I chuckled when I read Fred Spoerl’s 9/13/07 letter to the editor titled “Faith-based candidacy is inappropriate,” about his concern that a politician who believes in a supernatural being cannot represent people that don’t have such beliefs. Ironically and illogically, Mr. Spoerl thinks atheist candidates, atheists a tiny minority here, are the preferred choice to represent the rest of us. Fred is right that we need people in office “with…great analytical minds,” but how likely are we to find that in an atheist when the atheistic belief system is at its root illogical.

      Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates established the fundamental rules of logic. Though these individuals were obviously not members of a Judeo-Christian faith, their rules of logic, then and now, have been used as a method for distinguishing truth from untruth. They also provided the fundamentals for meaningful dialogue. Violate those rules, and truth becomes irrelevant while rational discussion becomes impossible.

      Atheism is a logical impossibility because the very basis of atheism represents a fundamental mistake in logic by positing an absolute negation--there is no God. The only way to posit an absolute negation that is true is if you yourself have infinite knowledge. It is not logical for a finite human to posit non-existence of an infinite being.

      Mr. Spoerl no doubt believes a reasoning person could not be religious. If he operates out of the typical atheistic framework, he prides himself in believing only in that which is logically and systematically defendable, based and reasoned through scientifically and mathematically. Those doctrines that cannot be mathematically reasoned through, postulating scientific empirical fact--they are meaningless illusions to be discarded by anyone who is reasonable and intelligent. But note, this atheistic postulate is itself a philosophical statement, not a scientific or mathematical one. Therefore, its test for meaning and truth fails its own test. Herein lies another example of illogic at the root of atheism.

      Take a look at the atheist’s illogical view of creation. The universe is eternal, they say, or it came from nothing and by nothing. But that is unreasonable, illogical. Logic requires a first cause: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Furthermore, our world coming into existence by a random big bang defies mathematical probability-- from nothing came this world’s specified complexity, beauty, and the relationship of expansion and contraction with precise exactitude. The universe coming from a random event carries an outrageously low probability even if the whole universe was filled with a bigger or better organic soup that we have been able to conceive of. Mathematically, this world could not possibly have come about by chance. The atheist, while demanding mathematical certainty for beliefs, ignores the mathematical rules of probability. As the eminent physicist Sir Arthur Eddington concluded, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” The irreducible complexity of life forms is what converted Anthony Flew to theism- a man previously called the world’s most influential philosophical atheist. The need for information (ie design) is undeniable as the simplest living cell could not have come to be by natural processes without explicit instructions provided. The atheist’s view of creation is based on sociological, philosophical, and emotional factors, not scientific data.

      The writings of this local atheist writer may be comical in their incredulity, and if beliefs did not have consequences, it would be optional to simply feel sorry for the individual atheist and disregard atheism for the silliness that it is. However, beliefs and ideas do have consequences, for good or for bad. This is in sharp contrast to Mr. Spoerl’s statement that “Everyone’s particular faith is only relevant to their own life” and correlates better with his statement that elected official’s beliefs “will and do have an effect on the people elected and how they make and pass the laws of our country.” On a superficial perusal of history, it may seem that the illogic of moral relativism is something new to our culture, maybe since the 1960’s hippy anti-establishment movement. The truth is, moral relativism has been progressively accepted in proportion to our acceptance of the philosophical tenets of existentialist nihilism promoted by atheistic philosophers such as Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre from the 1800s. To summarize existentialism in a few paragraphs cannot give it due justice, but an effort at summary is nonetheless warranted since it is a genre of philosophy that has poisoned cultures and indeed has contributed to horrors such as the Nazi holocaust and the legalization of abortion on demand. Most of our young people today are either openly or implicitly existentialist in their behavior and attitudes. They have been raised on this empty, cold, hopeless, and meaningless philosophy even if they have never heard of or know how to spell Nietzsche, Camus, or Sartre.

      In existentialism, existence supersedes essence; subjective overrules objective; what I feel is more important than what is; what I do determines who I am. There is no need to give a reason for behavior. There is no right or wrong, no higher law above our law. Morality is defined on the basis of what an individual chooses. What is right or wrong is what I choose to be right or wrong for me, and what is right or wrong for you may be entirely different. Isn’t this our current societal norm? Leaving no way to differentiate right and wrong, good and bad, existentialists departed from the classic philosophers and ushered in our present day plight. It requires Olympic quality mental and verbal gymnastics to justify the concept that morals and ethics are relative and that all belief systems are equally true. And you must rewrite history and readjust reality. With no moral absolutes and no rational basis for ethics, morals and ethics are decided by emotions and pragmatism--whoever can shout the loudest, come up with the cleverest slogans, better stigmatize alternative views, give the most emotional appeal, or obtain the most political clout. Nietzsche wrote that God is dead, and since this “death,” there has been the death of reason and systematic thought. Nietzsche himself wrote that God’s death brings loss of life’s meaning.

      The most profound implications of moral relativism were demonstrated during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. Those defending the Nazi slaughter had one defense only: we were operating under the law of our own land. They lost their case based on the truth accepted by the judges, that there is a higher law above our human laws. In other words, belief in absolute morality triumphed over belief in relativistic morality. The writings and speeches of Adolph Hitler reveal that he was not intellectually sophisticated, not well-read. However, he did read Nietzsche, and based his political and economic theories on Nietzsche’s philosophical postulates of nihilism, moral relativism, angst, despair, innate inequality within our species, and the superman that is stronger, superior and asserts his will over the weaker. Hitler thrived on the vision of the strong man conquering the weak, the strong race exploiting the weaker race. He called it the “law of nature.” This is resonant with Charles Darwin’s law of natural selection, survival of the fittest. Karl Marx was writing “Das Capital” while Darwin was writing “The Origin of the Species,” and Engels recommended to Marx that he dedicate his book to Darwin because Darwin gave him the scientific theory on which to base his economic theory. Ideas have consequences, so it is imperative that we be honest when we choose our pre-suppositions.

      The deeper you explore, you find there is no challenge between faith and reason. Faith in God is not antithetical to reason; rather, faith against God is antithetical to reason. Belief in God as Creator follows the classical rules of logic summarized above, and it is supported by the complexity of the universe that points to a designer. Faith, from a Christian standpoint, is trust that Jesus is who He claimed to be, and that is not antithetical to reason. It can be a rational choice. The same cannot be said of atheism, for reasons described above. Faith is not merely a will to believe; rather, faithlessness in God is a will to disbelieve because of pride, wounds, or convenience. Atheism is not based on the absence of evidence of God but on the suppression of it; because “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork…There is no language or speech where His voice is not heard” (Psalm 19:1).

      Atheism is self-defeating, for it is impossible to maintain with logical consistency. Without God, there is no law, no morality, no hope, and no meaning. The atheist states there is no God and that Christ lied about His claims. If the atheist is wrong, his loss is irreparable, and unless he repents there is no recovery. The dire consequences of atheism are not just for the atheist individual but for society. Choosing a candidate on the basis of their atheistic beliefs is not only illogical but is perilous in a nation with many people who have lost the ability to reason and to think for themselves. Our current collective mind-set paves the way for an oppressive despot, and it is dangerous to think it couldn’t happen here. Hitler’s Nazi party had less than 3% of the German vote in 1928, but it climbed to 37% by 1931 largely due to broad-scale economic depression. In 1933, he was elected chancellor when the Nazi party had only 33% of the vote. In 1934, he became head of state, and we know of the horror that followed. It is critical we recognize that ideas have consequences, and choose our beliefs, decisions, and behaviors accordingly.

Annie Bukacek MD