Dr Paul Allen

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). One of the fundamental propositions of the Bible is assumed from the start: God exists. Not only does He exist, but He is also the Author and Creator of all life, and therefore, all things in existence owe their existence to Him. In a concise sentence—a mere eight words in Hebrew—the foundations of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures answer several of life’s biggest questions and introduce several other important questions. It is little wonder that the book of Genesis is subject to some of the fiercest critiques from avowed sceptics of every sort. If you can demonstrate the first sentence as false, every other line in the context of Scripture proves false. The rest of the Bible can be summarily dismissed if God does not exist. Likewise, if God did not create all that exists, He bears no intrinsic authority to impose Himself as the Ruler above all creation. Mankind need not be subservient to God if He is not Creator simpl

In 1880, Charles Bradlaugh was elected as a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the Northampton district. His constituents knew he was an atheist who liked to publicly challenge Christians but didn’t think it would affect his work in parliament. They were proven wrong on his first day as their MP. He objected to taking an oath of allegiance before God on the grounds that God did not exist. He asked to be allowed to make a good old-fashioned ‘cross my heart’ promise and leave God out of it. This request was denied on the grounds that if there were no God, then there would be no morality, no right and wrong, no truth or lie, and the oath would be meaningless. So, Bradlaugh forfeited his seat in Parliament, but … I kid you not … he kept sneaking in to vote. On three occasions, he voted without anyone noticing that he had snuck in. On other occasions, he was caught and escorted out of the building by police. He thus proved the ruling against him right: that a man that does n

Atheist materialists assert — with no evidence — that matter is all there is. Since this is not true or certainly cannot be proven to be true, it would lead like all other semi-demi-hemi-truths to cul-de-sacs and trouble. For example, if the matter is all that exists anywhere, then although human beings have brains, they do not have minds. This is a crucial distinction. Materialists say there is a squishy wet piece of pink-gray matter inside our skulls and that is who we are. So when you die and it rots, there is no you left. There is no mind or soul apart from that mushy computer in your skull. This is conceivably true, but there is much evidence to the contrary, and it is certain that no one can prove it is true. Materialists — and of course atheists, who are materialists — know that the concept of Mind contradicts their belief that there is nothing transcendent, nothing beyond the material. So any hint that there is anything beyond our mere organic brains is out of bounds and too

Harvard University was founded as Harvard College in 1636. Its stated purpose was: “To train a literate clergy.” Among its mottos were, “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” (truth for Christ and Church) and “In Christam Gloriam” (to the glory of Christ). John Harvard donated his library to kick start the theological college. Now, Harvard has hired an atheist as its chief chaplain. And no, this is not a poor joke. As reported by the New York Post, “This spiritual leader doesn’t need a higher power. “Harvard University’s organization of chaplains is getting a new president to coordinate the campus’ Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and assorted other religious communities. Only the new president, 44-year-old Greg Epstein, does not identify with any of those traditional religions himself. “He is an atheist.” But how can an atheist be a university chaplain? Epstein explained to the New York Times, “There is a rising group of people who no longer identify with any religious tradition but still e

Open Letter to an Atheist Loved One Dear Dan, I agree; any view that has God as the foundation of morality — like the Christian view I described in my last letter — will have further, serious issues to address. In fact, your two objections get at the most central ones. Let me respond to both. What Makes God’s Laws Good? Your first objection has a great pedigree and can be traced all the way back to Plato. Namely, what makes God’s moral laws — his moral values — good? Does he like these laws because they are good? Or are they good because he likes them? Either way seems to spell trouble for Christianity. Take the first option. Are God’s laws good because they meet some separate standard of good, one “outside” of God? If so, God has to defer to — is beholden to — some higher authority. And that’s impossible, according to Christianity. But the alternative seems just as bad. If God’s laws are good because he likes them, it makes morality seem arbitrary, dependent merely on his personal tas

“The sword devours one as well as another.” (2 Sam. 11:25) These words are some of the most shocking words that we find in scripture. In perhaps one of the most shocking chapters of the Bible. King David, the hero who killed tens of thousands of evil people, the worshipper who penned the most beautiful songs and chapters in the Bible, the man who was anointed by God to be the king of Israel, has become a momentary atheist. I mean he had to, didn’t he? If he wasn’t going to repent right away. He had just committed an unconscionable crime. He had taken Uriah’s wife Bathsheba and impregnated her, he had brought back Uriah, who was out at war and tried to convince him to go to Bathsheba so that he would think it was his baby. Then when Uriah refused, he sent a message to his general ordering the death of Uriah by Uriah’s own hand. And then when Uriah had successfully been killed, what was he supposed to do? How would he live with himself? How could he continue to live in sin? So, he says,

I have just read the now-famous book that sent shock-waves around the world when it was published in 2007: “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”. The book is the self-reflections of Antony Flew, arguably the most influential atheist of the 20th century, who eventually came to believe in God after a lifetime of study of science and philosophy. The claim of the book’s subtitle, “The World’s Most Notorious Atheist”,  is not an exaggeration. Antony Flew was, for half a century, an intellectual giant among the world’s atheists and their most influential voice. His 1950 publication, “Theology and Falsification”, became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last 70 years and established a systematic philosophical foundation for modern atheism.  Over the following 50 years, he wrote about 30 books and papers, including “God and Philosophy”, “The Presumption of Atheism” and “How to Think Straight”, all of which became the mainstays of th

The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say to God if he found himself standing before Him after his death. Russell replied, “I probably would ask, ‘Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’” For Russell, it all came down to the evidence. The implication is, given better evidence for God, Russell would believe. Many atheists today make similar claims. For example, while taking questions on The Atheist Voice , Hemant Mehta—the Friendly Atheist—was asked, “What would it take for you to believe in God?” He replied, “I guess, simply put, I would need to see a miracle. I need evidence for God, and maybe that would come in the form of a miracle that has no possible explanation in the natural world.” When we hear claims like these, it is tempting to think belief in God comes down to the evidence and nothing else. On this view, it’s as if we have an “evidence meter” in our heads. And when the “evidence meter” reaches a certain level, we believe

Dear Emanuele, First of all, let me say from the start that you are so brave in asking this question . Talking about death is not easy, and you have the courage to do so in front of so many people. I am so sorry this has happened. Anytime a loved one dies it is a tragedy that we don’t know how to deal with, since the one we love has been taken from us. My heart is breaking with you over the loss of your father. I wish I could take the pain away but I cannot. All I can do is tell you about the One who can. I think the reason why you are asking this question is because you really want to know the answer, and you truly have no idea where your father is. You are seeking the answer to the world’s most important question: how do we get to Heaven ? I also want to commend you on the fact that you believe in Heaven. That is not something that many people believe these days, and I’m so thankful that you do believe that there is a Heaven. It sounds to me like you believe that God

The famously angry atheist Richard Dawkins tweeted out a report from the  Guardian  with a reaction that made me do a double take: “Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion , let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc ’s menacing rhyme: ‘Always keep a-hold of nurse, For fear of finding something worse.’” The  Guardian  was noting that Christianity in the UK was completely collapsing: Well over half of Britons no longer pray or attend religious services, and a staggering 70% of those between the ages of 16 and 29 do not subscribe to any identifiable religion.  Dawkins seems to have changed his tune somewhat. After all, this is the same man  who once argued  that the state needed to shield children from religious parents who were “indoctrinating them,” essentially dismissing the fundamental concept of parental rights as so much nonsense. Enlightened atheists running the state were far better equipped, in Dawkins’ opinion, to decide what was bes

Many atheist critiques of Christianity claim that faith is blind, irrational, stupid. In his book The God Delusion , leading atheist Richard Dawkins asserts that faith opposes reason, and calls faith a “delusion,” which he describes as “persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence” (p. 28). A common example used to show that the Bible denigrates evidence is the story of doubting Thomas . In The Selfish Gene , Dawkins writes, “Thomas demanded evidence. . . . The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation” (198). Was Jesus repudiating an evidence-based faith? First, Jesus predicted his resurrection on multiple occasions in the presence of the disciples. Thomas should not have been surprised at the return of Jesus. Second, Thomas heard eyewitness testimony (evidence) from the rest of the disciples and yet still refused to believe. (The vast majority of scientific knowledge we posses

What will it mean, when God is dead? Australia is about to become an atheist nation. The census shows us that barely half the population identifies as Christian while nearly a third nominates no religion. The numbers of believers will be bolstered by immigration but the trend is unmistakable. The old beliefs are dying out. Our trek to radical unbelief follows much of western Europe. The same trends are evident in the US . Though religious belief is stronger there, it has lost the elites and over time elite opinion leads public opinion. The eclipse of Christianity will be like the eclipse of the sun. Darkness will be the result. Will it be a temporary darkness or a long night of the Western soul? In abandoning God, we are about to embark on one of the most radical social experiments in Western history. It is nothing short of the reordering of human nature. Short of war, nothing is as consequential. Human beings create themselves inside a culture. A culture without God wi