Religious Implications of Atheism

Religious Implications of Atheism
Konstantin Gennadievich Volkodav

This book formulates a Particular Principle of Causality (the Phenomenon of Creativity), which serves as a solid foundation for any kind of evidence of the existence of God. It is almost impossible to challenge it. In the book, this principle was formulated for the first time. The book also examines aspects of theodicy that have been a stumbling block for theologians throughout the centuries. In addition, many other important theological topics here are illuminated from unusual angles. Quite often, atheists oppose their concept to religions. However, a detailed analysis of the metaphysics of the atheistic worldview shows that atheism has all the features of religion. This book reasonably explains that Atheism is a religion of unbelief.

Konstantin Volkodav

Religious Implications of Atheism

Language: English

This is a translation from Russian into English of the book Религиозные Аспекты Атеизма: Атеизм, Ислам и Христианство на языке Метафизики. Translated by the author.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture marked KJV comes from the King James Version.

Scripture marked LXX (in Greek) comes from the Biblia Graeca IVXTA LXX Interpretes (Septuaginta).

Praise for the Religious Implications of Atheism

A very good and timely book! Today, many people who seek God or hesitate in thought, especially observing the position, behavior and lifestyle of the Church hierarchy of various confessions, unfortunate people, easily fall under the influence of atheistic propaganda. This book is a wonderful answer and refutation of this propaganda, written by a very good and competent theologian. Comments are intelligible and well-grounded, easy and interesting to read! I recommend to everyone!

–Sergey N. Kurtalidi,

historian, theologian (Athens)

The format of this book is very interesting—a discussion within a discussion. I hope that the questions posed by the author will resonate with readers, and a discussion will emerge that expands and complements this debate. The book is written in good language, easy to read and interesting. The density of thought is high. I also want to note that the author’s proposal to read selectively interested topics makes sense. The book is made so that it can be read in arbitrary parts, and not just sequentially. The book touches upon not only theological and philosophical aspects, but also publicistic and historical prospects.

–Yaroslav Taran,

poet, writer, editor-in-chief of the portal “Air Castle” (St. Petersburg)

Foreword by Ronald Kirk

Atheism except by the grace of God is hardwired into mankind’s spiritual DNA. The original sin made us think we were clever. Our thoughts were equal to the Creator’s thoughts, or superior. So rather than judge ourselves by God’s Word as we ought, we routinely choose to judge God by our fallen, humanistic standards. Thus, practical if not philosophical atheism prevails in the world. We know God, but we naturally and universally suppress the truth in unrighteousness to our own hurt (Rom. 1:18).

Thanks to God our Savior for His grace, for not leaving us in that condition! He is wont to save His creatures, those whom He created in His own image. Yet He also makes us partners, however minor, in the redemption of His people. Therefore, knowing what we are up against is central to the calling of the Great Commission to make Christ’s disciples.

To offer a bit of an aid in this quest, after Cornelius Van Til and Rousas J. Rushdoony, I am a presuppositional apologist. Referencing the debate between Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss from this book, the reason they cannot agree is that they operate on entirely different premises, literally completely different universes. One universe is finite and acts according to fixed Law. The other, according to Krauss, is a multi-verse of infinite members capable of absolutely any character. Ultimate contingency. Anything can and like does happen. Empirical arguments such as are common in evangelical apologetics depend on a common ground that does not really exist, unless one is willing to assume a Biblical perspective at least for the sake of argument.

In the documentary movie, The Principle, Krauss admits what NASA has found—a plane field of ancient extensive microwave energy resulting from creation propagates on the equator of the Earth. His only response is that sure, it exists in this universe, but likely not in the rest of the multi-verse. In other words, his scientific, materialistic answer is that he must base his answer speculatively on the supposition of a reality of his imagination alone! He merely begs the question: how is this scientific?

The materialist’s problem is a deep one. Cosmologist Paul Steinhardt, one of the architects of the Big Bang theory, and of the theory of inflation—that tiny fraction of a second when chaos becomes order—has second thoughts. About a decade ago Steinhardt reversed his original view as an impossibility due to a probability of one in a googolplex [ten to the power of 10

]. In other words, something caused Steinhardt, on this point, to abandon the notion of ultimate contingency in favor of a creationist universe of law. [1 - .?John Hogan, Scientific American, December 1, 2014.]

A fluid and inconsistent view of reality is the most common practice among the supposedly rational materialists. With Jean Paul Sartre, knowledge of reality is impossible, but since we live in this world with all its laws, meaning and consequences, we take a leap of faith to accept it—though not the God of this reality. In so suppressing the knowledge of God in unrighteousness (cf. Rom. 1:18), they give themselves license to make themselves god.

Closer to home, an elderly friend, a brilliant died-in-the-wool scientific materialist, admitted that he had no rational basis for his beliefs regarding origins, law, love, meaning, self-sacrifice—which he himself lived—etc. Yet he insisted we Christians are irrational. There is no ground of argument with such a person. He will always have a response to any empirical evidence. When I mentioned Steinhardt’s reversal with reference to the odds against inflation, he answered it is only zeros. I asked in return if I could borrow a thousand dollars, since I could repay with my own idea of zeroes. Even he had to smile at that. What was so frustrating was that he lived a more consistently Christian life than many Christians I know.

Jesus said, we know a tree by its fruit. This is the basis of a Biblical epistemology. What are the consequences of practical atheism? What are the consequences of the Biblical view of all things? The atheistic model cannot predict meaning, love, etc. Ultimate contingency holds inherently, if consistent, zero meaning, zero law, zero morality. Materialistic environmentalists assume a moral superiority of non-human nature over humanity. On what rational ground? How is there any basis of judgment without a fixed law?

On the other hand, the Biblical model, when one is willing to assume the presupposition for the sake of argument, even as a purely scientific model, does an infinitely better job of predicting nature, human conduct, etc. Again, with Van Til and Rushdoony, my apologetic is presuppositional. God never defends His existence or His Ways. Rather He merely declares them. Likewise, the Bible never defends God’s existence or His Ways. Apostle Paul merely asserts that we ought not to say to the Potter, why do You make us thus? (Rom. 9:20–21)

I pray the reader of Religious Implications of Atheism: Atheism, Islam, and Christianity in the Language of Metaphysics, particularly the atheist, honestly consider the power of the original sin in all of us, and its clear, rational remedy—the grace of God, ready to be found if we only grope for it (cf. Acts 17:27).

Ronald W. Kirk

Student of God’s Ways

Сhief editor of Nordskog Publishing

(мanuscript review and theology)

[Ronald Kirk has walked with Christ for over forty-seven years. He devoted himself to the lifelong endeavor of bridging the proverbial gap between theology and practice in every area of life. God honored this conviction with a thoroughly Biblical philosophy, method, and content for education proved over twenty-five years of practical development, including highly successful classroom application kindergarten through high school and beyond—regardless of native ability or previous educational experience. A Providential view of history allows making the best use of the lessons of history, from the consequence of choices—godly or humanistic, with their good or evil results]

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who, in one way or another, by deed, word, thought, contributed to the publication of this book. I would especially like to thank Ronald W. Kirk who kindly agreed to write the Foreword. It is perfectly natural to give thanks for the good, and similar acknowledgments occur in many books.

However, one of the paradoxical features of Christianity is the commandment to love enemies. Christians pray, among other things, for those who hate and offend them. This book examines aspects of atheism, which, not only in words, but sometimes in deeds, is at war with the religious worldview. Therefore, often atheism does not cause positive emotions in religious people, just as it does not cause positive emotions, for example, fly larvaes.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to the fact that even completely unsightly fly larvae can be of great benefit. They can clear trophic ulcers, wounds and bedsores from infection several times faster than traditional therapy. In some cases, using fly larvae to fight infection is much safer, more effective and cheaper than antibacterial drugs. Fly larvae eat only dead tissue, without touching healthy ones. Thus, they cleanse the wound and promote its healing much better than antibiotics.

Likewise, atheists can expose and criticize only dead and sick areas of religions. The healthy part of religions is too tough for atheists. If a human had a personal metaphysical experience of “touching other worlds,” then he will never forgott this experience, and atheists will never be able to convince him. In addition, atheists will never say that the biblical commandments are bad and must be fought against. On the contrary, the moral code of the builder of communism was copied from the biblical commandments, since atheists could not think of anything better.

Of course, delusions and superstitions within religion have always been criticized by religious people, trying to separate the human from the divine. However, their voice was often too weak to reverse negative tendencies. Atheists approached religions with a heavy hammer of criticism, and began to test the strength of all religious foundations. In many things, the atheists were deluded themselves, and their blows did not reach the target. On the other hand, the problems that atheists rightly pointed out were already criticized by religious people long before the atheists. The atheists just once again drew attention to them and contributed to their wide discussion.

Thus, it is worth to thank the atheists for their unsightly “fly larvae work”. It is worth thanking them here and now, and not only thanking them, but also pitying them, because they do not understand what they are deprived of (Ps. 39:4).

Introduction

“We want to know in order to live. And to live means, on the other hand, to live not in blindness and darkness, but in the light of knowledge . . . And in the last depth of our being, we feel that the light of knowledge and the highest good of life we are looking for are two sides of the same principle.”

– S. L. Frank [2 - .?Франк, Смысл жизни, 19. [Hereinafter, everywhere all translations from Russian are made by the author.]]

From time immemorial, people have argued about the criteria of truth, about the meaning of human life and about the nature of things. Usually this was expressed in religious disputes. About two hundred years ago, atheism arose in Christian Europe, and began to take part in these disputes. Many books have been written on these topics. Nevertheless, a book is a monologue of one author. A more complete picture is obtained when different colors and contrast are present in it. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct dialogues, trialogues, disputes, in which representatives of different points of view argue. For two hundred years, there have already been thousands of disputes on the topic “Religion and Atheism”, in which, as a rule, representatives of Christianity or Islam speak about religion. The titles of these disputes can vary widely. For example, there might be a title “Religion and Science”, “Religion and Evolution”, “I don’t believe!” etc. However, the essence is the same everywhere and the arguments for each side are approximately the same. It is like a children’s carousel where you can change animal figures. You can exchange horses for donkeys, camels, giraffes, etc., but the rotation mechanism and trajectory will be the same. Therefore, the disputes of the twenty-first century, in fact, differ little from the disputes of the nineteenth century. For two centuries, almost nothing has changed. Perhaps, it is impossible to reach a consensus between religions and atheism through disputes, controversies, and discussions.

Therefore, we will try to consider the discussed problems alone, in creative silence, that is, we will present our views in the genre of Plato’s Dialogues. However, it would not be correct to analyze the dispute between atheists and believers in a completely abstract way, without reference to specific individuals. It is not very nice to argue with fictitious opponents and refute the arguments of marginal anonymous (as atheists often do). Therefore, we will comment on one specific dispute here, by the example of which we will try to reveal the essence of all similar disputes. This is a debate between a prominent representative of Atheism and a well-known representative of Islam. In addition, we will comment on their polemic from the point of view of Christianity. Thus, three points of view will be presented here, and the problems discussed will be shown as if in “three-dimensional”.

Debate video source:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI

Title:

The Big Debates: Islam or Atheism—Which Makes More Sense?

London, March 9, 2013