!

            I used to be very passionate about Cricket. Not playing, but watching. I hardly missed any of the matches that the Indian cricket team played. I loved watching the Indian team play cricket.

            This passion lasted for more than a couple of decades (the 80s and 90s). But when the media exposed match fixing in Indian cricket, I lost all my passion to watch cricket. I stopped watching cricket.

            I reasoned in my mind that if corruption had entered the sport, then I should not be wasting my time watching that sport because the results were not due to good or bad play, but the results were being manipulated by corrupt forces to cheat the innocent fan. I did not want to be cheated.

            What I thought was a good idea (watching cricket) became a bad idea, hence I buried cricket in the graveyard of my mind.

            This decision that I took many years ago was freely taken by me. I used sound judgment and reason to decide that I was following the wrong sport.

            Similarly, I decided, years ago, to be a Christian because Christianity is true.

            How did I know that Christianity is true and another worldview such as atheism is false? It’s because I applied my mind into studying these worldviews rather extensively, and then based on sound judgment and reason I arrived at a conclusion that Christianity is true and atheism is a false dogma.

            I used my free will to decide between atheism, the other worldviews, and Historic Christianity. Nobody controlled any of my actions or decision. I was neither controlled by the physical laws nor by a mad scientist!

Atheists are Determinists

            Atheists, on the other hand, are determinists. Atheists deny free will.

            Neuroscientist Sam Harris believes that free will is illusory, “Sam Harris, recognized in skeptical circles as one of the four leading voices of modern atheism, penned a book titled Free Will. In that short volume, he wrote: “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making…. We do not have the freedom we think we have.”⁶ He further stated, “I cannot determine my wants…. My mental life is given to me by the cosmos.”^…And, “What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, a mystery—one that is fully determined by the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature (including the contributions of chance).”⁹ As he begins to summarize his views toward the end of the book, he says, “You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise.”¹⁰”¹

            Richard Dawkins, another celebrated new atheist, is very well known for his quote that each of us being determined as we are, are dancing to the tune of our DNA’s, “The universe 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 blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”²

            When atheists deny free will, they also should deny that they are rationally superior to those subscribing to the other worldviews. Significantly, atheists by virtue of being determinists cannot make a truth claim.

Atheists Cannot Claim Rational Superiority

            On what basis would an atheist make a truth claim?

            How could an atheist argue that their worldview is superior? To say that atheism is rationally or intellectually superior to every other worldview is to make a truth claim. (When atheists attack religion and deem religious faith as evil, then atheists claim intellectual superiority.)

            Professor Paul Copan explains that atheism cannot claim intellectual superiority, “…I asked Dawkins how he could claim that the naturalist [is] rationally superior to the theist since, according to his book River Out of Eden, all of us are dancing to the music of our DNA. Our beliefs are the product of non-rational, deterministic physical forces beyond our control—whether we’re theists or naturalists. In fact, if the naturalist is right, it’s only by accident—not because he’s more intellectually virtuous than the theist. That is, the naturalist has accidental true belief (which is not knowledge) rather than warranted true belief (which is knowledge).”³

            By adhering to determinism, the atheist implies that he/she cannot freely think because they are controlled by the forces of nature. Christian apologist Tim Stratton explains, “If one assumes determinism is true…they do not believe human agents have free will or the ability to change their own minds. This is because they affirm that things external to humans (such as physics and chemistry) causally determines all things — including human thoughts and beliefs…

            …The naturalistic determinist would have to appeal to physics/chemistry, the initial conditions of the big bang, or perhaps to random events in quantum mechanics. None of these things are up to the determinist, so if their mind is to be changed about anything — including the topic of determinism — then things external to the determinist would have to force and determine them to reject determinism or to change their minds about anything else. If determinism is true, one simply does not possess the ability to freely think, and thus, they are simply held captive and “along for the ride” dictated by the forces of nature.”⁴

            Since atheists cannot think freely, whatever belief they subscribe to is an accidental belief. Accidental belief is not knowledge.

            Atheists or determinists cannot think rationally, “If determinism is true, then genuine free will does not exist, and if free will does not exist, then free thinking does not exist. Given the determinist’s view, how could anyone ever freely choose to be rational and know they are? If everything is determined by factors external to you — including your thoughts and beliefs and your thoughts and beliefs about your thoughts and beliefs — then your choice to follow the laws of logic and to think rationally would only be an illusion. You have no say in the matter.

            If determinism is true, then the determinist who holds to determinism did not come to that conclusion based on their intelligence, and by choosing to examine the evidence to infer the best explanation. They were simply determined by physics and chemistry to be determinists. It has nothing to do with knowledge, logic, or rationality. If determinism is true, then there is no free will either in assessing whether one thought is better than another or not. All that remains is question-begging assumptions and presuppositions.”⁵

            If rational thought process eludes an atheist, he cannot claim that he or his worldview is rationally superior to another worldview.

Endnotes:

¹http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1228

²https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#River_out_of_Eden_(1995)

³https://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/03/dawkins-determinism-and-truth/

⁴https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/determinisms-self-destruct-button

⁵Ibid.

Websites were last accessed on 29^th February 2020.

Has Science Disproved Prayer?

                  Atheists deploy science as an instrument to negate religion. Through the deployment of science, if they prove the ineffectiveness of prayer, they reckon that they could posit God’s non-existence. 

            Atheists refer verses from the Bible that apparently mandates 100% answer to prayer (Matthew 17:20, 18:19, 21:22; Luke 11:9-10).  So if a less than 100% answer to prayer is observed, the atheists suppose that prayer is ineffective, hence the Bible is incorrect.

            Then they argue that if the Bible is incorrect, either God is a liar or that the fallible man authored the Bible. Since God cannot lie, they posit God’s nonexistence and assert that it was man who authored the Bible independent of God. Thereby they strive, although in futility, to render Historic Christianity as invalid.

            This then is the background to the question, “Has science disproved prayer?”

            If a person or a group of people prayed for the sick in which there was no improvement, then, from among a few deductions, one could reason that prayer was ineffective. Conversely, if the sick are healed through prayer, a plausible deduction could be that prayer was effective. Praying for others is “Intercessory Prayer” (IP).

            Research by Kevin Masters et al published in The Society of Behavioral Medicine was exceedingly critical of prayer, “There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research” ¹

            But for every scientific research that invalidates the efficacy of prayer there is a study that validates it.

            Dr. Randolph Byrd’s research (published in Southern Medical Journal) asserted the effectiveness of prayer.

            Byrd studied patients in the coronary care unit who were assigned to born-again Christians (with an active Christian life) for prayer to the Judeo-Christian God. Byrd concluded that those prayed for were benefitted “with less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated” ²

            Duke University’s Dr. Harold D Koenig is utterly confident about prayer’s effectiveness, “… out of 125 studies that looked at the link between health and regular worship, 85 showed regular churchgoers live longer. There’s a lot of evidence out there.” ³

             Relying on science to determine the efficacy of prayer is futile, for science corroborates both the prayer and the anti-prayer groups. Some studies observe the healing of patients upon prayer and others do not.

            So science does not categorically establish the invalidity of prayer for it also establishes the validity of prayer.

            Significantly, “Should science validate prayer (or religion)?”  

            A perpetual conflict between science and religion is often observed, for to reiterate, science is the crutch of the atheists in their futile attempt at denying religion.

            In response, we could subscribe to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) and assert the total disconnect between science and religion to affirm that they should not overlap. Hence, we could univocally reject science’s intervention to validate prayer.

            Albert Einstein, in his paper Science, Philosophy and Religion (Sep 1940), seemed to reject the notion that science and religion should not overlap; he said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” So, on the other hand, we could heed the words of science about religion provided science is valid in its evaluation of religion.      

            Then again, is it possible for science to determine the effectiveness of prayer?

            In order to think this through, we should consider three truths from a theological perspective (since prayer is a religious act that presupposes God’s existence), which are:

            1. Prayer is directed towards God, seeking HIS favor upon the needy.

            2. Man merely intercedes; man does not and cannot heal.

            3. God alone can heal and deliver. 

            Therefore, when researchers observe patients not being healed upon prayer, it merely signifies God’s decision to not heal. God healed some (in the studies where patients were healed) and did not heal some (during the other studies where patients were not healed).

            To reiterate, studies that observed a positive impact of prayer upon the sick revealed God’s positive action i.e. healing upon the sick, whereas the studies that did not observe a positive impact upon the sick revealed God’s inaction.

            Why did God not heal some? That’s for God to answer and not for man to speculate unless God has revealed HIS reasons for inaction to man. God has indeed established certain principles about prayer in the Bible, which is not always in alignment with man’s carnal inclination.

            Consider a popular inactivity of God to prayer in Paul’s statement “…in order to prevent my becoming absurdly conceited, I was given a physical handicap—one of Satan’s angels—to harass me and effectually stop any conceit. Three times I begged the Lord for it to leave me, but his reply has been, “My grace is enough for you: for where there is weakness, my power is shown the more completely.” Therefore, I have cheerfully made up my mind to be proud of my weaknesses, because they mean a deeper experience of the power of Christ. I can even enjoy weaknesses, suffering, privations, persecutions and difficulties for Christ’s sake. For my very weakness makes me strong in him.” (2 Corinthians 12: 7-10, PHILLIPS, Emphasis Mine).

            This per se is not about God’s inaction to prayer, but it’s about God’s action to glorify HIS name through a willing man’s trial and tribulation. God’s inactivity was to strengthen and draw people closer to HIM. Therefore, when a sincere believer reads this passage, just as Paul accepted his pain, the believer trusts more in God and learns to accept his pain as a part of God’s grand plan to strengthen HIS people.

            Atheists, by rejecting God, reject that God alone, in HIS perfect omniscience, knows what is good for man. But prosperity is not necessarily the most ideal blessing for man.

            A testimony offered to God’s glory amidst severe pain is more powerful than a testimony offered in pleasure. This is unadulterated Christianity.

            Science then, cannot determine the efficacy of prayer because science has to learn God’s mind – as to why HE heals some and not heal others – so to determine the effectiveness of prayer.

            Anybody could seek God’s mind provided they repent and believe in God, seek HIM earnestly in humility and accept God in HIS terms (not on our terms). This is a simple algorithm to seek God’s mind.

            Then there are moments where God’s answer to our prayers would not necessarily please us, for HE could delay or reject our plea for just reasons. During these moments, we ought to, in humility, agree with God and not battle against HIM, for to battle against God is neither worthy nor winnable.

            So the question is not about whether science can determine the effectiveness of prayer, but the real question is if the atheists, who use science as a means to their futile endeavor, are willing to accept God. Atheists could repent and accept God in humility if they seek HIM earnestly.

            Therefore, since science does not disprove prayer categorically, the studies on the effectiveness of prayer are of no relevance to Historic Christianity or God.       

Endnotes:

¹ http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Criticalthinking/Readings/Prayer.pdf

² http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf

³ http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Headline/prayer-health-faith-medicine/2015/03/31/id/635623/#ixzz3aGJ9jzXe