Freethinking under analysis

Free thinkers consider themselves sensible in denying God. Does the arguments of free thinkers make sense or not? Read on and find out!

In this article, a few ideas presented by free thinkers will be brought up. They are mainly based on a few vintages of Vapaa Ajattelija magazine (It is Free thinkers' own magazine in Finland). The purpose is to study the ideas and arguments presented in those magazines. This is made easier by the fact that the author's own background is similar to that of most free thinkers. Before I turned to Jesus, I was an atheist and a believer in evolution. I had attended Sunday school a few times when I was younger, but later an atheistic outlook on life and denial of God gained a place in my life. I remember justifying atheistic views mostly with the following three reasons. Most freethinkers and atheists still use them.

1. Suffering and evil in the world

2. Errors of the Church

3. The perception of one's own scientificity and that the theory of evolution has proven creation wrong

The existence of God. One of the most important themes that comes up in the magazines of free thinkers and in their thinking is the denial of God's existence. They consider God only a product of human mind and thought. Therefore, there cannot be any god who is separate from the universe and has created it. It is considered an impossible thought.

However, this view presented by freethinkers and atheists is a religious assumption similar to belief in God. How can an atheist be sure that God does not belong to that sector and area, about which he himself has no knowledge? The following picture illustrates the matter. If a person knows only a few percent of all information, he cannot refute things that he himself has not observed. God can be such a thing.

No miracles have happened. Freethinkers repeatedly refer to science in their journals and that there is no supernatural. That's why e.g. Bible descriptions of healings, walking on water or fulfilled prophecies cannot be true. They are considered impossible and are thought to reflect the world view of gullible people of that time. Now, we have mostly gotten rid of such thinking, because science shows the supernatural to be impossible.

In this view, however, the issue is the same as in the previous paragraph. How can a freethinker or an atheist know that his knowledge is complete? How can he know that there is no supernatural or that God cannot intervene in events in the world? Maybe these things belong to the sector and area that he himself has no personal experience of, as shown in the previous picture.

In this view, there is a question of a naturalistic world view, where matter is all that exists. It is not considered possible that there is anything outside of it, but the universe is considered a closed system, like a box. It is not about science, because if, for example, the healings, resurrections and other miracles that happened through Jesus and the apostles are true, then they are also science. It is a logical consequence if they are historical events. Science and miracles are not mutually exclusive.

And what does the evidence point to? When free thinkers say that the miraculous things mentioned in the New Testament could not have happened, however, a few external sources refer to them:

• Josephus the historian and Talmud have both mentioned the miracles of Jesus.

• Talmud describes how the disciples healed the sick ones and did miracles.

• The fragment of Quadradus mentions how some that were healed or raised from the dead by Jesus were still alive. These were publicly known events.

The errors of religions are a recurring theme in freethinker magazines. Religions are seen as harmful and the wrongs committed by churches over the centuries are being referred to. I myself used the same argument for my atheism.

However, freethinkers and atheists do not take into account the following points in their denial of God:

• When freethinkers and atheists attack against things related to faith, the first mistake they make is the inability to distinguish between religious groups and religions, even though they expect others to be able to distinguish between atheists. They themselves hardly want to belong to the same group where e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other extreme representatives of atheism have been. In other words, they apply a different logic to religious groups than they apply to atheists. They are inconsistent here. Religions (as well as atheistic groups) cannot be lumped together as if it were a single phenomenon. John C. Lennox has explained the subject:

The neo-atheists' inability to distinguish between religions is downright maddening, as they clearly expect everyone else to be able to distinguish between atheists. After declaring themselves to be peace-loving people, they themselves would not want to be arbitrarily placed in the same compartment with the violent extremist representatives of their own worldview, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. So why don't neo-theists warn that mild and moderate atheism might provide an atmosphere of faith in which radical atheism naturally flourishes, as it did in the last century? If the neo-theists' own technique of oversimplification were applied to themselves, fierce objections would not have to wait long.

This rather glaring inconsistency – expectation that outsiders will differentiate between atheists all the while they strictly abstain from doing the same with religious groups – does little to bolster the intellectual credibility of the neotheists' message. (1)

In addition, freethinkers do not take into account the following points when rejecting the Christian faith:

• Wrongdoers won’t inherit the kingdom of God: Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived… (1 Cor 6:9)

• Jesus refuses to recognize wrongdoers: And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

• Jesus, John the Baptist and the disciples preached about the repentance. Jesus also said: ”but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3).

• Jesus warned us about using the sword and urged us to love our enemies (Matt 26:52, 5:43,44).

• Many don’t consider Paul’s words, when he warned us of the grievous wolves that would come after his departure. The development of history can clearly be seen in those words. They describe those centuries and wrongdoings that were committed in the name of God and that actually happened. It is impossible to deny that Paul wasn’t right. Moreover, Paul showed us that acts can testify against people. He could also say to others about himself: Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample, Phil 3:17.

- (Acts 20:29-31) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

- (Tit 1:16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate.

• Many wrongs have occurred through the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. However, these churches, or most of their members, have largely renounced faith in Jesus and replaced it with Mary and saints (This was evident, for example, when the band Pussy Riot sang about Russian President Putin. In it, the words were addressed to Mary). It is no longer a question of the Christian faith, but of something else. Many freethinkers do not understand the difference between these things. Atheists and freethinkers rarely distinguish, for example, between Christianity and Islam, as noted already. However, there is a big difference. If the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are followed, its effect should be positive in relationships and society. Even Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist and god-denyer, has admitted since he wrote The God Delusion that Christianity might serve as a bulwark against something worse:

As far as I know, there are no Christians blowing up buildings. As far as I know, there are no Christian suicide bombers either. I am not aware of any major denomination of Christianity that believes that the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, because Christianity may act as a bulwark against something worse. (2)

So where does atheism lead? Many people who have turned to God and Jesus can testify how they have been freed from drugs and alcohol, stopped stealing, embezzling, cheating on their spouse or other things that are generally considered negative and harmful to society. Faith in God and Jesus Christ has brought about a positive change in them.

Is atheism a similar positive force of change for society? Many freethinkers and atheists are convinced that it is. They think that if atheism were the dominant view of society and everyone were atheists, it would lead society in a better direction. Most wars would disappear and problems in societies would decrease. So many freethinkers and atheists at least want to believe.

However, not everyone agrees with them. For example, the Greek Plato did not agree with modern atheists, but he considered strict atheism a dangerous idea for the state. He wrote about it in one of his last dialogues, the Lait dialogue. Plato's view is understandable, because a naturalistic and atheistic worldview does not offer a solid foundation for morality. When it doesn't have all binding moral instructions, as in e.g. religions, this opens the doors to wrongdoing.

The last century also provides evidence of what an atheistic worldview can lead to at its worst. It was one of the cruelest centuries of mankind and the Ages of dark would be a much better name for it than for the Middle Ages. The apostate church and religiosity that renounced Christ have not caused as much destruction over many centuries as what happened in the last century under the influence of atheism. Well-known are e.g. The regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot and numerous communist states where atheism has been the official doctrine. Most of these rulers who ran communism or supported Nazism believed in Darwin's theory. This was the case with Hitler, and it is also known that Stalin became an atheist when he read Darwin's On the Origin of Species. What would have happened if Darwin's book had not existed and these individuals had believed that they would one day be held accountable for their actions? Surely history would have been quite different.

[What would you say to those, who blame religions?] I would try to make them think about the horrific 20th century, during which we encountered more destruction than ever before. Possibly, along with the destruction of Jews, the greatest crimes were committed by two openly atheistic nations. The Soviet Union with its atheist museum being one and Mao’s China being the other. Both were militantly atheistic. And what did they do? They killed 70 million of their own people. Why won’t we ever hear that this is what atheism causes? There is something devious about it. Why the sins of religion are always so harshly judged (as they should be judged), but no one ever pays attention to the sins of atheism. (3)

Dr. Paul Johnston, a British historian: “Typical of the 20^th century and the primary reason for its terrors, is that people, who gained great carnal power, were not afraid of God and did not believe that any absolute behaviourial code was restricting them.” (4)

Alexandr Solzenitsyn: Over half a century ago, when I was still a child, I remember hearing many elderly people talking about the disasters that Russia faced like so: “People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” After that I have studied the Russian revolution for over 50 years; during that time I have read hundreds of books, collected personal stories and have written eight books myself to research those phases. But, if I were asked to summarize as shortly as possible the primary reason for the horrific revolution, which took ca. 60 million of our people, I could not say it any more clearly than to repeat: People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” (5)

Controversial issues. Freethinkers and atheists usually want to present a healthy and balanced image of themselves. They consider themselves reasonable, progressive and tolerant. By the last of these things, i.e. tolerance, they usually mean a positive attitude, e.g. towards abortion, female priesthood and homosexuality. These types of themes often appear in their magazines. If we think about these things in more detail, however, it is worth considering the following points:

Abortion is killing a child, no matter how many argue against it. At the stage when most abortions are performed (around 7-8 weeks of age), aborted fetuses have the same body parts as newborn babies or adults. They have hands, feet, eyes, nose, mouth and unique fingerprints. Similarly, they have their own heart and heart sounds like an adult and their own blood circulation. It is a question of human being that grows in the mother's womb.

What if someone gets pregnant against their will - e.g. through rape (a few percent of unwanted pregnancies have occurred through rape)? It is true that in such a situation one should not be indifferent to people's feelings, as can easily happen. However, one can ask, is killing the children the right way to get out of the situation? For example, adoption can be one solution to the problem.

Women's priesthood is a matter with two views in churches (also in so-called conservative churches). Others see that it is also intended for women, but others conclude, e.g. based on the 3rd chapter of 1 Timothy (A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach), that it is limited to men only. However, both groups tend to emphasize the activeness of men and women in spiritual work; everyone's work is needed in the spiritual work. In addition, a person must be born again, otherwise he is on the wrong footing and cannot lead others to eternal life.

What if a free thinker or an atheist does not understand someone's negative stance on female priesthood? Is it reasonable to deny God and eternal life based on this? If eternal life is really true, it is surely not wise. According to the Bible, God has a good plan and will for us (1 Tim 2:3,4: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.), but we can thwart it under our own pretexts.

Homosexuality and a positive attitude towards it appear to some extent in free thinkers' magazines as well as in the secular media. Freethinkers see this as a good thing and usually innate feature like skin color. If someone else sees it differently, they think it's like oppressing people based on skin color.

How should this matter be approached? The most important thing is to think about things in terms of eternity. If it is true that we are eternal beings and the willful practice of homosexuality is among the many sins, which keeps us apart from God, is this not worth considering (1 Cor 6:9,10: Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.)? Freethinkers do not believe that our behavior and choices affect eternity, but it should be seriously considered. If the probability of eternity is even one percent, it's worth considering that too.

Secondly, if you believe in eternity and on that basis warn people about wrong choices, it cannot be considered unloving. It is similar to warning someone about weak ice: “Don't go on weak ice! It could be bad for you!” It means that a person is loved, but warned of the bad consequences of his behavior.

What about the innateness of homosexuality? Is it innate feature like skin color? Many homosexuals will not admit this. Some homosexuals might heavily speak for its innateness, but there are many that disagree. They think that adverse conditions and reactions to them play a role in the emergence of tendencies. This was also a common view in psychology a few decades ago.

I read an interesting study by an expert: it was a survey to find out how many actively homosexual people believed they were born that way. Eighty-five percent of the interviewees were of the opinion that their homosexuality was a learned way of behaving caused by destructive influence early on in their home and enticement by another person.

Nowadays, my first question when meeting with a homosexual is usually, “Who gave you the inspiration for it?” All of them can answer me. I will ask then, “What would have happened to you and your sexuality if you hadn’t met your uncle, or if your cousin had not come into your life? Or without your stepfather? What do you think would have happened?” This is when the bells start to toll. They say, “Maybe, maybe, maybe.” (6)

The scientific worldview and the perception of one's own scientificity repeatedly appear in the magazines of free thinkers. They contrast faith and reason, as well as scientific and religious worldviews. They themselves think that they represent reason and science, and that their view is based on sure facts. They have exactly the same view as I had when I was an atheist and a believer in evolution. The same attitude is also well expressed in the book Miksi en ole kristitty? [Why I’m not a Christian?] by freethinker V.T. Aaltonen? (p.199,200):

I wish briefly that people would think scientifically.

Generally, it looks like most people try to manage by thinking as little as possible. (…) The most important part of a scientific way of thinking is freedom from prejudices, predilections and devotions. The target of a scientist is always the truth, regardless of how unpleasant it may be or how much confusion it may cause to people whose beliefs it shows wrong.

Scientific or faith-based view? When free thinkers think they have a scientific worldview, that's not true. Or how many people act only on the basis of facts in the field of science and in ordinary life, but do not use their faith? Is it possible to find such a person?

If we're being honest, none of us actually function without faith. In the field of science, it manifests itself in the fact that we trust the credibility and information of others. Their opinions are considered reliable because they are thought to be in the know about things. It is exactly the same in the area of ordinary life. Even in that, we trust the word of others and take it as true. We personally check only a small part of the things that we embrace as true.

The following examples highlight the importance of faith and its occurrence in everyday life. There is no such thing as a completely scientific man, because it is impossible.

• The girl trusts her mother's word that she will get a new dress. It is faith.

• People believe that such a place as Antarctica exists, even though very few have been there.

• When there are store advertisements in newspapers, we believe them and go shopping based on them.

• History is an area where we know everything based on the word of others. For example, the existence of Napoleon and Caesar can no longer be proven completely and scientifically, but we have to rely on the word of others. It is faith that everyone has to lean on.

Faith and interpretations of the past. When free thinkers emphasize their scientific worldview, they usually mean the birth of life by itself and evolution of life and the self-birth of the universe, the solar system and the earth that preceded it. They think that this kind of thinking is based only on facts and has no place for faith.

However, this is not the case, and there is a simple reason: we cannot prove the events of the past. It means that questions about the origin of the universe, life and man all fall within the domain of faith. None of us witnessed the birth of these things. There are only different theories about how they started, but scientifically it is impossible to prove their origin. We cannot go back to the past and look at things from there, so in this sense everyone is in the same position and in the same boat. Freethinkers and atheists cannot prove the following things and theories, among other things. In all of them, major flaws can be pointed out:

• The birth of the universe is based on faith. Currently, the most common theory is the Big Bang theory, where everything started from a space the size of a pinhead.

It's like if someone claims to have a matchbox (it's much bigger than a pinhead), which brings out all kinds of bigger and more complicated things like: An elephant and the grass that the elephant eats, a cheetah that runs fast, roaring lions, birds that can fly and chirp, mosquitoes that the birds can eat, fish and the sea around them, beautiful and fragrant flowers and tens of meters tall trees, billions of galaxies, stars and planets, the sun that warms and gives light, people who can talk and feel emotions: cry, laugh, get angry, fear, grieve, and fall in love as well as good tasting strawberries, bananas, blueberries, peas, grapes and nuts. If someone doubts these claims within the Big Bang theory and other theories related to the beginning of the universe, he certainly can't make a big mistake

• The birth of galaxies is based on faith. Well-known astronomers have admitted that their origin is a mystery

• The birth of life is based on faith. This issue has not been proven even in the laboratory. The more the matter has been studied, the more problematic it has become.

• The birth of the solar system is based on faith. Scientists admit that all theories have serious flaws. Problems are caused by the completely different compositions and movements of the planets, moons and sun.

The biggest contradiction that emerges in the theistic and naturalistic worldviews is the perception of how we interpret the past. It is a question of two different interpretations of the past. In one, it is believed that everything was born by itself, and in the other, it is believed that everything has its creator. Atheism and theism are both faith-based views. A view based on theism comes out well, e.g. from the following words of Paul.

- (Hebr 11:3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

What does the evidence point to? It was stated earlier how in the theistic and naturalistic worldviews, the biggest dispute concerns the interpretation of the past: Was everything born by itself or does everything had a creator? David Pawson uses an analogy to discuss these views and two other alternatives for the existence of the universe. Only one of the options is correct. The last option makes the most sense, i.e. God created everything. For example, option 2 cannot be true, because the heavenly bodies are still radiating energy. They cannot be eternal, they must have a beginning. Otherwise, the energy reserves would have already been exhausted. Option 3 cannot be true either, because nothing can be born by itself and out of nothing. Mere non-existence cannot cause its existence. It is a complete impossibility and against logic:

Let’s assume you are exploring a deserted area with four of your friends, when you come across a magnificent palace. Each of your friends offers to explain its existence. "It's just a mirage," says the first of them - even after you've slammed his head into the solid walls of the building.

"It's always been there," suggests another. "It's as old as the earth."

"It has come to that by itself," suggests a third, “through miraculous occurrences.”

"It was built by a famous architect," says the fourth. "I have met him myself."

Which of them would you believe?

The Bible says: ”For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Rom 1:20). In other words, their existence is proof of His existence. So he who can look at the universe around him and say there is no God has denied his own reason and persuaded himself to deviate from the truth. Without opening the Bible at all, you can see something of the content of the word God. Behind the visible things there must be a force greater than them. And people have always believed that that power is God. (7)

If we think about the birth of life and the universe from a purely scientific point of view, the most reasonable alternative is that they were created by a supernatural and intelligent God. It best explains the existence of e.g. intelligence, emotions, senses and sense of beauty. Or how can an inanimate substance, e.g. a stone, become intelligent by itself and suddenly start feeling strong emotions: get angry, laugh, cry, rejoice, fear, fall in love? It is certainly impossible, although some scientists argue against it.

The fact that God created the world as described in the Bible is confirmed by other sources. In the folklore of peoples or in old stories, there is reference to a similar order of creation, which cannot be considered a coincidence. In the lore of the Chinese Miao people, it is even mentioned that first a man was created and only then a wife was made from the previously created man. It is the same as what the Bible teaches.

An even stronger testimony is the 7-day week, which has been common among all peoples since the beginning - it is the common heritage of mankind. What else could this common feature of nations be due to, other than the fact that God really created everything in seven days as the Bible describes.

On the earth He made a man from mud. From a man thus created He formed a wife. Then the patriarch Loka made a scale out of stones, estimating the weight of the earth to the bottom, calculating the mass of the heavenly bodies, meditating on the ways of the deity, God. To patriarch Loka was born patriarch Se-teh. To patriarch Se-teh was born son Lusu, and Lusu had Kehlo and to him was born Lama. To patriarch Lama was born the man Nuah. His wife's name was ancestress Kau Po-lu-en. Their sons were: Lo-Han, Lo-Shen and Jah-hu. Like this the earth started to fill with tribes and families. In creation the families and nations were formed. (8)

There are also strange connections to the biblical story of creation in the ancient tales of peoples. So we read in one of the oldest scriptures of the Indians: “He, who was eternal, first created water through his spirit, thus we call him the one who walks on water” (Genesis 1:2). "When he, whose power is incomprehensible, had created the world, he exchanged action for rest" (Genesis 1:2). (9)

This is what the old books of the Persians say: "The visible world, heaven and earth, was created in six times. First, Ormuzd (s.o. the God of Good) created a light between heaven and earth. Then the water that covered the whole earth. Then came the dry land. Further, all kinds of trees were created. In fifth place came animals. At last the people came." (10)

"We can find from time immemorial the knowledge of the seven-day week in the consciousness of all peoples - among the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Indians - in a word, all the peoples of the East have at all times used this seven-day week, which is difficult to explain without admitting that this knowledge was received from the common ancestors of mankind." (11)

What about the historicity of the Flood? Freethinkers and many people who consider themselves scientific doubt its historicity, but there is plenty of evidence for it both in nature (remains of marine animals in high mountains, etc.) and in the folklore of peoples. The following quotations refer to the latter, the traditional knowledge of peoples:

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (12)

Lenormant says in his book "Beginning of History":

"We have the opportunity to prove that the story of the Flood is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family, and such a certain and uniform tradition as this cannot be considered an imagined fable. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a strong impression on the minds of the first parents of the human family that even their descendents could never forget it. (13)

Peoples of different races have different heritage stories about the enormous flood catastrophe. The Greeks have told a story about the Flood, and it is centered around a character named Deukalion; even long before Columbus, the natives of the American continent had stories that had kept alive the memory of the great flood. Tales about a flood have been moved on from generation to generation up until this day also in Australia, India, Polynesia, Tibet, Kašmir and Lithuania. Are they all just tales and stories? Are they all made up? It is presumable that they all describe the same great catastrophe. (14)

Questions for freethinkers

- (John 7:17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

- (Matt 7:8) For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.

Freethinker V.T. Aaltonen wrote in his book Miksi en ole kristitty? (Why am I not a Christian?) (p. 201) about how very few have thought about the origin of their views. He mentioned how some people can defend their opinions, beliefs and perceptions, considering them right, but have never even considered their validity:

How many has, for example, ever really thought, where they got their opinions, perceptions or beliefs that they are ready to defend as the only truth? We usually find it more important to discover and come up with evidence that prove us there is no reason to change our views.

As far as I understand, many free thinkers are in exactly the same situation as the previous one, which V.T. Aaltonen described. How many have even thought about the origin and validity of their views? I can say something about this myself, because when I was an atheist and a believer in evolution, I never questioned my views. I didn't think about, for example, the validity of the theory of evolution or try to find out about its weaknesses. I believed in this theory, even though I really only knew about it based on a few mentions in school books and nature programs. I used that and other rather weakly substantiated arguments as the reason for my atheism. I believe that more than 99% of freethinkers and atheists are in the same situation as I was at one time.

How do we move on from this situation? When free thinkers are sure of the correctness of their views, I think it would be worthwhile for them to think about things from another and opposite point of view. They should consider e.g. the following things:

Is it possible that God exists? Freethinkers and atheists are convinced that there is no God. As a basis for that, they use the same arguments that I myself used in my time, such as

1. The perception of one's own scientificity and that the theory of evolution has proven creation wrong

2. Suffering and evil in the world

3. Errors of the Church

What if things were the other way around? If it could be proven that the theory of evolution is not true, that there would be no suffering and evil in the world, and that the members of the churches had never committed any wrongdoing? Would free thinkers believe in God then? If things were the other way around, would they take this as proof of God or would they still hold to their current views? Or what would be such a thing that would make them believe in God? The following quote illustrates the point:

... The assumption is mostly based on the choice of the heart, which doesn’t let any evidence change it.

This was revealed in a discussion between Christians and Marxists in which I was involved. When the Marxists were asked what, for them, would be sufficient proof of the existence of a personal God, a deep silence descended on the room. No one could come up with any way to prove God's existence. Why? Because they had decided beforehand in their hearts that they would not serve God. Therefore, they also could not acknowledge His existence. They simply submitted their minds to their will and refused to look at any evidence. (15)

Is there not a single circumstance that goes against the theory of evolution and the naturalistic theory of the origin of the universe? Freethinkers and atheists are generally of the opinion that the universe and life in it have arisen by themselves from a pinhead-sized state in the Big Bang. Likewise, they believe in the theory of evolution. However, they should seriously consider the possibility that these theories are false. Don't they know a single fact that would testify against them? At least the following points should be considered:

• Can the fish and the sea around it form from the hot and dense state of the big bang, whose volume is only the size of a pinhead?

• Can elephants, man, ostriches and other birds, swift cheetahs, hissing mosquitoes, ants, whales and Giraffes come from the same space the size of a pinhead?

• Can tens of meters tall trees, nice smelling flowers and billions of galaxies, stars and planets come from the same space the size of a pinhead?

• How can emotions – joy, sadness, hope, fear, anger, love, infatuation – arise from an inanimate substance like a stone? How can senses such as sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch arise from inanimate matter?

• If the origin of life by itself is possible, why hasn't it been proven yet? The more information has accumulated, the more difficult the problem has become.

• If the theory of evolution is true, why haven't intermediate forms between the basic groups been found? Several well-known paleontologists have denied their existence.

What if there is an afterlife? Freethinkers present in their magazines the idea that there is no afterlife, no heaven and no hell. They consider both to be a figment of human imagination.

However, free thinkers should consider the possibility of eternal life. If the probability of that is even one percent, that's already a lot. How can a free thinker know that there is nothing beyond the border? If he himself has only lived on earth for a few decades, he cannot be sure on that basis. He cannot prove his point of view to be correct.

The better expert on eternal life is Jesus. He talked about heaven and hell. If it is true that he is the Son of God who came from heaven, as he Himself said, He also knows for sure what is beyond the border. The question is how realistic and true His claims are. Freethinkers don't believe in them, but they should take them more seriously. A few verses show how Jesus' origin is heavenly:

- (John 8:23,24) And he said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

- (John 17:3-5) And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

4 I have glorified you on the earth: I have finished the work which you gave me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify you me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

- (John 6:38-43,47) For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father’s will which has sent me, that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he said, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Murmur not among yourselves.

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, He that believes on me has everlasting life.

What is good enough? Freethinkers often in their magazines bring up the thought that people can lead good and moral life even without faith. You don’t have to believe in God and Jesus, in order to be a good person.

They might even be right about that. That is, If only people's standards are used as a yardstick, many of them can live quite blameless lives. We cannot deny that.

However, it is another thing if there is a God who expects perfection. Then all the works of men will seem worthless. Or as the Bible says: all have sinned and are under sin. There is no such person, who would be completely without sin.

- (Rom 3:23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

- (Room 3:9) What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

- (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

What, then, is the solution to the imperfection of people? Freethinkers despise Jesus' work on the cross in some of their papers (Phil 3:18: For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ), but it is the only way to finding help to our imperfection.. He filled the gap between imperfect people and God. He became an arbiter so that we could enter into communion with God. Every freethinker, god-denyer, or anyone can experience the same and receive a remission of their sins. The importance of Jesus as an arbiter and a way to God is expressed, for example, in the following verses. Everything is motivated by God's love for people and that he wants to save them:

- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- (Hebr 8:6) But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 10:9) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Therefore, if you yourself want to have eternal life and forgiveness of your sins, understand the importance of Jesus as mediator! You must turn to Him and receive Him into your life and you will have eternal life. Don't reject Him, give yourself to Him and welcome Him.

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

So, if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown inside the ship but always outside.

- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

References:

1. John C. Lennox: Tähtäimessä Jumala (Gunning for God, Why the new atheists are missing the target), p. 79

2. Sitaatti Ruth Gledhilliltä, The Times, 2.4. 2010

3. P. Cousineau: Conversations with Houston Smith on the spiritual life, p. 259

4. Michael Green & Gordon Carckner: Kymmenen myyttiä kristinuskosta, p. 18

5. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos 1-5, p. 34

6. Bill Hybels: Kristityt seksihullussa kulttuurissa (Christians in a Sex Crazed Culture), p. 132

7. David Pawson: Kristillinen usko avautuu (Christianity Explained), p. 13

8. E.V. Koskinen: Alusta loppuun, p. 12

9. Fr. Bettex: Raamatun ensimmäinen lehti, p. 4

10. Fr. Bettex: Raamatun ensimmäinen lehti, p. 4

11.Tri John Kitto in book Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, entry "Sabbath", p. 655

12. Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78

13. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5

14. Werner Keller: Raamattu on oikeassa, p. 29

15. Ajankohtainen 3, toimittanut Daniel Nylund