The Da Vinci Code Cracks

The latest issue of Solid Ground from Stand to Reason contains some good material on "cracking" Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. You will need Adobe Acrobat reader to view the document.

Blog link: Between two worlds

I came across and interesting link whilst over at the Stand to Reason blog. It's called Between two worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture. Make sure to check it out.

Evolution and morality

Evolutionists would have us believe that man (including morality) evolved. But this is a bit odd isn’t it? Morals seem to be dissolving rather than evolving. Scientists have observed monkeys practicing basic “moral” behaviour and conclude that it is the result of natural selection. But motive and intent are crucial parts of moral conduct so it is quite silly to think that morality can be reduced to observable behaviour.

If evolution were true, virtues like mercy and love would not be acts of “virtue” that were freely chosen. They would be instinctive behaviours that were hard-wired for personal survival (a fact evolutionists readily admit). However, moral values involve chosen traits, not instinctual ones. This is most evident in the fact that we hold people morally responsible for free choices, not innate reactions. No one goes before the law court and argues, “Evolution, genetics and natural selection made me do it. Survival of the fittest and all that good stuff your honour.” If morality could be reduced to a naturalistic mechanism, it wouldn’t be morality anymore.

Darwin’s disciples fail to realize (or admit) that morality is not simply an account of what we do (descriptive), but a system explaining what we ought to do (prescriptive), and therefore evolution can’t explain it. If you are confused about origins, be sure to include Answers in Genesis and True Origin Archive in your research.

Atheism's bloody past

It was Laurence Sterne who said, “Whenever a man talks loudly against religion, always suspect that it is not his reason, but his passions which have got the better of his creed.” Atheism is completely illogical and anyone with a basic introduction to philosophy should pick this up. Atheism affirms a negative in the absolute (there is no God), which is an obvious logical contradiction. Bertrand Russell realized (and admitted) this in his later essays and it is the primary reason he switched to agnosticism.

On the opinion that innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion, we should be honest enough to admit that atheism has an equally, if not, bloodier history. Stalin was an avowed atheist. In fact, Lenin (who read Friedrich Nietzsche) specifically selected Stalin because of his hatred of things religious. Hitler, who personally presented a copy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings to Benito Mussolini, gave Nietzsche’s theory of the “Superman”, a military interpretation. The “Superman” was an individual who overcame what Nietzsche termed the “slave morality” of traditional values, and lived according to his own morality. The rest as they say, is history. Nietzsche advanced the idea that “God is dead,” or, “traditional morality was no longer relevant in people’s lives”. Nietzsche and countless other ungodly philosophers have heavily impacted the Western mindset, so it is little wonder that we are in this moral quagmire.

If atheism is true then no moral law exists. If morality is espoused, it is merely utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive. The West is being rocked at her knees because we have lost the point of reference for the values which we are desperately trying to hold onto. We think we can survive without adhering to a transcendent moral law. Atheism’s bloody past cries out against the experiment.

The abolition of sin

Modern society is desperately trying to abolish the concept of sin. With political correctness now on steroids, we dress up sin with high-sounding words. Vices have become virtues and vice versa. Take the Good as New “translation” of the sacred Christian Scriptures. This translation describes itself as women, gay and sinner friendly. The Scripture says, “for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9). They have changed it to “If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.” To avoid offending people in homosexual relationships, references to “husband and wife” are replaced with “partner.”

This “translation” is a bit shocking but not totally surprising. Paul warned young Timothy about this, “For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to their own needs” (2 Timothy 4:3). We can sugar coat sin and psychoanalyze ourselves until the cows come home. But we should also remember the prophet Isaiah’s words: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)”