Biblical Ignorance in Today's World

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

The word ignorance can be used in an unflattering sense of someone, or it can merely be a statement of fact. We are all ignorant, for example, concerning subjects on which we have never been taught. In the title of this article, ignorance is used in both senses—literal and insulting—because the flaws related to Biblical knowledge are so well–known that anyone could have had access to the information. Indeed, no one should be without this knowledge.

The Brilliant Savage

Occasionally, in the evening, this writer will listen to a few minutes of Dr. Michael Savage while driving somewhere. He is brilliant on some matters, but religion is not his strong suit. On one occasion, he noted that a very smart man told him that a day can represent more than a 24-hour period of time in the Scriptures, which is true. The application, however, was to the days of Genesis 1 possibly being, therefore, long periods of time. The fellow he trusts on this matter did not obviously explain, nor did Savage investigate for himself, the fact that the days of Genesis 1 are literal and not symbolic days. They have an evening and a morning, and the Sabbath day is based on the Creation week (Ex. 31:17)—not on unspecified long eons of time.

But this discussion, although it involves ignorance (not knowing certain pertinent data), is not the main complaint against Savage. A caller took him to task earlier this month by saying that he just could not believe how someone as intelligent as Savage was not an atheist. They discussed the merits of design and the value of religion for awhile, and then the discussion turned bizarre when they considered the subject of the worldwide flood. Savage affirmed that he believed it, and the caller did not disagree. In fact, he confessed that the world was so evil God might bring another Flood on the earth—this from an atheist!

Of course, the listener expected Savage to say that another flood was impossible because God had promised that it would never happen again and gave the rainbow as a sign of it. He might have added that the world would, however, be destroyed by fire. Incredibly, he responded by saying, "Who says that God won't bring another flood upon the earth?" Most who were listening to the program that night were probably saying, "Uh, God said that." How does someone not know that there will not be another flood? It boggles the mind.

Another Inexplicable Blunder

On October 1, 2011, the Orlando Sentinel published a cartoon by Scott Stantis of the Chicago Tribune. In the first of four frames, a bearded angel is peering down from the clouds and saying, "They executed another one, sir." From higher up in the clouds a voice speaks, after a visible sigh, "I say it over and over and over again." In the next frame the angel is now looking up at where the voice is coming from, and it continues: "What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' do they not get?!?" In the third frame, the angel is looking down, pointing, and commenting, "Looks like they're strapping down another one, sir." In the final frame, the angel is still looking down, and God says, "Argh!!! It's days like this when I really regret the 'no new floods' pledge."

Well, at least he knows that God won't send another flood, but that's the only thing the cartoonist got right. First of all, God can destroy the earth by fire any time He so desires (2 Peter 3:10-13); so a lack of ability to judge the earth's inhabitants is not one of His problems. Second, anyone who knows even a little bit about the Scriptures knows that the better word in Exodus 20:13 is murder rather than kill. In fact, many modern translations, such as the New King James, use the word murder. Also, God commissioned Israel to put to death the Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-5).

Obviously, then, God is not opposed to the taking of human life—if it is justifiable. In the case of the Canaanites, killing them was God's judgment upon them for their sins. What about capital punishment? The New Testament teaches that the state has the right to punish evildoers (Rom. 13:1-7). That policy, however, is not new. It was inaugurated immediately after the flood (with which the cartoonist shows some familiarity). In fact, it is recorded as being between the end of the flood and the covenant involving the rainbow (the "no new floods" policy) that one finds God's philosophy of capital punishment.

"Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:5-6).

How could Stantis not know that? How can he know about the flood and the promise never to do so again and yet have missed the part about capital punishment, which is not a suggestion but a command? Is this a matter of willful ignorance, or does capital punishment simply not fit his worldview? Regardless of his own personal philosophy, God commanded murderers to be put to death, and He supplied the rationale—respect for human life.

Man is made in the image of God. He is a special part of the Creation. He is not like the animals, which can be killed and eaten for food. He is a thinking, rational being, capable of thought, logic, and worshiping the Creator—none of which animals or plants can do. For that reason homicide is prohibited. For that reason abortion is murder, since it involves a human life. Would Stantis like to do a similar cartoon with the angel overlooking a Planned Parenthood clinic? Did he feel the same way when Dr. Tiller was performing late-term abortions? And if he drew that scenario, would any newspapers publish it? Why is it that so many have mountains of sympathy for those guilty of murder but not even mounds of regret for the innocent?

To be sure, if there is some doubt as to a person's guilt, they should not be put to death. But when there is video or audio evidence, DNA, or other proof, why would anyone oppose the death penalty? To take such a position does not respect the human life that has been lost. Nor does it consider the family members who would like to see justice exercised. The death penalty being invoked says that the deceased did not deserve to die and was innocent and unworthy of death. In some instances, the one who was murdered may have been worthy of death, but it was not an individual's prerogative to make that decision apart from a fair trial. Justice can only be administered by following the laws of the land which God authorized. The Bible teaches the need for capital punishment, and those who miss the message are acting out of their own philosophy and will.

Warning to Parents

The final event for consideration divides into two sections. The first concerns the recent book written by Richard Dawkins, aimed at youngsters ten and up: The Magic of Reality. The following interview occurred on The O'Reilly Factor sometime this month.

O'Reilly: "You want them not only to believe in science…but reject God and religion."

Dawkins: "No, this is a book about science; it doesn't talk about God."

O'Reilly: "It mocks God."

Dawkins: "Well, everything about the natural world can be explained by science, but where does it mock God?"

O'Reilly: "It basically says that these things are myths…."

Dawkins: "Every chapter has myths at the beginning." (O'Reilly interjects, "Aha!") "Some of them are Aztec myths. There're ancient Egyptian myths. They're not really true."

O'Reilly: "Don't play these semantic games with me. You know what you're doing. You're trying to get to the kids and say, "You're an idiot if you believe in God."

Dawkins: "It has nothing to do with God. I'm talking about myths from all over the world. The Judeo-Christian myth is thrown in occasionally as one of many myths that come from around the world."

O'Reilly: "The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn't a myth. It's reality. This country was based on it."

Dawkins: "Well, that's not true."

With those remarks, that part of the discussion came to a close. It is interesting that Dawkins did not consider placing what the Bible teaches on a par with Aztec legends as demeaning and insulting to those who believe in the Scriptures. O'Reilly had to practically drag it out of him that he equates the two, thus mocking God, the author of the Bible. A book about science for children would probably be helpful—but not if it denigrates spiritual truth at the same time.

Could Dawkins actually not see what O'Reilly was talking about when he said the book mocked God? Is he so focused on his own worldview that he could not understand how others would object to his tactics? Or was he just trying to conceal the hatchet job against Christianity? The Old and New Testaments do not, in fact, contain myths. Extraordinary events involve actual people who lived in literal places—not legends in galaxies far away. Dawkins' subtle effort to downplay his repudiation of Christianity was easily seen through by O'Reilly, who actually read through the book.

"Nothing To Do With Atheism"

The second part of the discussion had to do with atheism and its fruits. O'Reilly believes that Biblical principles serve to restrain people from practicing evil. Dawkins, apparently, does not. O'Reilly stated:

"Throughout history some of the worst regimes ever have been atheistic. You know that…."

Dawkins: "Nothing to do with atheism."

O'Reilly: "Religion is a constraint on society…."

Dawkins: "'Thou shalt not kill' is a widespread belief all over the world…."

O'Reilly: "Not by Pol Pot, or Mac Tse Tung, or Joseph Stalin. They had one thing in common: They didn't believe in God".

Dawkins: "Which in any case has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God or not. …but there's no logical connection between being an atheist and doing evil things."

Dawkins ascribed their murderous ways to their political philosophy. That they were atheists was just "incidental." After O'Reilly affirmed that he believed in intelligent design, he let Dawkins have the last word and he acknowledged again: "Science doesn't yet know how everything started. As I said last time, 'They're working on it.'"

Wow! What an admission! Why is it that so many textbooks and instructors say they know how the universe started? Most of us have heard many theories, and not a few were presented as facts. Dawkins, however, says that science does not know our origin. Most of us have realized that, but we are surprised at the admission.

However, how can Dawkins say that there is no connection to atheism and evil? First of all, without theism, evil cannot exist. Can Dawkins be unaware of the arguments that theists have made concerning morality in debates? Brother Warren, for example, used this argument in his debate against Matson. On page 29 of the published debate, is listed chart 22-B, which is titled, "Atheism is false because it implies logical contradiction."

The first point is that atheists hold: "1) God does not exist and 2) Value did not exist before the first human being." Atheists, by definition do not believe in God; therefore, no value (calling something good or evil) could have existed until human beings came along to make up these judgments. For the theist, value has always existed, since God, from whom all values arise, is eternal. What these two principles yield is the fact that moral judgment is nothing but "a function of the human mind." Animals do not make such judgments; only humans have developed morals and ethics.

The problem is, however, that moral judgments are subjective. If they do not come from God, they depend on what people's views of them are, and everyone has his own ideas. Instead of being objective (from outside of man), they are subjective (dependent upon man). So here are two atheists who do not believe in God. Dawkins thinks that murder is wrong; Stalin says that murder is all right—that the end justifies the means. Now who is right and who is wrong? Hitler lines up with Stalin, as do Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot. Al Qaeda might join them—at least with respect to infidels. Dawkins might be joined by several peace-loving atheists, but the point is that he cannot say, "I and my friends are right in our view, and all you atheist dictators are wrong." Atheism cannot hold to absolute values. It may call murderers inhuman, barbaric, and various other names, but without an objective standard, both views must be legitimate, though they are exact opposites.

Therefore, atheism implies subjectivity, and subjectivity allows for two contradictory positions (exact opposites, in fact). Any doctrine that implies a contradiction is itself false. Thus, atheism is false. Has Dawkins never heard such an argument in all of his years as an atheist? Such a claim would be incomprehensible. Furthermore, has he never read that God gave us moral values? He quoted some of the Ten Commandments; it is not possible that he is unaware of them. Anyone remotely familiar with the Scriptures knows that it provides lists of sins (Rom. 1:18-32; Gal. 5:19-21, et al.). The inspired Word of God also defines correct behavior. Our moral values come from God. If God is removed as a possibility of existence, moral values disappear, and we are left with human opinion only.

There is every logical connection between atheism and evil. Without God man is free to do as he pleases. He can be a dictator for 40 or 50 years. Okay, he may end up getting shot or having his head whacked off, but he does whatever he wants to in the meantime. He can torture his enemies, take all the women he wants, plunder his country of its wealth to enjoy for his own pleasure, and probably speak at the U.N. and be respected by Hollywood liberals. What atheist can logically denounce such actions?

Do all atheists desire to behave immorally by Christian standards? No, some may be quite moral, but they have no basis for practicing righteousness. They could just as easily choose to steal, commit adultery, or murder someone they don't like because there are no absolute standards to transgress. Sociopaths experience no guilt. If they are caught violating the laws of the land, they may have regrets—that society is so unenlightened—but otherwise they may live into their 90s with no attacks of conscience.

The solution to all these problems is the same: The Bible must be recognized for what it is—the inspired Word of God. It provides the moral values that individuals and societies need. A knowledge of it would also keep us from making false statements and embarrassing ourselves in public.