9 points: It takes Great blind faith to be an atheist
by James Bishop
1) What is faith? Atheists certainly have it.
According to many atheists faith is something to mean belief without evidence, or where there is no evidence – in other words faith is always blind, and irrational. However, this is not the way a Christian views faith, or how the Biblical record defines it, rather they view it as evidence based, therefore, rational. In fact, both the Christian and the atheist have faith in unprovable things. For example, atheists have to have faith that reason and evidence are reliable ways to get at truth, that we can trust our senses, that the universe is rationally intelligible. Atheists, like all humans, try to make sense of their existence, and the universe in which they live. This inevitably results in beliefs regarding morality, of the purpose of life, of what happens when we die and so on – all of this constitutes a worldview. More often than not this worldview is called naturalism, which is the view that nature is all there is, and that no supernatural reality exists.
Now, atheism is not a religion but it entails a set of beliefs that come with it, yet to refer to it as a religion is fallacious. The way I see it and what this article will best attempt to illustrate is that the worldview of atheism requires faith in the sense of blind-belief, the very thing they accuse God believers of.
2) From Evolution:
Atheists have to hold dogmatically that evolution presupposes their naturalism. Not only would this be unprovable but it can’t be used to dismiss God’s activity in the world, for God could have guided, overseen or initiated the process. An atheist like Dawkins claims that Darwin has made God unnecessary in biology, but that would be the case only if theists believed in a god-of-the-gaps. By no means do Christian theists believe in such a god, rather we believe in a God who oversees the entire process, hence cannot be explained away by scientific discovery. Dawkins’ statement is not scientific, but philosophical, hence why Albert Einstein once mused that: “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”
Yet on top of this the atheist has to hold to a mindboggling and incomprehensible improbability that the human genome evolved in the way they believe it did. In a book called the ‘Anthropic Cosmological Principle’ two prominent scientists Barrow and Tippler lay out ten steps that human evolution would need to have gone through in order to bring about modern man as we know him. But here is the central issue for atheistic evolution – each of these steps are so improbable that even before it could ever possibly occur our sun would have burnt out and ceased to exist, and in the process it would obliterate our planet Earth. In fact, the number that Barrow and Tippler calculate the chance of atheistic, unguided evolution of ever occurring in the human genome to be somewhere between the values of:
4^-180^110 000 and 4^-380^110 000.
Consider the fact that the number of electron particles in the known universe is estimated to be 10^87 – even such an incomprehensible number (10^87) such as that shrivels in comparison to the calculated number above. Now, if we were to be rational we would never even consider the chance of something occurring with such an enormous improbability. Yet, the atheist has to as he has no other option…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>