Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Three

The second reason Charnock gives for the folly of atheism (again, the first reason being swimming against the tide of the universal testimony of mankind) is that it is foolish to deny God's revelation of himself in creation, what is termed general revelation. To support this he cites Romans 1:19, 20: "[S]ince what may be known about God is plain to [wicked men who suppress the truth], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Paul could not be more explicit.

Charnock employs an analogy of a mirror--just as in a mirror we see a true (if not complete) depiction of the image of a person or object, so creation reflects the glorious image of its Creator. The heavens are especially eloquent on this point (see Psalm 19, for example). "Where Scripture was not revealed, the world served for a witness of a God."

He then elaborates this concept by looking at four aspects of how creation testifies to the reality of God: the very existence of creation, its harmony, its preservation, and its several purposes. We will look at these in more detail.

Charnock's First Summary Statement

Apologies for my brief silence--last week was rather busy.

At the conclusion of his first extended discussion of the folly of atheism, Charnock observes, "[I]s it not a folly for an atheist to deny that which is the reason and common sentiment of the whole world; to strip himself of humanity, run counter to his own conscience, prefer a private before an universal judgment, give the lie to his own nature and reason, assert things impossible to be proved, nay, impossible to be acted, forge irrationalities for the support of his fancy against the common persuasion of the world, and against himself, and so much of God as is manifest in him and in every man?"

I expect there is much in those words to which a contemporary atheist would object, but Charnock is not done with his argument. The next series of posts will address the testimony of general revelation--how God has manifested proof of his existence by the things he has created.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Two

Charnock gives as his second reason that it is foolish to deny general revelation, i.e., God's declaration of himself in his creation. Of course, he cites Romans 1:19, 20 as a supporting text. He also employs the analogy of a mirror, with creation reflecting the glorious image of its Creator. In this regard, he considers the heavens to be particularly good at this.

"Where Scripture was not revealed, the world served for a witness of a God."

Charnock then develops (at some length) four propositions about the witness of creatures: in their production, harmony, preservation, and answering their several ends. I will take each of these up in sequence over the next several posts.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part One

Before I start, let me take note of new information that an atheist named Paula Kirby wrote a strongly-worded article published in Friday's Washington Post decrying Christianity and promoting atheism as a superior worldview. If I can find the article I may try my hand at answering her charges, and seeing if Charnock--as we have followed him so far--has anything to say.

But back to Charnock. He states that his first reason supporting his contention that atheism is folly is that it is foolish to deny or even doubt the "universal testimony of mankind." By this he means that no human society in his experience had ever been based on atheism or maintained it as a principle tenet. He observes three aspects of this testimony:

1) It is universal. No nation in all history previous to the mid-17th century had denied the existence of God as such, although many societies have differed substantially as to the specifics (polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, monotheism, etc.). I observe parenthetically that Charnock could not have known about the skeptical and Marxist revolutions that began in the 18th century, although subsequent experience has demonstrated that the resulting societies were unstable or successful for awhile due to severe repression, indicating that long-term official atheism is untenable.

2) It is consistent and uninterrupted. Throughout the turmoil of human history, religion as an ordering concept has stood. Men have had ample opportunity and motive to debunk it but none have done so firmly and finally. Even Satan did not attempt to deny God's existence in any of his interactions with mankind recorded in the Scriptures.

3) It is natural and innate. This means that the sense of God's existence is part of the makeup of man and impossible for him to root out of himself, although certainly many have tried (once again, Romans 1).

And yet, says Charnock, this persistent sense is not a mere tradition, else why this one concept has been preserved and all the rest (according to religious thought and observance) controverted and dissimilar? And, neither is it a conspiracy of human leadership to keep their subjects under control; he develops several reasons why this cannot be the case (no evidence of it, no manner of its communication in a pretechnical civilization, no cohesive plan; goes contrary to the grain of most politicians, who have generally lacked a reverent fear of God and tend to introduce corruptions of worship rather than preserve the good; no one has ever confessed to such a conspiracy, and how could it have remained secret for so long; who gets the credit as its originator). Nor can it be a product of fear, meaning terror, of God, for the notion of God must precede being terrorized by him; no one fears what is not recognized.

The Light of Reason

Contemporary atheists like to characterize themselves as smarter and more intelligent than theists; some even go so far as to advocate the term "brights" for themselves, implying that those who believe in God are the "not-brights," or perhaps the "dims." But this seriously prejudices the case and misrepresents the place of reason in theism. It also mistakes the role of reason in atheism, which is far more dependent on irrationality than most atheists realize or care to admit.

Belief in God, most particularly the God of the Bible, is a matter not just of faith (itself often grossly misunderstood by believers as well as unbelievers) but of reason. Christianity is a reasonable faith. God has revealed himself intelligibly in creation and in Scripture; the prophets and apostles repeatedly appealed to general revelation as testimony to the reality of God.

Charnock employs the analogy of the sun as he seeks to illustrate the maxim that "revelation always implies a revealer." In the process of emitting light, by which all else is seen by normal vision, the sun reveals itself and attests to its being.

The Benefits of Debunking Atheism and Affirming the Existence of God

1) It will help expose and then root out the cause of unrighteousness in a society.

2) It is vital to religion and the proper worship of God, which is a further boon to society.

3) It makes the individual believer a better Christian, for he is enabled to know why he should believe and not just because his parents and community so instruct him. In other words, he personalizes his faith.

4) It counteracts our secret atheism and informs our worship and devotion.

5) It enhances our love of God.

Contrary to the opinions of many of our contemporaries, Charnock clearly affirms the good that true religion does for the individual and the community. An unbiased study of history will bear this out. The difficulty comes in that true religion must be propagated anew every generation. The struggle against our natural corruption is constant.

Atheism Is "A Grand Folly"

Charnock tells us that atheism is a stubborn denial of what is so plainly evident from reason, the testing of nature, and the being of man himself, to the point that it actually degrades a man. Recall that Charnock wrote in the middle of the 17th century in England. He observes that ordinarily he would consider it a waste of time to defend the existence of God, but that there had been in his day a proliferation of atheists (who styled themselves free-thinkers) as well as a rise in moral corruption, which he links together. As he will discuss shortly, open atheism had been espoused very rarely in Western civilization and practically not at all for the preceding millennium in Europe. So for Charnock the rise of open atheism was a new phenomenon; he did not know, as we do now, that things would only get worse in succeeding centuries. Be that as it may, he wrote in order to refute the arguments being raised and to lend encouragement to his fellow Christians--a proper study and understanding of God as he really is being of much benefit in dispelling the secret atheism that can plague even professed believers and hence reduce the outworkings of such corrupting influences.

Three Aspects of Atheism

In the next section of this discourse, Charnock sets out and defends three propositions:

1) "An atheist is a great fool." Bear in mind what has already been said about fools and folly. I can think of several contemporary figures that illustrate and confirm the truth of this statement.

2) "Practical atheism is natural to man in his corrupt state." Looking ahead, the second discourse in the book is dedicated to the subject of practical atheism, so Charnock has much to say on this.

3) "A secret atheism...is the spring of all the wicked practices in the world."

We will take up each of these propositions in sequence over the next several days.

The Threefold Denial of God

The fool/atheist denies God in three ways: that God exists, that he rules and provides, and that he is perfect in part or all. The second denial is subtle in that it is tantamount to actual or pure atheism; it is born out of a desire to do as the fool pleases, without being held to account, and ends up in denying God's existence out of wish-fulfillment. This sort of a man wants the lights extinguished so that he can indulge his lusts in secret, in the dark, where no one can see them. I am reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre's expressed disgust at what he called the "voyeur God," whose prying eye saw all and allowed no privacy for indulgence whatsoever. I am also reminded of the behavior of cockroaches--they go about their sordid business in the dark and instantly scatter when the light is flicked on. Not a very flattering analogy.

Charnock will develop each of these thoughts further, but first he pauses to examine the second half of Psalm 14:1.

1) They are corrupt. This is the outworking of a denial of God. Impure men desperately deny a holy God. They cannot bear to be in his presence.

2) They have done abominable works. This follows from their corruption. As a man thinks in his heart, so he is, and by his fruits you shall know him.

3) There is none that does good. Ouch. This is the universal condemnation of fallen man. Painful as it may be to accept, there is some atheism in all of us; even professing believers are subject to it (Titus 1:16). By our sins we deny God. For his part, God's judgment for our sins also entails us being given over to our evil passions so that we confirm ourselves in our condemnation (Romans 1).

The entire text is an indictment of man's corruption, complete and extensive. And lest anyone thinks he can escape, Paul (to whose exegesis we must submit) extends the embrace of this verse to everyone, Jew and Gentile (Romans 3).

The Existence of God

Charnock begins his first discourse using Psalm 14:1 as his text: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

He breaks the first half of the verse into its three components.

1) The fool--this denotes a wicked man. Folly in Hebrew thought is a moral designation, not chiefly an intellectual characterization, although certainly a fool's thoughts are often intellectually substandard. The word is related to the Hebrew for used-up, dry and barren, lifeless, like a plant that's lost its sap. The fool not so much lacks reason as abuses it.

2) Says in his heart--his thoughts expressed secretly and not openly. The fool wishes God were not, he hopes there is no God. Again, this is not so much a matter of rationality but of volition, and brings to mind Paul's declaration in Romans 1 that the wicked will not acknowledge and submit to the truth of God and will not give him his rightful due. I have read contemporary (meaning 21st century) atheists express something very similar. They don't want the universe to be that way, meaning that they like or prefer the universe without God.

3) There is no God--here meaning God as judge and ruler, God in his providence. The fool is not actually denying that God exists (more on this point later), but that God rules this world and will hold all to account. The fool does not want to be accountable to anyone; he wishes to do as he pleases, without consequence, or at least without divine consequence.

We'll take up the second half of this verse tomorrow.

Ground Rules

As guidelines for the forthcoming study:

1. I accept the Old and New Testament Scriptures as inspired and inerrant. Charnock makes frequent use of them (of course) and their character will not be impugned here.

2. Since we're considering the existence and attributes of God, it helps to know which God we're discussing. Unashamedly parroting the Westminster Confession of Faith, I affirm that "there is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." Much of this will be fleshed out, so to speak, in the forthcoming weeks and months. But I want to establish up front we're not talking about the philosopher's nebulous First Cause, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

3. Constructive comments and sincere questions are welcome, but this is not a debate forum. Obstreperous trollery will not be permitted. My blog, my call.

4. I reserve the right to interrupt (briefly) this study in the event something needing a comment catches my attention.

Stephen Charnock's "The Existence and Attributes of God"

Credit Mr. Radcliffe with one thing: He motivated me finally to act on longstanding plans to blog my way through this remarkable Puritan work of theology, largely because the first two discourses of this work deal directly with atheism. To the best of my knowledge, Charnock's work has never been answered, but that is likely because few atheists are aware of it. Perhaps my efforts here may change that (I doubt it).

Who was Stephen Charnock? He was a 17th-century English Puritan divine, meaning a theologian and pastor. Born in 1628, he lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in England's history--its Civil War, temporary experiment with republican government, the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, and the arduous religious conflict that accompanied all that. He had a relationship to the Cromwells in that he served in Ireland as the chaplain to Henry Cromwell, son of the Lord Protector. Not surprisingly, then, the restoration of the monarchy and the religious reaction against Puritanism brought a reversal of fortune for Charnock. He was a victim of the outworkings of the infamous Act of Uniformity passed by a reactionary Parliament after Charles II came to the throne; many worthy men of God lost their livelihoods because they could not in good conscience acquiesce to the anti-Puritan measure. Charnock died at the relatively young age of 52 and did not live to see the religious freedom for Nonconformists gained in the Glorious Revolution that deposed the despotic James II. But he left behind a treasure-trove of theological and spiritual writings, mostly published posthumously; the work we are about to consider is perhaps his magnum opus. Charnock is frequently numbered among the better-known Puritan and Independent greats such as John Owen and Richard Baxter.

The forthcoming journey will be long but eminently worthwhile and, I trust, beneficial to anyone else who wishes to join me. Tomorrow's post will lay out some working rules for our future efforts.

Daniel Radcliffe Explains It All for Us

The Parade magazine for today contains, as its cover story, a featured interview of the English actor Daniel Radcliffe, of titular Harry Potter film fame. Mr. Radcliffe is an engaging enough young man, but I have to wonder about the wisdom of asking him questions that produce answers such as this, speaking of his upbringing:

There was never [religious] faith in the house. I think of myself as being
Jewish and Irish, despite the fact that I'm English. My dad [Ulster Protestant]
believes in God, I think. I'm not sure if my mom [Jewish, English] does. I
don't. I have a problem with religion or anything that says, "We have all the
answers," because there's no such thing as "the answers." We're complex. We
change our minds on issues all the time. Religion leaves no room for human
complexity.

And the interview leaves it at that. Perhaps it would be more fair to Mr. Radcliffe to give him the benefit of the doubt, that a more complete, thoughtful, and probing interview would allow him to develop some of these thoughts. But as provided, they're vapid to the point of absurdity. They certainly reveal a terrible deficiency in his education or (to place blame on his parents) home environment.

Perhaps in a future post I'll take a stab at replying to his statements, but for the moment I wish to ponder the folly we regularly engage in by supplying a platform for celebrities to expound on matters of great import. Do not mistake me. Mr. Radcliffe is entitled to his opinions and to express them when asked. But he is an actor. His thoughts on religion or philosophy or human complexity carry no more weight than those of the mailman, the supermarket cashier, or any number of otherwise anonymous persons who have not starred in a $7.7 billion movie franchise. Yet here he is given space provided in a national publication distributed to hundreds of thousands of American households to make unchallenged statements such as "religion leaves no room for human complexity" as if this is an unassailable truth.

Of course, he's only the latest example of this unhappy aspect of Western pop culture. We regularly hear from all sorts of celebrities pronouncing on the great issues of our times, and typically their expressed thoughts are no better developed than this. And yet the media eat it up and regurgitate it all for the consumption of the rest of us. A most unpalatable intellectual and spiritual diet.

Stuck on Stupid

Okay, that's a bit harsh. Blame it on frustration.

Last night while meandering through the Internet I somewhat lazily clicked on an article about a certain pop music figure's new tattoo of an image of Jesus. Aside from obscuring the glaring truth that none of us really knows for certain what Jesus looked like beyond a bare sketch (first century Palestinian Jew, around thirty years old during his active ministry, wore a beard) the article wasn't all that memorable. But as I scrolled through the comments I came across the latest transgression in a recurring Internet meme: some anonymous yahoo ridiculing all the concern about a "mythical figure" from a "made-up book." And he wasn't talking about the pop music icon.

No, I didn't reply, although I might have if the site hadn't required a Facebook or Twitter registration. But if I had it undoubtedly would have done absolutely no good at all. For all its ballyhooed benefits in "education" and "knowledge provision" the Internet is also a slough of perpetuated ignorance. What this guy alleged--that Jesus is an ahistorical figure, and the New Testament has the same value as history as the Harry Potter series--is pure nonsense. No serious academic historian doubts the historicity of Jesus. Plenty of critics may call into question various aspects of the New Testament writings but that these books actually refer to a person who really lived in Roman Judea and the Galilee is beyond dispute. Yet there is a small vocal group that feeds upon itself trying to keep this lame idea alive. It is enough to make one despair of mankind's basic rationality.

And then I remember Paul's letter to the Romans, the first chapter, and I am reminded just how desperate is the motivation to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Michigan State 33, Georgia 30 in Triple Overtime

Please forgive a personal indulgence but, hey, it's my blog, so I guess I can personally indulge.

My alma mater just came up victorious in its consolation bowl* and gave the Big Ten its lone victory against the SEC today. The whole story is here: http://www.freep.com/article/20120102/SPORTS07/120102032/Michigan-State-33-Georgia-30-3-OT-Spartans-win-Outback-Bowl-blocked-kick?odyssey=tabtopnewstextFRONTPAGE

No more excuses, now. Next year it's the Rose Bowl or bust. Unless it's the BSC Championship...

*Thanks to stupid Wisconsin and the stupid BSC Selection Committee.

New Year, New Run at Regular Blogging

Well, we'll see how long it lasts this time, anyway.

Today's Washington Post sports section contains a very interesting column by Sally Jenkins about the media phenomenon of hating on Tim Tebow, the current mostly-successful quarterback of the Denver Broncos and a confessed evangelical Christian who makes no effort to hide his faith, mostly by deeds but sometimes by words. She uses as examples the boorish (a polite term) behavior of the so-called comedian Bill Maher and a radio personality named Bill Press. Both of these gentlemen (I use the term loosely) have employed ugly language recently in referring to Mr. Tebow and his professed religion. Ms. Jenkins calls them to task for it, wondering why it's any skin off their noses that Tebow is an admitted Christian, and more or less tells people to back off.

While I generally appreciate Ms. Jenkins's comments they only go so far toward the truth behind the Tebow-hating. At its root is the sinner's rebellion against God, specifically as it expresses itself in hatred for God's Anointed. Jesus told us to remember that if they hate those who bear the name of Christ, they hated him first. And Paul teaches that the faithful Christian will always be loathed by the world, because he is the smell of death to them--he reminds them that death comes and there will be an accounting, and the sinner hates being accountable to God.

It is no good trying to accommodate the "cultured despisers." One way or another they will still hate and they will excuse themselves in the doing of it.