Scholar and author Charles Murray has just published a new book titled “Taking Religion Seriously”, which documents his intellectual journey, with supporting evidence, from skeptic/agnostic/atheist toward Christian faith.
Here is one critic of Murray’s faith journey:
The critic’s philosophy is pure Naturalism. He is claiming that only natural explanations can count as valid evidence.
The problem is there is much in life that is not explainable if you limit yourself to natural explanations. Take, for example, the concepts of Evil and justice.
Most people believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil, if for no other reason that that they themselves have been a victim of someone else’s evil action. Perhaps being beaten, being treated unfairly.
In fact, you can go to the playground and hear five-year-olds saying things like: “That’s not fair.” Even children know evil when the see it.
Why is this so? What explains it better, the atheist world view or the Biblical world view? Can the atheist explain where this understanding of right and wrong comes from? Can it be explained adequately in naturalistic terms?
Most people also agree that it is a good thing when evil is punished, for example, when the criminal is arrested and put in jail. People crave justice.
Why is this so? What explains it better, the atheist world view or the Biblical world view? Can the atheist explain where this craving comes from?
“It evolved” is not responsive, until someone can convincingly prove that there is a gene for evil recognition and a craving-for-justice gene, and then can argue that these genes confer an evolutionary survival advantage.