Logic and Faith

Baa Baa Black Sheep Have You Any Wool?…No Because You Shouldn’t Be Here Anyway

There is an old joke about two hikers in the woods who come upon a bear.  As the bear started to growl and move toward them, one of the hikers stopped to make sure his shoes were laced up good and tight.  The other hiker looked around at him and said, “you know you’re never going to outrun that bear.”  “I don’t have to”, the second one replied, “all I have to do is to outrun you!”  This story has been told so many times it has ceased to be humorous.  Yet, this is precisely how we are told that nature, as we know it, has come into being. 

Let’s forget for a moment the absurd notion that everything made of matter just “popped” into existence without any reason, purpose, or basis.  Let’s also fast-forward through a few supposed billion years to the time of the rise of animal life.  Evolutionists tell us that life evolved based simply on the food-chain.  The strongest, fastest, and most cunning animals were destined to survive while those that  did not adapt and develop defensive mechanisms (such as the turtle), or could not reproduce fast enough (such as rabbits), were destined to become extinct.  “Survival of the Fittest” is often the fundamental premise and argument of this belief.  So, to not be eaten by the bear, we either must overwhelm it or we must outrun it.  If we can’t do either, then we are supper.  The bear survives and we do not.  But what about sheep?

In their attempt to extinguish religion, the Moscow Academy of Science, in 1959, produced The Atheist’s Handbook¹.  It was a collection of essays and articles by some of the Soviet Union’s most prominent philosophers and scientists.  The book has undergone several re-printings and translations into various languages.  Of course, the principle aim of the book is to assure readers that there is no God and certainly no possible hope or comfort in life beyond this existence.  Not long after the publishing of this book, a Soviet conference was held dealing with atheism as absolute truth.  After a long speech by one of the writers, a believer in God dared to ask the lecturer “What about sheep?”

The person asking the question was Richard Wurmbrand, who later went on to write The Answer to the Atheist’s Handbook².  Mr. Wurmbrand explained his question saying,

“How is it that sheep survived, that they were not utterly destroyed by wolves?  The female wolf produces five to six offspring a year, the sheep only one.  The ratio is 5:1 for the destroyer, which has sharp teeth, claws, strength, swiftness in running.  The sheep has absolutely no defenses.  How is it that there are still sheep?  Today, man protects them.  The animal world existed before man appeared, [so we are told].   Who protected the sheep during this time?  You can explain many things without resorting to the hypothesis that God exists.  But sheep with four legs could not exist without him, any more than Christ’s loving sheep, who have been defenseless against cruel persecutors since the beginning of the Church.”  (pages 1-2)

Because of this question, Mr. Wurmbrand spent fourteen years in a Soviet prison.  Instead of this experience leaving him bitter and resentful, Mr. Wurmbrand believes that Christians should try to understand the arguments of the atheists.  In truth, if a person does not have knowledge of God, or the desire to look for the evidence that God has given us, it is quite easy to see why a person might arrive at the conclusion that there is no God.  After all, religion has been at the heart of several wars and continues to be a source of contention between peoples and cultures.  There is hatred, hunger, injustice, and misery in this world.  In light of this, a person is easily tempted to arrive at the conclusion that there is no God or, if there is a God, then he is uncaring or unable to deal with human suffering.  It’s only by understanding a person and his or her thinking can we ever hope to persuade them that the opposite is actually true.

Often, Christians are quick to dismiss the conclusions of atheists as shortsighted and unenlightened.  This is exactly the same thing said about believers by atheists.  If we dismiss the arguments of atheists, we make the same mistake they make and, therefore, no progress can be made.  We essentially do the same thing that was done to Mr. Wurmbrand; we simply remove the challenge to our beliefs without providing a reasonable answer.  Christians must have an answer for the arguments and conclusions made by those who deny God.  Moreover, we must have answers that make sense. 

The danger is not so much from without the Church as it is from consequences within it.  The Church has always faced agnosticism and antagonism.  This was true from the very first Gospel sermon when some in the crowd tried to explain everything away by saying that the Apostles were drunk.  Through the centuries, scoffers and critics have tried repeatedly to remove religion from the minds of people.  Though their efforts have met with limited success, the Church remains.  Jesus promised that the “gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”  If Satan and his followers cannot prevail against the Church, then certainly the efforts of man are doomed to fail as well.

The real danger is in the consequences of Christians not giving good sound answers to the appeals of unbelievers.  We are losing huge numbers of our youth because of worldly influences and because of secular teaching that is contrary to scriptures.  Too often, these young people are not properly grounded in their faith.  We make sure that they attend youth rallies, have “church” softball teams, and generally have great fellowship experiences.  To be sure, these opportunities are desperately needed.  But, when is the last time parents sat down with their children and talked about the inconsistencies and errors in evolutional teaching?  Such discussions must go far beyond just “the Bible says…”  Parents, Bible teachers, pulpit ministers, and elders must understand the arguments used by those against us.  Certainly, we should turn to scripture in helping young people be taught the things that lead to a sound faith.  But we must also be knowledgeable enough and understanding of our opponents to help our youth see the errors and contradictions within the false theories and philosophies of which they are certain to be exposed and asked to believe.

The analogy of light vs darkness has been used many times.  A shut-up closet is in darkness.  Coats, shoes, storage bins within the closet are incapable of illuminating themselves.  Outside, in the room, someone has turned on a lamp and there is light.  Now, perhaps, inside the closet some light seeps in but still it’s relatively dark.  Once the closet door is opened, the light from the room floods in and the closet is illuminated.  Items which were indistinguishable and hidden are now discernable.  But, light does more than just make something visible.  It also shows truth by revealing that which is deceptive.  This is the work of the Gospel.  The problem with atheism is that it only knows one world, that of the closet.  It has some light but not enough to be revealing.  It knows nothing of the lit room just outside the door because that’s not part of its world.  Christians must understand both worlds.  We must abide in the lit room but also know what is in the closet.  Opening the door is the only hope for the future of those in the closet.  The nature of darkness is that it does not know that it’s dark and does not seek light.  Light must be introduced to darkness and, so by, overcomes it.  We must open that door, especially for the good of the generations that come after us.