Pastor Refutes Atheism At A March

The Christian Obligation to Truth and Integrity

So, for example, animal rights activists will say it should be a crime to destroy certain eggs of certain creatures. That should be a crime. But those same people will be for the destruction of, say, a human being growing in the fetus.

Okay, but have you asked people, are you assuming that people have certain opinions on animal rights during this march?

No, no, no. It's obviously, it's not monolithic. It's a mixed bag. That's why the variety of interviews to see the wide spectrum of beliefs.

Yeah. Again, I'm just interested to see how it's framed and if it's presented accurately.

Well, I'll tell you this, we're Christians and we have an obligation because of what we believe to have integrity and to tell the truth. So, say, for example, if you had atheists in here marching today, they don't have a workable worldview to make sense of integrity.

So the person you should be worried about is the atheist who has a worldview that says that there are no absolutes. From a Christian perspective, there's an absolute standard that I must maintain integrity and always tell the truth.

And to not tell the truth is a sin.

Okay, but people can't have their own moral compass without a divine reason?

Well, I would say that you can't have a meaningful justification for a moral complaint if you don't have God as the absolute standard. So, for example, if you were to take the atheist framework, right, and say the view of origins, where...

What Atheism Means and What It Claims About Reality

Is there an atheist framework or is atheism literally just the meaning, not believing in God?

Well, you could say that the statement, the claim, there is no God, but it's not...

But is it a statement of all people who may consider themselves atheists or may be best described as atheists because of their belief or lack thereof? Is there something to say that they all share something?

Sure. A denial of God's existence and the belief that, say... It's not to say that atheism is monolithic. You have atheists who are dualists, atheists who are naturalistic materialists. They believe that all there is is matter in motion, that all there is is the natural, nothing supernatural.

But they have the same fundamental claim about the universe, is there's no God, no governance, no guidance, no personal God, no personal order.

Okay. Have you met someone who would describe themselves as an atheist who just doesn't care what's out there and doesn't deny the existence of God, but just doesn't really care? Let me say an agnostic.

Why?

Well, an agnostic would say... That's someone who's not sure. You can't know. I don't really care.

An atheist just means, like, not religious. No?

No. A is a negation of theist. So a-theism, agnostic means without knowledge, without God. So the classic definition of an atheist is there is no God. That's what the word means. And so with that... I think that's what it's become to me.

Well, that's the classic definition. But there may be people who choose to ascribe to... well, there may be people who choose to use that word who are very adamant that they're... In the same way that there are some people who are... who would deem themselves religious.

Especially in a place like Ireland, there would be people that I know who may say, well, maybe I'll get married in a church, just for shits and giggles kind of thing. But actually if you sat down with them, they probably don't believe anything.

It would just be cultural. It's cultural, yeah, exactly. And I think in this... but then you have people who are... feel very strongly about their beliefs. And I think there would be people who feel very strongly about their lack of belief.

But I suppose a belief... a belief that there is no God is a belief.

Sure it is. And at the same time...

But then I think there are people who just don't give a shit.

Well, sure, yeah, yeah. There's more indifferent atheists and then there are militant atheists, right? The spectrum gets pretty broad. But what I would say is there's a shared belief among atheists in terms of origins.

So atheism is a denial of God's existence, but atheism has a particular metaphysic, a particular ethic, a view of how they know things. Now, it may not be the same across the board. But say, for example, if I walked up to the typical kind of secular, educated person today who denies God's existence, and I'd say, how did we get here?

There'd be a consistent story. Oh, we got here through random mutations, over evolutionary time.

Maybe in the States, but I don't think... In Ireland, anyway, we're in Ireland at the moment. I would disagree with that. That doesn't mean that I'm right.

So you wouldn't say that atheists believe in evolution?

That's not what I said. So you do agree, then, they would... Well, I can't speak on behalf of someone else. You'd have to ask every single atheist in the world.

Sure, no, and you heard me say before that atheism isn't monolithic. Yeah, exactly. But they share particular beliefs about... because you can't just say there is no God, and then nothing happens. There's no neutrality.

Everybody has a particular view of, say...

Okay, use me as an example of neutrality. I just don't think it's relevant. I'm here now. I don't see what is relevant as to what might happen...

Well, let me... I'll show you how it is relevant. Let's take two frameworks. Say, the Christian worldview and the atheistic perspective.

Perspectives. Okay, so say multiple. By the way, I'm not going to identify with either of those.

That's fine. No, no, no, you don't have to. Just take it as an experiment. A thought experiment. So let's say someone says, well, I don't think it really matters. The question of God doesn't matter. Okay.

A person who kidnaps and rapes and mutilates a child. Is that wrong? Yes. On what basis? My gut. What's that? My gut. My own gut feeling. Well, the person who rapes the child, his gut, his pleasure was that he thought it was a good, moral, happy thing to do to the child.

And your gut has no authority over him. This is a random universe where there is no God, no justice.

Yeah, but if that... Okay, so what's your point in that?

My point was you said that you don't think it matters. Yeah. And I'm demonstrating to you that it does matter, because if we take the atheistic framework, it matters because atheisms would ultimately say that we all came from highly evolved societies of bacteria.

We're in a universe that doesn't care about us. There is no God above us, only sky above us. There's no meaning, no value, no purpose. I'll give you Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, famous atheist. He says there is no good, no evil.

There's only blind and pitiless indifference. Okay. Which means that the raped, mutilated child, what happened might have been painful, but it wasn't wrong from an atheistic framework. Okay.

Okay, but I don't see what the difference would be just because, let's say, God existed and the same thing happened to that child.

Right. I have a meaningful...

How will this... How has that changed the actual situation? It hasn't.

Right. No, we're in a fallen world and evil things happen in a fallen, sinful world, but we're talking about the moral foundations of being able to complain about a child being raped. The atheist has no ultimate meaningful...

But that's your opinion. Well, no, it's a philosophical refutation of atheism. It's not merely an opinion.

Okay, but it's still an opinion. It may not be merely an opinion to you, but it still is an opinion.

Well, it's about what provides meaningful preconditions for moral indignation over atrocities like that. Now, atheism says all that was was a bag of biological stuff that ultimately it's protoplasm in a universe that doesn't care.

That's the atheistic perspective. Now, from my perspective as a Christian, that was the image of God. There are absolute standards of good. God is a holy God. But the child is still mutilated. Sure. I don't see what the difference is.

And the atheist doesn't get to complain about it in a meaningful way because that's a bag of biological stuff.

But that's your opinion. Maybe an atheist wouldn't complain to you because you wouldn't listen to it.

Oh, I'd listen to him, and here's why I think they would complain. The atheist would complain because he's in the image of God, and it's inescapable living in God's world. He knows the truth, but he denies it with his profession of atheism.

Okay, but again, that's an opinion.

Well, you keep saying that, but it's a refutation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it still doesn't change the practicalities of what has happened.

Well, we weren't talking about the consequences. We were talking about the foundation.

No, but the point is it doesn't change the practicalities of a situation. So that's why I'm saying I don't think that it matters what happens next. It sure does. Because that doesn't change what is happening now.

Oh, it sure does, because watch. But I suppose that's your belief. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but I also can't convince you otherwise, because that's what you believe.

Jesus Christ as the Embodiment of Truth

Well, no, here's the thing. I think that if we love truth, we should change our opinions. If we love the truth, we should always want to believe the truth. I believe that because I'm a Christian. Jesus said He's the way, the truth, and the life.

No man comes to the Father but by Him. We follow the one who's the very embodiment of truth. We ought to care about truth as Christians. That's a Christian perspective, and it matters because let's say you had two governments.

One government that actually believes atheism and runs with it, and one that's Christian. The atheistic government, if they lived on its principles, would say there are no moral absolutes, there's no punishment, no justice, there's no ultimate meaning.

But then you would be using atheism like a belief system. Sure, because it is. Any belief system, any absolute belief system, is something personally that I cannot ascribe to because I don't. Do you believe that?

What you just said, do you believe it? Well, now you've asked me that, which makes me feel like I haven't articulated myself accurately. It means it's a self-refutation. Okay, tell me what I've...

You made a claim, and you talked about a belief system, and you talked about not wanting to have an ultimate belief system. But I asked you if you believe that. Yeah. And you ultimately would say yes, which means that the two statements, they wipe each other out.

Tell me that again. Okay, you were making a statement about belief systems, like condemning the idea that someone has an actual belief system and holds to it.

No, I'm not condemning the idea that someone has a belief system and saying that's not what, that's not my personal choice or my personal way. I guess I'm not following you. I'm just not, I think that in general it is, personally speaking, I don't think that much good can come from everyone following one thing.

How about this? That's people with their own individual beliefs.

So no good can come from following this one thing?

I think there are going to be so many people who are in that match that there are other things that I disagree with.

No, I know, but you said that there's no good from following any one thing.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't articulate myself properly then. One belief system, and using that belief system to govern all the other choices and beliefs that you have in your life.

But you realize, and I mean this with a lot of respect to you, you realize that you articulated a belief system just now. And you said that this should be the one we follow. No, no, no. That we don't follow any one belief system, but you just gave me one.

No, I didn't say that, because I don't, I would never wish to say to anyone else how they should live their lives. Because I don't know how they should live their lives.

So would you tell the rapist that he should stop? That's a good point, that is a contradiction. Yes, I would. But I suppose that's because... Can I say this with respect to you? Yeah. The only way you can get to that kind of fallacious, and I don't mean that offensively, I promise I don't.

But it is fallacious. What you just did demonstrated the collapse of an unbelieving worldview. Christians can't live with that kind of tension.

Or does it mean that maybe I'm just one individual person who doesn't articulate themselves?

No, no, I don't mean that, no, listen, I mean this with absolute humility to you.

No, but I mean that with all the things as well. Like, I cannot be held up as a representative of something that I'm not. Oh, no, no, I'm talking about the... I'm only one individual. Sure. You are, I presume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are happy to represent Christians.

Sure, I'm a Christian. Yeah, but you're happy to represent them, whereas I don't wish to represent anything because I can't say that I speak on behalf of anyone else. And even with the people who, yes, we all agree on one thing there, but there could be no...

In all the thousands of people in that march, there could be very few people that I actually have a second opinion that I... Like, just to be really, to exaggerate, that's not quite the word that I mean, just to make a very big statement, there may not be another second thing that I agree with.

Yeah, I think we're getting a little far afield of the original thing, but we're talking about a meaningful foundation for moral complaints, moral indignation.

Yeah, but I just disagree with you.

I think that, and I mean this with absolute respect to you, I think saying I just disagree with you isn't quite an answer to the challenge I presented to you in terms of what provides a meaningful foundation for ethics.

Now, this is an ethical question here. This is all about ethics. On the one side, we say that you ought not be able to kill a human being in the womb, and the other side says it's an injustice to not let us do it.

Okay.

Abortion, the Eighth Amendment, and the Meaning of “Unwanted Pregnancy”

It's all about morality. Have you read into what the Eighth Amendment is about? Yes.

The Eighth Amendment about equalizing the life of the pre-born child with the mother.

Well, that's how it stands at the moment. Yeah, that's what it does.

But do you know the implications of that? That it protects human beings in the womb? Yes.

Do you know the implications of that for people who are pregnant, who then are ill in some other way?

Well, I can tell you the implications for someone who lives in the United States. The implications of doing away with the Eighth Amendment is about 60 million babies deep after 40 years.

No, no. My question was, do you know what the implications are with how things are at the moment? A lot of this is focused on abortion and on having the choice of ending an unwanted pregnancy, but it also is to do with access to health care for women and women who have a wanted pregnancy.

What's health care? What do you mean? So, let's say someone has now, this is something that I hope is correct. It may not be completely 100 percent correct. Okay. My understanding is that and, like, I'm pro-choice anyway.

I think if someone wants to end an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason, they should be

You keep using the term unwanted pregnancy. It seems like that's a euphemism to me. What we're really talking about is a They do not want. Right, but what's a pregnancy? What's in there?

I'm not getting into we disagree, so I'm not getting into that part.

What I mean is it's an interesting way to frame the argument is to Someone who is pregnant. Right, but getting rid of a pregnancy is getting rid of a what?

But I'm not talking about that element of things. But isn't that the main issue? You asked me about health care for women. Sure, yeah, yeah. This is my understanding, that if a woman had an illness, that she needed treatment for it, that could harm the let's say it was a wanted pregnancy.

So, and I don't know. Like, so let's call the child let's call the thing in the belly a baby. You just said child. Yeah. So, but I know but that's such a But you know you're having a hard time.

Yeah, because I know that you'll pick on everything that I'm saying. No, not pick on it.

I want to encourage you with love to be consistent. Say child, because that's what it is.

You meant it. Because I was thinking of a wanted pregnancy, and I was thinking of myself.

So, wanting it makes it a child. The mere desire to want.

It would be what I would call it. And again, I can only speak on behalf of myself.

So, if a mother kills her three-year-old? No, that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I said.

And she says, I didn't want it? That's a false equivocacy. That's not what I said. Well, it's really not. My point is, my point is, access to health care, you asked about that. If a person who is pregnant needs treatment, and that may harm the pregnancy, that may prematurely end the pregnancy, then you may not have

Pregnancy is a state. You can't harm a pregnancy. You can harm Prematurely end the pregnancy, then. You can prematurely end a pregnancy. Sure. So, if the treatment that that person wants to get would prematurely end the pregnancy, then that treatment may not be available to the person who's pregnant.

So, that's a lot of what this is about. The focus and the media coverage, and to be honest, a lot of the science, are focusing on access to abortion and having choice.

That's one element of it. To kill your child at will, though, is the But another element of it. Right. Access to health care. But isn't it And it's not actually treating, right? Isn't the real foundational thing here is

Because I'll tell you, the signs I saw was keep your laws out of my vagina, stay out of my box, keep your theology off my biology, my body, my choice. It sounds like you're saying that it's about if a woman's life is in danger, health-wise, in terms of she has cancer or she can't give birth to the child.

But that's not what they're debating about.

But that's literally what I just said. I said a lot of that focus is on access to abortion, which, again, I am How do you feel about that?

Oh, I'm completely for that. So, if a woman is 20 weeks pregnant, you think she should just be able to kill her child?

But there are also other elements to it as well. So, it's not just that one.

So, when is it okay to murder a child?

I'm not answering these leading questions.