Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes (4 page)

In the original language, this verse (Rom. 1:28) contains a fascinating wordplay. The word
worthwhile
in the first clause has the same root as
debased
. The parallel can be expressed like this: Just as people did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, so God gave them up to a worthless worldview. And a worldview shapes not only their thought life but also their actions. “They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves” (Jer. 2:5
NIV
). Here’s how Paul expresses the connection:

God gives us up to the consequences of our idols—to “dishonorable” behavior.

Romans 1:24—God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.

Romans 1:26—God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

Romans 1:28—God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Once again the connection is captured by the word
exchanged
. First Paul says people “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images” of created things (Rom. 1:23; see also Rom. 1:25).
25
Next Paul shows what this trade-off does to human behavior: “Women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” and men did the same (Rom. 1:26–27). At the time Paul was writing, in both Greco-Roman culture and Hellenistic Jewish culture, “contrary to nature” was a standard phrase referring to homosexual behavior.
26

At the time, the term
nature
was not used the way people use it today, to mean behavior observed in the natural world. Instead
nature
meant behavior that is normative for
human nature
: behavior that fits the way humans were originally created, that accords with God’s purpose for humanity, that matches the ideal standard of what it means to be fully human.

In this sense of the term, all sin is contrary to human nature, and Paul goes on to itemize a representative sampling: “They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Rom. 1:29–31). All these behaviors—and more—are contrary to what it means to be fully human.

In this chapter Paul has unfolded a highly sensitive analysis of the link between mind and behavior. He outlines a clear and calamitous progression: First, “they did not
honor
him as God” (Rom. 1:21). “Therefore God gave them up … to the
dishonoring
of their bodies” (Rom. 1:24). “God gave them up to
dishonorable
passions” (Rom. 1:26). The principle is that those who dishonor God inevitably dishonor themselves and others. To adapt a phrase, idols have consequences.

Five Strategic Principles

In Romans 1, Paul has spelled out a fascinating diagnosis of idols. How can we apply what we have learned to analyzing worldviews? From the text we can extract five strategic principles. Translated into modern terms, these principles provide a basic game plan for making sense of any worldview across the board—even the cutting-edge ideas of our day—and then to craft a compelling positive case for Christianity. Let’s briefly get acquainted with the five principles. Then we will explore them more deeply through the rest of the book.

Principle #1

Identify the Idol

Since everyone who rejects God sets up an idol, this is the strategic place to begin. An idol is anything in the created order that is put in the place of God. This definition not only gives us tools to identify our personal idols, it also gives insight into the world of ideas. Philosophies and worldviews can also function as counterfeit gods.

Think of it this way: As a matter of sheer logic, any explanation of life must have a starting point. It must trace the universe back to something that functions as the primal reality, the self-existent cause of everything else. As Paul says in Romans, if you reject the biblical God, you will deify something within the created order. Those who do not honor the transcendent God
beyond
the cosmos must make a divinity out of some power or principle immanent
within
the cosmos.

What about matter? Is matter part of the created order? Sure it is. Thus the philosophy of material
ism
qualifies as an idol. It claims that matter is the ultimate reality—the uncreated first cause of everything else. It denies the existence of anything beyond the material world, such as soul, spirit, mind, or God. It urges us to set our minds “on things that are on earth,” not on things above (Col. 3:2). New Atheists like to think of themselves as nonbelievers, but they believe devoutly in matter (or nature) as their substitute religion.

What about reason? Can it be an idol? Certainly. The philosophy of rationalism puts human reason in the place of God as the source and standard of all truth. Albert Einstein once described himself as “a believing rationalist.” He summarized his creed by saying, “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” referring to a philosopher who used
God
to mean merely the principle of rational order within the universe.
27
Rationalism refuses to accept any source of truth
beyond
human reason, such as information communicated by the Creator. It is dogmatic in worshipping the idol of “unaided” or “autonomous” human reason.

This explains why the Bible does not contrast Christianity with atheism but with idolatry. The “Bible writers always address their readers as though they (the readers) already believe in God or some God surrogate,” notes philosopher Roy Clouser.
28
Humans have a tendency to look to some power or principle or person to make sense of life and give it meaning. And
that
constitutes their de facto religion, whether they use theological language or not.

Principle #2

Identify the Idol’s Reductionism

Romans 1 tells us that idolatry leads to a “debased” worldview, which opens the door to oppression, injustice, and all the other evils listed at the end of the chapter. What is the connection between idols and immoral behavior? The link is that idols always lead to a lower view of human life. The Bible teaches that humans are made in the image of God. When a worldview exchanges the Creator for something in creation, it will also exchange a high view of humans made in God’s image for a lower view of humans made in the image of something in creation.

We could say that every concept of humanity is created in the image of
some
god.

To translate Paul’s argument into modern language, we need to master one philosophical term:
reductionism
. It means
reducing
a phenomenon from a higher or more complex level of reality to a lower, simpler, less complex level—usually in order to debunk or discredit it.

For example, you have probably heard people say that Christianity is nothing but an emotional crutch. Or that ideas are nothing but products of chemicals reacting in our brains. Or that living things can be explained solely by physics and chemistry.
29

These are all forms of reductionism.

To say that idols always lead to reductionism, then, is another way of saying that they lead to a low view of human life. You might picture reductionism as someone trying to stuff the entire universe into a box. When some part of creation is absolutized, then everything is redefined in its terms. Humans are recast in its image.
30

Recall that in materialism, the idol is matter. Everything else is reduced to material objects produced by material forces. Anything that does not fit in the materialist box is dismissed as an illusion, including spirit, soul, will, mind, and consciousness. We could say that humans are redefined in the image of matter. They are robbed of their uniquely human qualities and reduced to biochemical machines, without free will, determined by natural forces.

By contrast, a biblical worldview begins with a transcendent God, so it is not reductionistic. It does not try to stuff everything into a box defined by one part of creation. Instead Christianity offers a high view of the human person, created in the image of a transcendent Person. It affirms all the features that make us fully human.

Principle #3

Test the Idol: Does It Contradict What We Know about the World?

Once we have identified the idol and its reductionism, we are ready to ask the most important question: Is this worldview true? Does it fit what we know about the world?

Romans 1 teaches that some things are knowable by everyone—the truths of general revelation. It follows that any truth claim must match up with general revelation. We could say that the purpose of a
worldview
is to explain what we know about the
world
. If it contradicts what we know about the world through general revelation, then it fails.

And we can be confident that every idol-based worldview
will
fail. Why? Precisely because it leads to reductionism. If reductionism is like trying to stuff the entire universe into a box, we could say that inevitably something will stick out of the box. A box that deifies a
part
of creation will always be too limited to explain the
whole
. Whatever does not fit into the box will be denigrated, devalued, or dismissed as unreal.

Think again of the example of materialism, since it is the dominant view in academia today. When it reduces humans to complex biochemical machines, what sticks out of the box? Free will. The power of choice. The ability to make decisions. These are dismissed as illusions. Yet in practice, we cannot live without making choices from the moment we wake up every morning. Free will is part of undeniable, inescapable human experience—which means it is part of general revelation. Therefore the materialist view of humanity does not fit reality as we experience it.

Materialists themselves sometimes recognize the problem. Writing in the
New York Times
, science journalist John Horgan reports that many neuroscientists reject concepts such as
free will
as myths. But surprisingly Horgan concludes, almost defiantly, “No matter what my intellect decides, I’m compelled to believe in free will.”
31

No matter what anyone’s worldview says, we are all “compelled to believe” the truths of general revelation.

Another example is philosopher John Searle, who embraces materialism yet admits that we cannot live by its principles. In an interview, he explains that materialism pictures the universe as a vast machine, where all human action is determined; yet experience shows that we are agents capable of making decisions. “We can
say
, OK, I believe in determinism,” Searle says, but “the conviction of freedom is built into our experiences; we can’t just give it up. If we tried to, we
couldn’t live with it
.” He concludes, “We
can’t give up
our conviction of our own freedom, even though there’s no ground for it.”
32

No ground, that is, within Searle’s own materialist philosophy. He is acknowledging that his worldview box is too small to account for reality as
he himself
experiences it. He “can’t give up” his conviction of freedom. He “can’t live with” his own philosophy.

Searle is trapped in cognitive dissonance—what his worldview tells him contradicts what he knows from general revelation.

What do materialists do when they realize that their worldview box is too small to fit the evidence? They suppress the evidence, just as Paul says in Romans 1. They cannot deny that the concept of free will is hardwired into human thinking. What they
can
do, however, is reduce that concept to an illusion. A useful fiction.

You might think of reductionism as a strategy of suppression. If a materialist were to acknowledge the reality of free will, that would give evidence that humans are personal beings whose origin must be a personal Being. Therefore materialists have to suppress the evidence from general revelation. Otherwise it would falsify their worldview.

At some point, every idol-based worldview contradicts reality. This creates an opportunity to make a positive case for Christianity. Because it is not reductionistic, it does not dismiss important parts of human experience as illusions. It does not create a gap or dichotomy in thinking. It does not lead to cognitive dissonance. Instead Christianity is total truth—consistent, coherent, and comprehensive. It can be lived out in the real worldview without contradicting our most basic human experience.

Principle #4

Test the Idol: Does It Contradict Itself?

Idol-centered worldviews not only fail to match the external world, they also collapse internally. They are self-refuting. The technical term is that they are self-referentially absurd, which means they propose a standard for truth that they themselves fail to meet.

For example, a person may propose cultural relativism, which claims that there is no universal truth. But that statement itself makes a universal claim. Thus it contradicts itself.

The argument from self-referential absurdity is a standard tool in every apologist’s toolbox. But
why
does it work? Again the key is reductionism. A reductionistic worldview leads to a lower view of humanity—and thus of the human mind. It reduces human reason to something less than reason. Yet the only way any worldview can argue its
own
case is by using reason. By discrediting reason, it undermines its own case. It is self-defeating.

To illustrate how the argument works, let’s use the example of materialism once more. Materialism reduces thinking to biochemical processes in the brain, akin to the chemical reactions in digestion. But digestion is not something that can be true or false. It is just a biological fact. If thinking is reduced to brain processes, then our ideas are not true or false either. But in that case, how can the materialist know that
materialism
is true? The philosophy is self-refuting.

Once again, Christianity offers a better answer. Because humans are made in God’s image, human reason has the high dignity of reflecting the divine reason. Christianity thus affirms the reliability of human cognitive capacities (without becoming rationalistic, turning reason into a god). It is not self-refuting.