Free Will vs. Atheism







Free Will vs. Atheism

There are many opportunities to expose flaws in the thinking of an atheist, and free will is certainly one of the easier ones.

Where does free will derive from? If you believe the musings of atheists Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, free will is but an illusion, as we are all simply by-products of our physical and chemical makeup and have no say in the choices we make. Yet, both authors have “Acknowledgements” sections in their books. Why thank people and acknowledge their contributions to your work if they could not have done otherwise? If there was no free will, their actions were simply thrust upon these individuals and thanking them becomes meaningless.

Therefore from an atheist standpoint, it would stand to reason that persuasive arguments of any kind have no value. Those who believe in God are programmed and forced by their genes to do so. Those who believe there is no God are equally products of their material composition. The irony in this is that for an atheist to attempt to convince you their side is true, requires that person must exercise free will in order to change his or her mind.

Further, what about moral responsibility?

Atheism’s line of thought takes us to the absurd position that since we are simply a by-product of our physical and chemical processes and are incapable of making our own choices, we cannot be held morally responsible for the things we do (and don’t do) any more than our pet cat or the squirrel eating bird seed outside.

It must follow, in atheism thought patterns, that if you feel it is “morally” acceptable to drive a car into a crowd of people in an attempt to kill as many as possible, you could not think otherwise and you are not “morally” responsible for doing anything wrong. Moral relativism and thoughts such as this have and continue to cause unfettered erosion in our society.

Atheism simply cannot account for human free will. They cannot prove it derives from chemical reactions and gene interaction. Atheists who are consistent with their belief are forced to admit this is a logical implication of it. Therefore, if humans have free will, and atheism implies that they do not, then atheism must be false. This is the basic tenet of the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is much more of a leap of faith to hold to this atheistic position as opposed to believing in a supernatural God who has endowed those created in His image with this ability.

Think about it. If I can say that I cannot help myself (I cannot choose differently), then I do not have to feel guilty for the things I do wrong. Furthermore, if I did not choose the immoral actions that I committed, then neither society (nor God) can punish me for doing immoral things. The atheistic position not only rejects the concept of free will, but then discards the concept of justice as well.

Yet how acutely aware we humans are, believer or atheist, when injustice has been done to us. Oh, the irony.

To Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and all of the other atheists, the Apostle Paul appeared to have you in mind when he addressed his letter to the Roman church:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:18-22).





















































Comments

Popular Posts