Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Six

Charnock next observes that the being that does not understand itself thoroughly and is not capable of ordering itself cannot make itself. In order to make something properly one has to comprehend it. More than three centuries after Charnock wrote man still lacks comprehensive knowledge of himself, of his own nature. It is certain that this is not just lost knowledge--that at one point in the distant past some supremely wise man had such knowledge but somehow failed to pass it on.

He also observes, somewhat parenthetically, that the knowledge of ourselves we gain from Scripture about our nature, while not accessibly through the exercise of reason, is not contrary to reason. Here he would be talking chiefly about man's sinfulness and fall from original righteousness.

Charnock then explores a hypothetical: Say for the sake of argument that the first man did in fact make himself. If this is the case, why did he make himself with limits? Why is man not decked out in power and excellences? It is a certainty that man desires to be much more than he is; why not indulge all his desires at the outset? In fact, man's limitations testify to his contingency.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Five

Wow, I really have been remiss. A combination of a bad cold and many other demands on my time. I'll try to do better.

In the next section of his argument, Charnock maintains that no creature can create itself. In the specific case of man, he quotes Psalm 100:3: "Know that the Lord himself is God; it is he who has made us and not we ourselves." To delve into the matter deeper, he observes that every created thing began to be (i.e., had a beginning, as already demonstrated) and once was not. If something is not, does not exist, it is no thing or nothing. At one time, I was not--depending on precisely when you want to time my beginning, we can say at least that prior to 1958 I did not exist and therefore was nothing. That may be existentially uncomfortable, but there you have it. And when I was nothing--when I did not exist--I could do nothing. That which is nothing cannot act. It cannot do. Nothing can act before it is. And therefore no creature can create itself, for to create is to act and the creature cannot be and not be in the same time and in the same relationship. Rationality 101, folks--the law of noncontradiction.

Tomorrow I hope to move to the next section of this argument in which Charnock considers not just the impossibility of creatures self-creating but the necessary processes by which things are created.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Four

In the first place, simply that creatures are testifies to their Creator. "All things that are demonstrate something from whence they are." A statue testifies to the existence of a sculptor; a garden testifies to the existence of a gardener; a book testifies to the existence of a writer.

Furthermore, all creatures had a beginning. There was a time when they were not. The world is not eternal or from eternity, so someone or something had to bring it into existence. This "cause" of creation must itself be in being before it created--"that which is not cannot act."

Charnock elaborates two additional arguments here. He first observes that time itself cannot be infinite (the kalam argument familiar to the Christian apologist) else now could not have yet arrived. Therefore the world is not eternal. He specifically argues from the finitude of past heavenly revolutions, meaning that the planets have accomplished a finite number of orbits around the sun, and the moon a finite number of orbits around the earth--there cannot be an endless stretch backwards in time. Secondly, generations of living things cannot be infinite or from eternity because they develop or mature and thus require time. And because in the current state of things we experience decay and death, an eternal generation of creatures would necessitate an eternity of corruption; in this, Charnock was likely anticipating the concept of entropy.

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.