Not long ago an atheist published his “secular Bible,” a “bible” that focuses attention on “the non-religious teachings of civilization’s greatest thinkers.” This sort of “bible” is called the “Humanist Bible” (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/leading-atheist-publishes-secular-bible/?hpt=T2).
The author of this new book said: “The Bible would have been ‘a very different book and may have produced a very different history for mankind,’ had it drawn on the work of philosophers and writers as opposed to prophets and apostles, says Grayling, a philosopher and professor at Birkbeck College, University of London, who is an atheist.”
Yes, there is no doubt this would be correct. But, isn’t that what we need – a “bible” authored by philosophers and writers of a varied sort! In this book, there would be no uniformity of message that transcends man; no purpose to a life currently lived that is not associated with subjectivity; and neither would we have any ultimate hope in (or from) the life we live. Yes, we could use a book like that, couldn’t we?!
One of atheism’s great difficulties arises in the area of morality; they can give no reason for an objective standard of morality’s existence. According to the ideology of atheism all morality stays in the area of subjectivity. This is by necessity, though it is not something that positive atheists are particularly pleased about. Recognizing this, the author says, “[Humanistic ethics] tended to start from a sympathetic understanding of human nature and accept that there’s a responsibility that each individual has to work out the values they live by and especially to recognize that the best of our good lives revolve around having good relationships with people.”
While this sounds pleasant, it is full of destructive ideologies. For instance: what if a person wanted to “work out” their particular values and those “worked out” values did not correspond to the community’s values; would there be any necessary, objective reason to change them? Furthermore, who determines what is “responsible” that is to be placed in another’s possession? What if those so-called “community values” had their authority in Moscow (communism), Berlin (nationalist socialists), or in some other atrocious community (government) of the past? This is the pure course of atheism. Atheism gives us no good reason to accept its tenets.
However, atheism is not alone in tragedy purported in its name. History has declared much in the way of unseemly characters that have attempted to move aggressively in God’s name. It is prudent that we reject those individuals and ideologies that pervert God’s righteousness.
Still, there is a foundation in place from which to spring forward, and that foundation is in God’s righteous standard as recorded in Scripture, a message that is greater than any individual man. Now, the options before man are simple: either the foundation for life has its existence in God, or not. If not, then the foundation of atheism plants the feet of people where, and on what? They assert that they give “rational” reasons for their ideology, but an ideology that that promotes, ultimately, hopelessness and human subjectivity is an ideology that is meaningless and to be discarded. Not much of a rational reason found in this! The foundation of atheism encourages us to reach for nothing, but survival of the fittest. Atheism has no solid foundation upon which to stand, and it has no meaningful hope in life that will pull one through the greatest of afflictions. Atheism is empty!