TXBlue08, an atheist, has written a blog post entitled “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” in which she argues why parents “ought” not to teach their children things about God. Link here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c2
I will quote her essay and then respond using the essay as a sample of how presuppositionalism is the most effective method of Christian apologetics.
She says, “God is a bad parent and role model.” Since “Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Nor do “Good people… stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children.” She goes on to attack the free will defense on the grounds that good parents still intervene, guide, and protect their children regardless if they have free will.
How to respond? First, one must understand that as Christians we respond fully committed to Christ, so our answers will flow from our allegiance to God and His Word. Scripture teaches God is not someone we should think of as our equal. He is God and we are his creatures. He made mankind in his image thus giving us intellects, wills, emotions, and dominion over creation. God gave mankind the sole responsibility to take care of his creation. This entails man is responsible over their children to be representatives of God to them. Teaching them the truth of God and protecting them from evil. God created Adam who was the first man and representative of the human race. God gave mankind commandments/duties that reflect God’s character for the benefit of the creature and the ultimate good. The first man Adam violated God’s commandment and brought forth punishment for both him and the whole human race. The punishment stemmed from Adam to all mankind. Man inherited guilt, and an inclination to sin. This defaced the image of God in man. Man is not born innocent, but guilty. He is born a rebel against God. We are all born as enemies of God. We love sin and hate God. Hence the blogger is quite mistaken to talk of “good parents and innocent children,” since there are no parents or children that are truly good. The blogger quite frequently appeals to moral absolutes. She uses moral terms such as “good” and “should” but given her atheism how can she make sense of morality. She cannot have moral absolutes (even in principle) given her commitment to atheism. But as Christians we can account for moral absolutes since God has given us his moral law both in Scripture (Ex. 20) and innately (Rom. 2:14-15). However, the blogger knows these truths and this is why she cannot help but make moral judgments. A man or woman made in God’s image and who lives in God’s world, but wishes to be an atheist cannot help but be inconsistent. The atheist will have to make absolute moral judgments but not be able to provide the worldview that can justify those judgments. Furthermore, notice the blogger took up the right to put God on trial. But who gave her the moral right to judge God? She attempts to reason independently from God’s truth only to find her self caught in a vicious circle. She judges God; she does so by the right she has given her self. She is utterly arbitrary, and question begging. And yet she has the nerve to say she’s logical.
I think even Christians with the free will defense can get out of the bloggers charges. However, I would revise the free will defense if utilized. But here is a typical example I think that is immune to the bloggers charges:
More comments on this essay to follow.