Thursday, February 8, 2007

Longing for Lies

I've often heard the atheist argument that humans are hard-wired for belief in a nonexistent deity as a survival mechanism. Sam "The Brain" Harris was on C-Span the other night, and he implied as much in a conversation with Reza Aslan (no relation to Narnia's storied King).

I find this proposition downright silly; it illustrates the grasping at straws that occurs whenever someone denies God. After all, if nature has the capacity for such a bizarre, abstract idea, why not call nature God? Because it nullifies the original assertion that there is no God, and we can't let logic or common sense stand obstacles on the road to enlightened atheism.

But it gets worse. Simple observation of the world around us leads to a conclusion diametrically opposite the first. Would anyone argue that dogs and cats, elephants and ants, or pigs and cockroaches believe in God, or understand who or what He is? I doubt it. Yet they not only survive, but thrive, and have done so for millennia. The animal kingdom has made it to this point in history without the necessity of a make-believe Creator, so why is such a concept required for the survival of humans--the most advanced organism on Earth?

In terms of logic, which strikes you as more plausible: that humans come prepackaged with a need for God because God is real, or that insentient nature instills this false belief as a mechanism for human benefit?

I think the answer is obvious to anyone free of the preconceived belief that God is a phony, and the nonexistent Devil take the evidence.

One final observation: It's funny how "logical" atheists indulge in wanton speculation, while mocking and belittling Christians for doing the same. At least the Christian can point to scripture and basic observation as a support for his outlook. The atheist cannot.

No comments: