Good and Evil

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Recently I had a young man share with me that he did not believe in good and evil.
I think, most commonly, those who don’t feel there is such a thing as objective, moral good, have that stance because they don’t see a ‘God’ behind the scenes, or more often, don’t want to. They believe that our existence has come to this point in time due to chance. With billions of stars in our Milky Way alone, and all the billions of other galaxies, each one of those galaxies with billions of other stars and solar systems, the odds are that one of them would come up with some kind of combination that would support life, which eventually over millions and billions of years, would evolve into intelligent life. If we have just evolved, without any supernatural intervention by an all loving and all powerful God, then the concept of good and evil would just be an opinion on the current state of affairs. In other words, someone could look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a good thing, or at the very least, a neutral event. They may believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with shooting small school children. Now in any organized, intelligent society, it would be commonly accepted that if we all went around shooting one another on a regular basis, it would do little to further a culture, or the human race, as a whole. Consequently, those kind of behaviors are frowned upon, and atheists believe it is quite ‘natural’ that humans come up with morals, or safe guards, that would deal with those kinds of anti-social actions. For any species expected to grow and develop, behavior within that species which would randomly eliminate each other, would simply become extinct. Simply put, for a species to survive, they must come up with behaviors that improve their lot in life, and having laws against random shootings and murders is such an example in the eyes of a naturalist/atheist.

Now we can come up with examples like the Holocaust, and hundreds of other historical events, that tug on our heart strings. Just about everyone would agree that the Holocaust, or the torture of young children “for the fun of it” is evil, but there are a few who don’t see it that way. Yes, they agree it is wrong, in a natural sort of way, but the atheist does not believe it is wrong because some higher being would frown upon that kind of behavior. We live in a time that Francis Schaeffer, (founder of L’Abri), called “sociological law”. Our laws and entertainment change as our cultures change. During the Roman Civilization, it was lawful and entertaining to throw people to wild animals and to watch gladiators fight to the death. In the 1950’s, it was unlawful for homosexuals to be married, for women to have abortions, and for men to pay for sex. Sixty years later all are lawful, acceptable, and in some instances, common place. If we just rely on opinion polls, (as politicians do), to decide what kind of behavior is acceptable, then behavior is nothing more than a favorite flavor of ice cream. On one of the forums I visit, when someone wrote they did not believe in evil, another asked, “What if I poked you in the eye and stole your wallet; would you have a problem with that?” It was said tongue-in-cheek to a degree, but the point is well taken. Quite often, those who say they don’t believe in evil might very well change their mind when someone else wants to take advantage of them for purposes they don’t agree with.

Timothy Keller, who wrote The Reason for God – Belief in an Age of Skepticism, gave an example I want to share. He wrote, “For many years after each of the morning and evening Sunday services I remained in the auditorium for another hour to field questions. Hundreds of people stayed for the give and take discussions. One of the most frequent statements I heard was that, ‘Every person has the right to define right and wrong, for himself or herself.’ I always responded to the speakers by asking, “Is there anyone in the world right now, doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?” They would invariably say, “Yes, of course.” Then I would ask, “Doesn’t that mean you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of that a person feels or thinks?” Almost always, the response to that question was a silence, either a thoughtful or a grumpy one.”

What is to stop our society from becoming morally bankrupt and accept abuses which have been acceptable to cultures in the past without objective morals?

Proverbs 21:2 A person may think their own ways are right,
but the Lord weighs the heart.

We Live in a Black Hole?

Reading Time: 3 minutes

According to Nikodem Poplawski in an article he published with insidesience.org, “Our universe may exist in a black hole. It sounds strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began…” I thought to myself this should be good, so I continued reading. He goes on to submit several questions that have pressed science since Hubble discovered our expanding universe in 1929. Then before he starts into the body of his article he says, “The idea that our universe is entirely contained within a black hole provides answers to these problems and many more.”

As I read the article, one item stood out to me that I would have missed, if not for an apologetic argument concerning our beginnings, which I have become familiar with this past year . It is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Atheists, and particularly atheistic scientists, have struggled to find answers to what caused the Big Bang, a theory that has become commonly accepted in the science and theist circles. The idea that the Big Bang has a cause that we as believers refer to as God, triggers great frustrations to the naturalist.

Simply put, the Kalam Argument states that everything created has a cause. For example, A was caused by B, B was caused by C, C was caused by D, etc.

Another way to look at the series of causation is that the tree in your front yard was caused by the seed of another tree, which was caused by the seed of another tree, etc. We can trace these seemingly endless causes, (but they are not endless), back in time to a beginning point science calls a singularity. And you thought that was just a made up scientific term used by Star Trek fans. From this singularity came the Big Bang, a name which really does a poor job of describing what took place.

The Big Bang was not an explosion in terms that we are familiar with, pieces scattered in all directions and everywhere. A better image, that William Lane Craig uses, describes the universe expanding much like buttons that are glued onto a balloon someone is blowing up. Aside from the causation argument, tell me of any explosion that took place which ended up creating something. I think it was Ravi Zacharias that said you could liken it to “an explosion in a printing press which produced an encyclopedia.”

Even Einstein based his model of relativity on the theory of a universe which was not expanding or retracting, but a universe that just always ‘was’. When Einstein visited the Wilson Observatory in 1932, to confirm with his own eyes what Hubble discovered, I can only imagine that he left scratching his head.

The idea of a universe that had a beginning was troubling to many who, like Carl Sagan said in The Cosmos, “The universe is all there is, was, and ever will be.” So here we have a theory that science has nearly understood for a hundred years, and atheists still grasp at straws to come up with something, anything, that would explain our creation without the use of a creator.

In his article, Poplawski talks about atoms, particle spins, black matter, dark energy, torsion, and then says, “Every black hole would produce a new, baby universe inside. If that is true, then the first matter in our universe came from somewhere else. So our own universe could be the interior of a black hole in the cosmos, any observers in the parent universe could not see what is going on in ours.”

These kind of theories that are impossible to confirm, multiverse theories as William Lane Craig calls them, simply push back the question of where we came from. I would ask if this theory of black holes is true, then where did that parent universe come from? Where did its parent universe come from, and when do we stop asking such questions?

This theory is really just another veiled multiverse theory that provides us with no answer as to why we exist, but thankfully, we as believers know how we came to exist, but more importantly why we exist. God is a necessary uncaused being and the question atheists ask, “Who caused God?” does the same thing. It pushes back the question and leads to an infinite number of gods. The only plausible and logical answer is that God is uncaused, He has existed forever, (forever does not mean endless time, but standing outside of time), all powerful, and all knowing.

Even though science struggles with this truth, we as Christians don’t need to fear science, but should always look forward to the next discovery that will only point to a God whose thoughts are not like ours, and who’s creation was beyond our imagination. Sir Arthur Eddington said, “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”

Pin It on Pinterest