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.