Evolutionists are fond of telling us that we humans are merely a more refined form of animal, not very different from dogs, pigs and squirrels. This view of humanity offered by Modernity1 is wholly Naturalist and Atheistic. They tell us it is based on science. However, it would more accurately be said that they base their opinions on Scientism. This pseudo-religion-in fact, a Cultural Marxist form of that ancient heresy of Gnosticism-is predicated on certain atheistic presuppositions which inform their interpretation of the data. We can call it "spin doctoring" covered in scientific jargon. For Modernity, science holds all the answers to any question we could possibly ask. In this way it replaces religion in the lives of Atheistic Naturalists.
It is actually quite simple to see that humans are not on the same level as animals. The evidence is within us and around us. Animals are creatures of instinct. All of their instincts are driven toward eating, sleeping, mating and defending. As such, animals are not capable of higher thought. The pig is quite happy to wallow in mud and feces, the dog is content to chase cars as they pass by, and the squirrel is happy just foraging and gathering. It never enters the brain of a pig, 'Is there something better than mud and feces?' The dog never questions whether chasing the car is a worthwhile use of his limited life span. The squirrel never stops to consider growing a garden. They are quite content to follow the instincts of their species. If any question arises in their minds at all it is only "how"- how do I mate, how do I eat, etc. Humanity, however, is capable of higher thought. Being Self aware, we can ask existential questions; Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Yes, it is true that we share the instinct to eat, sleep, mate and defend with the animals, but we are equipped with this higher thought, this intellectual ability, that compels us to reach for something beyond these basics of physical existence; to a consciousness of Self,2 and that Self in relationship to others, our cosmos, and to the Creator. This Self awareness, which is unique to humanity, sets us apart from the animal kingdom. It is there to compel us to live a perfect human life. Does this mean that everyone does so? Absolutely not. Many are content to live like animals. That is, they live only to eat, sleep, mate and defend. Thus, they live lives of animals- steeped in self indulgence and vice. And in the climate of Cultural Marxism in which we live, these lost ones can find no escape when the existential questions arise within them. They have been indoctrinated with atheism, despair, self contempt, and are immersed in the general darkness that envelopes society. And so they turn to intoxicants in an effort to escape. They take drugs and consume alcohol, desperate to be free of the meaningless existence foisted upon them by Modernity. Sadly, this escape is really designed to further entangle them in the snares of Atheistic Naturalism, as it numbs the compulsion to something beyond mere materialism. When we avoid the existential questions, we also avoid living a truly human life, and when we avoid living a truly human life, we surrender ourselves as slaves to the laws of nature and the control of forces outside us that seek our ruin.
Some, rather than escaping with intoxicants, occupy their minds with work. They buy into yet another trap of Modernity, which is the idea that in order to have a successful human life we have to pursue the acquisition of money and of things. Such a person is reduced to a mere economic unit, earning money used to purchase material things which, again, entangles us in the materialism of Modernity. Human life is reduced to production and consumption of goods and services, and then you die. Such a person lives their entire life never addressing the existential questions, never engaging in Self Awareness, but losing themselves in materialism. Even this is an animal existence- eating, sleeping, mating, defending.
The mind of the materialist is not fixed in on getting the answers to the existential questions, but in keeping with the puppet masters who pull his strings, he is always looking for greater acquisition of goods and more distraction from the demands of Self Awareness.
Human life is designed for a much higher purpose, which we can discover if we seek the answers to the existential questions that arise from Self Awareness. If we want to get to a certain destination, we book a flight on an airline. We do not book the flight only thinking of comfort; Is it 1st class? Do they have an in-flight meal? Do I get a pillow? We do not simply book a flight randomly, based on comforts. We make sure that the flight will take us to our destination. Living a life based on the ideology of Modernity is akin to booking a flight only for comfort, with no regard as to whether it will take you to the proper destination. If we book a flight going to the wrong place, we cancel our booking and get a flight going where we need to go. This is common sense. It is likewise common sense to understand that Modernity will not take you where you need to go. Sinful living, vice, intoxication, production, consumption, acquisition of money and goods- none of these will take you where you need to go. None of these things can produce happiness, as none of them properly addresses the existential questions arising from Self Awareness. As these questions are designed to take us to our proper destination, it is in our own best interest to pursue them. It is time to get off the plane of Modernity and begin the quest to discipleship.
The first question we must ask then is, 'Who am I?' This might seem a rather mundane question, yet it isn't. Most people define themselves by their occupation, their marriage status, whether or not they are a parent, their gender and age, etc. These answers don't address the question at hand though. They tell me what you are in relationship to your environment and status in life, but not who you are. While these material designations all possess a degree of truth to them, you also have an inherent created identity. That spiritual identity is who you are. What is this spiritual identity? In order to answer that we have to find a qualified, trustworthy source of information. After all, it will do you no good to ask a scientist, a doctor, or a philosopher. They're as much in need of the answers as you. If we want to know questions of a transcendent nature, we have to consult a source that gives us transcendental knowledge. That source is God. Of course, Atheistic Naturalism has told us there is no God. The Atheistic Naturalist will use scientific sounding arguments to “prove” his belief. Essentially they believe that the material universe is all there ever was, and all that ever will be. Do such arguments refute the evidences for God's existence? The answer is no, as we will see. Science tells us that life springs forth only from life. Science has no experience of life emerging from nothing. Take, for example, the Cosmological evidence. It can be stated thus:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Let's examine each point.
Premise 1: We understand from both science and basic common sense that something doesn't come from nothing. If it did, we would see it happening around us every day. Trees would simply “pop” into existence, birds would suddenly appear as if by magic, and babies would simply manifest. However, this isn't the case. We understand that the cause of the tree is the seed, the cause of the bird is the egg, and the cause of the baby are it's parents procreative act. Thus, both our own observational experiences of life and science confirm our first premise that every effect has a cause.
Premise 2: Did the universe always exist, or did it have a beginning? Some Atheistic Naturalists actually suggest the cosmos is eternal. However, such a belief, as scientific as it may sound, actually violates known scientific laws, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that process taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. In other words, there is only a certain amount of usable energy in the cosmos, and we know that energy is slowly running out. What this means is, if the Atheistic Naturalists were correct regarding the eternality of the cosmos, it would have run out of energy long ago. The fact of the matter is, science actually points to the universe having a definite beginning. This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries. In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe. Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding. Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe. So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing. This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." -Alexander Vilenkin
Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model. It is quite clear, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause. And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. The Cosmological evidence shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable and scientific to believe that God does exist.
The above isn't the only method by which we can deduce the existence of God. Have you ever wondered why the cosmos exists? Why does anything at all exist? Gottfried Leibniz wrote, “The first question which should rightly be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?” He came to the conclusion that the explanation is found in God. But is this reasonable? Again, our argument can be proposed as follows:
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
From these it follows logically that the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. The logic of this argument is air tight. If the three premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable. But are they more plausibly true than false? The third premise is undeniable for as we have already established. But what about the first premise? Why not say, “The universe is just there, and that’s all”? Suppose you and a friend are walking through the forest and find a small silver ball, humming electronically. You would naturally wonder how it got there. If your friend were to suggest that there is no reason for it being there, you would find that odd. It requires an explanation. Some might suggest that if everything that exists demands an explanation, then so does God. And if God doesn't require an explanation, then why does anything else? To answer this, we have to understand the difference between something that exists necessarily, and those that exist contingently. Things that exist necessarily exist by necessity of their own nature. It is impossible for them not to exist. Something that exists contingently are caused to exist by something else. They don't have to exist. It is logically possible that the universe might not have ever existed. It doesn't exist necessarily, but contingently. If it might not have existed, then why does it exist? The only adequate answer for a contingent universe is the existence of a non-contingent being- something that cannot not exist because of the necessity of its own nature. In other words, it would exist no matter what. So, everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause.
What of Premise 2, however? “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.” The universe is all of space, time and reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that, if the universe has a cause, that cause cannot be part of the universe. The cause must be non-physical and immaterial- beyond space and time. There is only one entity that could possibly fit this description- God.
And since God exists, and created the cosmos, humanity cannot, then, be a mere animal, but must-as scripture says-have been created in His image.
1Modernity is more not an era or particular time, it is a philosophy of constant pursuit of “progress”, in which humanity and its inherent God given value is subordinated to economic forces in pursuit of Mono-Cultural, Global governance, Cultural Marxism and the eradication of Christianity and traditional Western European Christian cultures.
2Self- The self concept begins with the image of God, an understanding of the proper ordering and functioning of the human soul, and a loving relationship with one’s neighbor. For the Christian, the proper concept of Self comes neither from doting parents nor hurtful peers, but from the Old Testament and New Testament.