I remember watching a debate one time (I can’t remember who was in it) and the naturalist was arguing that reason is simply a product of evolution. That is, we aren’t really thinking rationally, we are simply chemicals in motion. Take a step back and think about that for a moment. He was arguing that reason doesn’t exist. So he was trying to reason with you to tell you that reason doesn’t exist. In other words, he was attempting to persuade you to change your mind by saying that we don’t have free-will in order to change our minds. If you think I am making this up or just referencing a quack-job then read this quote by Richard Dawkins:
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
All materialist systems break down when it comes to the problem of knowledge. Think about these simple questions to ask any materialist:
- If our thoughts are simply undersigned and irrelevant products of chemical reactions, then what reason have we to trust them? This is why I always tell Atheists that they are proving themselves wrong by simply arguing with me.
- Why are they trying to reason with me if they don’t even believe we have free-will? Again, I’m not arguing a straw-man. Read Sam Harris’ book Free Will where he denies free-will, and he isn’t the only one. They try to convince me I’m wrong when their worldview says there is no absolute right or wrong.
- If I'm hard-wired to believe in God, according to a Materialistic worldview, then how are you going to convince me otherwise? They desire for me to believe what they believe when their belief is that we are simply pre-hardwired to think the way we think. That is like trying to convince your computer to stop working off the binary code.
We are told, by atheists, that the universe is evolving. By its very nature the idea of “evolving” means we are getting better. But in the naturalistic paradigm what basis do they have to judge “better”? In order to say something is “better” there must be some absolute standard of good outside of the universe. But that contradicts their worldview. Therefore, by “better” they must mean something like “what we are becoming”. But to say that the world is becoming what it is becoming is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining your destination as the place you have reached.
Atheists are walking and talking hypocrisies.