[Poster: former Soviet Union propaganda artwork saying "NO GOD!", commemorating Russia's first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin's 1961 trip to space. He was asked by Russian News if he had seen God in space.]
At least half of the Jewish People world-wide are agnostic or atheist, and that's especially true among Russian emigres to the USA. Here in Philadelphia with a Russian-speaking population of 70,000+, at least 70% of Russian speakers are Jews. Years ago, Communist Russia taught something called "Scientific Atheism" based on the presumption that atheism was the foundation for empirical science and that religious faith was simply superstition. If you wanted to get anywhere in Russian academia or be "upwardly mobile" in the Party or the institutes or the factories, you kept your religion to yourself. Many of these US emigres are still atheist/agnostic because they've never had a dialog with a Christian who knew what he was talking about. But even among Americans in general, agnosticism and atheism are widespread.
To counter "Scientific Atheism", here's a short list of the founders of various fields of physical science. What these all have in common is a shared faith in the existence of the biblical God, and NOT in an agnostic/atheistic universe of random-chance. And their discoveries were based on that biblical view:
. antiseptic surgery: Joseph Lister
. bacteriology: Louis Pasteur
. calculus: Isaac Newton
. celestial mechanics: Johannes Kepler
. chemistry: Robert Boyle
. comparative anatomy: Georges Culver
. computer science: Charles Babbage
. dimensional analysis: Lord Rayleigh
. dynamics: Isaac Newton
. electronics: John Ambrose Fleming
. electrodynamics: James Clerk Maxwell
. electromagnetics: Michael Faraday
. energetics: Lord Kelvin
. entomology of living insects: Henri Fabre
. field theory: Michael Faraday
. galactic astronomy: Sir William Herschel
. gas dynamics: Robert Boyle
. genetics: Gregor Mendel
. gynecology: Louis Agassiz
. hydrography: James Simpson
. hydrostatics: Blaise Pascal
. ichthyology: Louis Agassiz
. isotopic chemistry: William Ramsey
. model analysis: Lord Rayleigh
. natural history: John Ray
. non-Euclidean geometry: Bernard Riemann
. oceanography: Matthew Maury
. optical mineralogy: David Brewster *
[ The Biblical Basis For Modern Science by Henry Morris, p. 463-465, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984 as quoted in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Vol. 2, by Michael L. Brown, p. 243, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2000.]
There are MANY fine books written on how to share your faith with agnostic/atheistic people. But in case you don't have time for a book, here are some basic rebuttals condensed into a few talking points:
1) Reasoning with Agnostics: If they object to taking a blind "leap of faith" (as they think you've done!), then tell them they've already taken that leap by concluding that no conclusion can be reached about God. The point you should make with them? Their view itself is a religious faith commitment.
2) They assume agnosticism is open minded. Challenge that assumption on the basis of what you know about Romans 1:18-23. Ask them: "Wouldn't you be more inclined to be biased against faith in an all-powerful Judge of deeds and thoughts who brings mankind into a Day of Judgment? Ask: "How can you be sure that you wouldn't be prejudiced (and not open-minded) against such a conclusion, and therefore avoid giving it its due consideration?"
3) Show them John 3:19 and following verses. Even if they discount your use of the Bible, certain verses contain "cut-to-the-heart" timeless truths that even the unchurched can see. For example: "Light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Since that's evidently true in forensic science, or psychology, or criminal justice, why would it not be true in matters of religion?
4) Ask them if they're open-minded or narrow-minded. Agnostics/atheists believe they've arrived at their views because they're open-minded. They aren't, but what you're doing here is getting a commitment from them to keep an open mind. Ask: "Are you willing to change your mind if I could show you that belief in the biblical God is not only possible logically, but is in fact essential for a civilized society? (In other words, "Are you willing to change your mind if it can be shown that atheism/agnosticism cannot be the social basis for restraining societal evil?" To say this another way: without the fear of God, what's left is only the fear of getting caught or the fear of the all-powerful State. Perfect example: since the Ten Commandments were removed from public schools, delinquency has increased. Therefore, if the social need exists for genuine belief in the biblical God, does not this fact then testify that there probably IS one?
5) Apart from there being a God (i.e., an ultimate Law-Giver), there is no basis for any appeal to morality, truth or ethics. Why? Because if ours is a world and universe of random-chance (as "A&A" people believe) then how can we appeal to a transcendent, permanent moral order, or use terms like "justice vs. injustice" or "evil vs. good", etc.? For example ... why is what ISIS is doing to its victims called "evil". Why isn't it simply called "painful" ?
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
[Poster: former Soviet Union propaganda artwork saying "NO GOD!", commemorating Russia's first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin's 1961 trip to space. He was asked by Russian News if he had seen God in space.]
At least half of the Jewish People world-wide are agnostic or atheist, and that's especially true among Russian emigres to the USA. Here in Philadelphia with a Russian-speaking population of 70,000+, at least 70% of Russian speakers are Jews. Years ago, Communist Russia taught something called "Scientific Atheism" based on the presumption that atheism was the foundation for empirical science and that religious faith was simply superstition. If you wanted to get anywhere in Russian academia or be "upwardly mobile" in the Party or the institutes or the factories, you kept your religion to yourself. Many of these US emigres are still atheist/agnostic because they've never had a dialog with a Christian who knew what he was talking about. But even among Americans in general, agnosticism and atheism are widespread.
To counter "Scientific Atheism", here's a short list of the founders of various fields of physical science. What these all have in common is a shared faith in the existence of the biblical God, and NOT in an agnostic/atheistic universe of random-chance. And their discoveries were based on that biblical view:
. antiseptic surgery: Joseph Lister
. bacteriology: Louis Pasteur
. calculus: Isaac Newton
. celestial mechanics: Johannes Kepler
. chemistry: Robert Boyle
. comparative anatomy: Georges Culver
. computer science: Charles Babbage
. dimensional analysis: Lord Rayleigh
. dynamics: Isaac Newton
. electronics: John Ambrose Fleming
. electrodynamics: James Clerk Maxwell
. electromagnetics: Michael Faraday
. energetics: Lord Kelvin
. entomology of living insects: Henri Fabre
. field theory: Michael Faraday
. galactic astronomy: Sir William Herschel
. gas dynamics: Robert Boyle
. genetics: Gregor Mendel
. gynecology: Louis Agassiz
. hydrography: James Simpson
. hydrostatics: Blaise Pascal
. ichthyology: Louis Agassiz
. isotopic chemistry: William Ramsey
. model analysis: Lord Rayleigh
. natural history: John Ray
. non-Euclidean geometry: Bernard Riemann
. oceanography: Matthew Maury
. optical mineralogy: David Brewster *
[ The Biblical Basis For Modern Science by Henry Morris, p. 463-465, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984 as quoted in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Vol. 2, by Michael L. Brown, p. 243, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2000.]
There are MANY fine books written on how to share your faith with agnostic/atheistic people. But in case you don't have time for a book, here are some basic rebuttals condensed into a few talking points:
1) Reasoning with Agnostics: If they object to taking a blind "leap of faith" (as they think you've done!), then tell them they've already taken that leap by concluding that no conclusion can be reached about God. The point you should make with them? Their view itself is a religious faith commitment.
2) They assume agnosticism is open minded. Challenge that assumption on the basis of what you know about Romans 1:18-23. Ask them: "Wouldn't you be more inclined to be biased against faith in an all-powerful Judge of deeds and thoughts who brings mankind into a Day of Judgment? Ask: "How can you be sure that you wouldn't be prejudiced (and not open-minded) against such a conclusion, and therefore avoid giving it its due consideration?"
3) Show them John 3:19 and following verses. Even if they discount your use of the Bible, certain verses contain "cut-to-the-heart" timeless truths that even the unchurched can see. For example: "Light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Since that's evidently true in forensic science, or psychology, or criminal justice, why would it not be true in matters of religion?
4) Ask them if they're open-minded or narrow-minded. Agnostics/atheists believe they've arrived at their views because they're open-minded. They aren't, but what you're doing here is getting a commitment from them to keep an open mind. Ask: "Are you willing to change your mind if I could show you that belief in the biblical God is not only possible logically, but is in fact essential for a civilized society? (In other words, "Are you willing to change your mind if it can be shown that atheism/agnosticism cannot be the social basis for restraining societal evil?" To say this another way: without the fear of God, what's left is only the fear of getting caught or the fear of the all-powerful State. Perfect example: since the Ten Commandments were removed from public schools, delinquency has increased. Therefore, if the social need exists for genuine belief in the biblical God, does not this fact then testify that there probably IS one?
5) Apart from there being a God (i.e., an ultimate Law-Giver), there is no basis for any appeal to morality, truth or ethics. Why? Because if ours is a world and universe of random-chance (as "A&A" people believe) then how can we appeal to a transcendent, permanent moral order, or use terms like "justice vs. injustice" or "evil vs. good", etc.? For example ... why is what ISIS is doing to its victims called "evil". Why isn't it simply called "painful" ?
Continue reading other blogs? Click http://www.scripturesdramatized.com/radio-blogs
