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.
No comments:
Post a Comment