Article by Cameron Spink

 

Steve Kryger, on The Punch today, raised the issue of whether we have any existence in the afterlife. Of course, he got shouted down in the comment section by atheists.

 

You see most militant atheists make three fundamental mistakes. Firstly, they believe that the concept of "faith" is one that is diametrically oppositional to evidence. That people rely on faith when they have no evidence. However, this is a claim that holds no merit. Anyone looking rationally at the claims of Christianity versus the claims of atheism would see that there are valid points.

 

If both sides have compelling evidence then it does not help the argument by name calling and saying Christians are "irrational" or "completely faith-based without facts". In fact if one were interested in the persuasion of Christ just invest in books like I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist or visit William Lane Craig's website.

 

So why do they assume that there is no evidence for Christ? Well, it is because most atheists have pre-conceived ideas that mean they must rule out Christianity. The reason for this is because an atheist can only believe in the material, what is physically in front of them. Everything else is merely wishful thinking and holds no place in reality.

 

However, one can think of many things that cannot be physically seen. For instance, radio waves and oxygen particles cannot be seen by the naked eye but still exist. But, says the atheist, these can be scientifically tested and proven. And indeed science is developed enough to measure both of these things. However, what about thought processes or love. These do not physically exist, have no real scientifically distinguishable means of measuring them yet both very much exist.

 

Science can tell us the effects of love (i.e. pheromones etc.) but it cannot tell us how we love and makes an incredibly limp attempt to explain why we love (evolution). Of course, from a Christian worldview both romantic and platonic love make complete sense. It is the same with the mind. Science can see the consequences of thought (i.e. electrochemical activity) but they cannot tell us how we think, how we understand.

 

So one must turn to philosophy to discover the answers to these things. But by doing so one must completely give up on the material. Hence, it does not take "faith" to believe in things which transcend the material.

 

The second mistake an atheist makes is when they state that non-scientific reasons for belief in the afterlife are not compelling evidence. To be honest, it is quite the contrary. Pascal's Wager derives from the idea that it is better to back a horse that gets out of the gate to finish than one that doesn't even leave the stall.

 

Antony Flew spent years arguing with theists about the afterlife. He was convinced it was merely wishful thinking. However, the evidence became too compelling and Flew eventually decided that he believed in deism (that the universe was created by a supreme being). Now atheists everywhere claimed that this was just Flew in his old age losing his mind.

 

This gives us another insight into the Christian-atheist debate. Both sides will claim evidence when it supports their view. If the evidence changes it will take less than a moment for either party to condemn what they once supported.

 

Because militant atheists believe that all of the evidence supports their view they show no respect to others who do not agree with their view. It is this lack of respect that makes them stubborn and not open to where the compelling evidence leads.

 

One great danger for the atheist or even those who couldn't care any less is that the clock is ticking and day by day we find ways to keep filling our lives up with, in the long run, meaningless things. For the atheist who is dead-set certain there is no afterlife, here's a question, what are you living for? For the pre-occupied mortgage payer who probably couldn't care any less, what are you living for? For the Christian who goes to Church once a week, what are you living for?