I wrote here about Jack Kinsella's suggestion that if you are in conversation with an atheist, he is likely to challenge you to prove that God exists, lest he is asked to prove that God doesn't exist (because he can't).Jack Kinsella is at it again. Seeking to disprove atheists' arguments, that is. One of the most formidable obstacles atheism must contend with, he says, is the existence of its principal tool - the ability to reason.
Knowledge is attained by reasoned thought and by reasoned thought, the atheist has concluded that he knows there is no God. . .
What is the evolutionist's explanation for the ability to reason? They argue it is the result of chemical reactions in the brain. But chemicals react - they don't think, or reason, or plan.
It is a bedrock principle of science that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A chemical reaction cannot generate morality, immorality, reason or rationality.
A reaction is the result of an action. Reason, on the other hand, is the analysis of that action. . .
The ability to reason can only come from one of two sources. It was either the product of intelligent design or it was the result of mindless chance.
Since the mindless cannot create the mind, there is only one reasonable explanation - that the mind was created by intelligent design and implanted with a divine moral code.
Just as a chemical reaction cannot explain reason, reason cannot explain a moral code. . .
If a deer population in a particular area grows too dense, conservationists will hold a 'deer cull' - a special hunting season on deer to reduce the population and ensure the survival of the species.
The morality of taking a deer's life is not at issue when the alternative is the needless suffering, starvation or death of the whole population. Why is it immoral to do the same with human beings?. . .
Even if a chemical reaction could explain how we know right from wrong, it doesn't explain why culling deer is right and culling humans is wrong.
What is the objective standard? Upon what basis do we form such profound judgments?. . .
If they are nothing more than the mindless product of random chance chemical reactions in the brain, how can we KNOW anything?
We can't. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Knowledge is greater than random chemical reaction.
You can't be an atheist without having faith in your own reason and judgment, but the basis for your faith cannot be explained apart from the Creator God that you are sure (based on your God-given ability to reason) does not exist.
Of course, recognizing intelligent design is not the same thing as recognizing a loving God Who sent His only begotten Son to atone for the sins of mankind at the Cross.
But it's a start.
Sounds reasonable to me.
