Copy Code

Richard Dawkins said, “the very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible. Not only should we not get our moral compass from religion, as a matter of fact we don’t”. Consider the thought process of Richard Dawkins. He says himself that “the very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible”. We can see clearly that he, as well as many others with this mindset, are truly closed minded to teachings and guidance that does not come from self and/or does not live up to his own standards.

Look also at the claim that it is fact that we do not obtain our moral compass from religion. Friends, the fact is that he cannot prove this claim as fact. Look to what the Word of God says concerning man’s standards: “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer 10:23). The Psalmist says “The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, And He delights in his way” (Ps 37:23). You see, it is the God of the Bible that gives humanity morality, for man cannot direct his own paths. “A man’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?” (Prov 20:24).

Atheism and Antitheism is foolish and absent, void of any substance. Allow me to explain. Modern evolutionists such as Dawkins say that we have selfish genes that are set in motion to do what they must do. To quote him: “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” To him and many others, we are just a product of evolution and we are just dancing to our DNA.

We must understand that this type of reasoning works against itself because it lacks substance and truth. Even the author of these quotes works against himself by showing us that his perception of the truth is only a theory. He says himself, “evolution is a theory in a special philosophical sense of science, but in terms of ordinary laymen’s use of language, it’s a fact,”. Notice how he redefines terms to suit his own desires and his own cause. For instance, science has to change for his theory to work. He states that evolution is a “special philosophical sense of science”. This is like me telling you that red is really black in a special philosophical way. What is science? Science is “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation”. Science is verifiable facts, thus because they are verifiable they become truths. Notice that the very definition of science excludes the idea of theories.

We are not robots or machines. We are human beings who were and are created by God and are known by Him. For the Lord our God has spoken, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). The inspired Psalmist said it like this: “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Ps 139:13). Yes, only “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps 14:1a).

What is “philosophy of science”? Philosophy of Science is “the study of the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including such questions as what distinguishes science from non-science, what are the aims of science, or what is a successful scientific explanation of a phenomenon”. So you can see that philosophy of science is based on assumptions and not truths. Friends, when Richard Dawkins and those of his belief say “it’s a fact” or “this is a truth which still fills me with astonishment”, understand that their facts, truth, and astonishments come from assumptions that have been conceived by the minds of men and not of God.

To be continued next week.