![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/12\/BlackHoleQuasar.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Dr. David Madison<\/strong>\u00a0is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.\u00a0 You can see (by the number in the title) how many times\u00a0I have replied<\/a>\u00a0to his videos or articles.\u00a0Thus far, I haven\u2019t heard\u00a0one peep<\/em>\u00a0back from him\u00a0 (from 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn\u2019t suggest to me that he is very\u00a0confident<\/em>\u00a0in his opinions. All I\u2019ve seen is\u00a0expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison<\/a>\u00a0and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile\u00a0John Loftus<\/a>, who runs the ultra-insulting\u00a0Debunking Christianity<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a comment from 9-6-19<\/a>:<\/p>\n John \u201cyou are an idiot<\/em>!\u201d<\/a> Loftus even went to the length of\u00a0changing his blog\u2019s rules of engagement<\/a>, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see notices<\/em> of my replies (er, sorry, rants<\/em>, rather). Obviously, I have \u201chit a nerve\u201d over there. In any event, their utter non-responses (besides potshots) and intellectual cowardice do not affect me in the slightest. No skin off of my back. If I want to critique more of their material, I\u00a0will<\/em>. If my replies go out unopposed, all the\u00a0better<\/em>\u00a0for my cause.<\/p>\n This is a reply to [certain not immediately<\/em> ridiculous or baseless] portions of Dr. Madison\u2019s article,\u00a0The Christian Knack for Insulting Our Intelligence<\/a>\u00a0(9-1-17).\u00a0 Dr. Madison\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>\u00a0below.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Sometimes even Sunday school kids have the presence of mind to ask, \u201cBut where did God come from?\u201d To which the assurance is always given, \u201cWell, God has always been there.\u201d But rarely do the kids\u2014or even the adults\u2014ever ask, \u201cBut how do you know that?\u201d How do you KNOW that about God? Without the evidence it\u2019s just another assumption\u2014one of so many that derail religious thinking. <\/span><\/p>\n We know it like we know many<\/em> things: it\u2019s ultimately backed up by solid philosophical analysis (hundreds of historical, well-known philosophers have believed in a eternal God and offered solid reasons for it), as well as by revelation, so that one can have a reasonable and well-grounded faith.<\/p>\n Bertrand Russell punctured this lazy conjecture when he pointed out that it\u2019s just as easy to believe in a universe that has always existed\u2014as it is to believe in a god that has been around, uncreated, forever.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, precisely<\/em>! I was gonna make this very point before I saw this sentence. Epistemologically (well, before we bring science<\/em> into it), the two propositions are about equally as strong (which is hardly a huge debating point for atheism, if it\u2019s only equally<\/em> substantiated as Christianity):<\/p>\n 1) God (a spirit) has existed eternally.<\/p>\n 2) The universe (matter) has existed eternally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But the problem with #2 is that it is no longer consensus science, because of Big Bang Theory, an expanding universe, and things like entropy. A spirit like God is obviously not within the purview of science, because it deals with matter<\/em>. But the creative results<\/em> of such a being can be studied. Russell (like Einstein) almost certainly accepted the steady state universe before Big Bang cosmology became the consensus.<\/p>\n Now this fundamental question of ultimate existence and origins is quite different in nature. I wrote in an article of mine<\/a> that made atheists more furious (really, more confused<\/em>, from where I sit), and which was more controversial<\/a> than any other I have written:<\/p>\n Atheist\u00a0belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the\u00a0colorful\u00a0worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.<\/p>\n The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is\u00a0far<\/i>\u00a0more religious than\u00a0that<\/i>. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely\u00a0everything\u00a0<\/i>in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.<\/p>\n One might call this (to coin a phrase)\u00a0Atomism\u00a0<\/i>(\u201cbelief that the atom is God\u201d). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason\u00a0that anyone\u00a0can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a \u201ctrue believer.\u201d<\/p>\n Oh, and we mustn\u2019t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist\u2019s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the \u201cZeus\u201d of Atomism). One might call this belief\u00a0Temporalism<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But Christians don\u2019t have a problem with\u00a0God-just-always-was<\/i><\/b>\u00a0because\u2014well, everything\u00a0had<\/i><\/b>\u00a0to have been kicked off by a creator with a plan. That\u2019s just common sense, right?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s just common sense and basic thinking rationality to assert that the universe and\/or God have to be either eternal or to have originated at some point. That\u2019s why all the atheists believed in an eternal universe, till established science (spearheaded by a Catholic priest-scientist<\/a>, who submitted the Big Bang Theory, and was more advanced in his cosmological thinking on origins than Einstein was) made it virtually impossible to continue to hold such a position.<\/p>\n The [huge, momentous] trick is to determine which and what is true, and how it (and\/or He) happened. What exists now has to be explained<\/em> somehow. There is nothing the slightest bit silly about believing that God is eternal: anymore than the previous belief that the universe was eternal was \u201csilly\u201d and \u201claughable\u201d: given the limitations of knowledge that were present when it was consensus. The cosmological theistic argument<\/a> is arguably stronger than ever, in light of Big Bang cosmology.<\/p>\n And they look at atheists as if we\u2019re crazy for not seeing that nature itself\u2014with butterflies and sunsets\u2014is proof of their god. When I hear that dodge, my word of caution is, \u201cYou don\u2019t want to go there.\u201d Because you have gained nothing, absolutely nothing, by giving a god the credit for \u201ccreating.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Atheists do have quite a difficult task, in explaining a materialistic evolutionary origin of extraordinary processes, even on the cellular level, which is already almost inconceivably and inextricably complex (see, for example, the work of biochemist Michael J. Behe<\/a>). Yeah, I would say that the old teleological (design) argument<\/a> is stronger than ever, because we know much more about the nature of physical reality and of the building-blocks of life.<\/p>\n [N]o brand of Christianity has managed to let go of Loftus\u2019 Number 8: \u201cGod has a morally sufficient reason for permitting all the evil that ever has or every will be.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There are many robust explanations of the problem of evil (I offer many articles about it<\/a> on my blog): none ever sufficient for atheists (but then, who would expect that they would<\/em> be?). They are sufficient to at least suggest to open minds that there is a plausible and coherent explanation for why evil exists and why God allows it to, due to the requirements of true free will in human beings.<\/p>\n Loftus adds more perspective: \u201cChristian theism has no more credibility than Scientology, Mormonism<\/a>, Haitian Voodoo, or the southwest Pacific Ocean cargo cults, because they are all based on faith.\u201d Thus we\u2019d like to be able to say, \u201cWe rest our case: Christianity can be flushed.\u201d Nothing can rescue it from the realm of the wildly improbable.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a prime example of a manifestly \u201cridiculous or baseless\u201d portion of Dr. Madison\u2019;s article that I usually ignore. I just pout it up to show readers what I was talking about. It is it\u2019s own refutation.<\/p>\n But, of course, there are those who devote their careers to the effort. In the section of the essay titled, \u201cDefending the Faith Makes Brilliant People Look Stupid,\u201d Loftus turns to consideration of those who have mastered the art of \u201cdouble standards, non sequiturs, special pleading, begging the question, or just plain ignorance.\u201d These are the professional apologists who, like alchemists, try to transmute \u201cwildly improbable\u201d into \u201crationally believable.\u201d He offers a survey of the work of Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Richard G. Swinburne.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s sad that atheists like Madison and Loftus can\u2019t comprehend an opinion different from their own (theism or Christianity) that is honestly and sincerely (and intelligently) held. I readily grant their own honesty and sincerity. I simply hold that they are dead wrong, and labor under many demonstrably false premises.\u00a0 A little later, Dr. Madison characterizes William Lane Craig\u2019s thinking as \u201cevil . . . ugly\u201d<\/span> and indicative of\u00a0 \u201cthe Christian knack for insulting our intelligence.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This is a particularly<\/em> acidic offering from Dr. Madison: one of a long line of similar ramblings, but more intense and intellectually facile and vacuous, and it deserves no more attention than I have already given it. Perhaps he had a bad hair day or an ingrown toenail . . .<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n . . . with emphasis on the vexing and complex question of the\u00a0 ultimate origins of matter and life Dr. David Madison\u00a0is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.\u00a0 You can see (by the number in the title) how many times\u00a0I have replied\u00a0to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":41949,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112],"tags":[2519,1738,1043,745,258,2639,9137,335,525,171,6519,1367,9119,648,6522],"class_list":["post-41946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","tag-alleged-biblical-contradictions","tag-anti-christian-bigotry","tag-anti-theism","tag-anti-theists","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-exegesis","tag-atheist-hermeneutics","tag-atheists","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-science","tag-contradictions-in-the-bible","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-david-madison","tag-debunking-christianity","tag-divine-inspiration"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n