Farrell Till, the turncoat preacher of skepticism, has finally made an effort to justify his "evangelism." His favorite ploy, of course, is to attack the Bible as a collection of fairy tales spliced together by man over the centuries. But a number of us have asked him, "Why bother?" If skepticism--doubting the existence of God--is true, what difference does it make? Actually, Till's faith is atheistic for he claims there is no evidence for the existence of God. Again, what benefit shall a man receive for believing what Till or any other skeptic preaches? Now, he comes forth from hiding among the baggage of criticism to justify or give reasons for his efforts to spread "the devil's gospel." In so doing, he has fallen on his own skeptical sword, to use another illustration from the life of Saul.
Till speaks about the "intrinsic value of truth" (TSR, Autumn 1993, p. 1) and asserts that "Bible believers lack truth." There is "benefit" in "confronting reality." Bible believers not only "die for nothing," if they die for their faith, but we "waste time" by preaching Jesus. Till says he "must oppose the Bible for the damage it has done," and besides "truth is gratifying" (p. 15). He concludes that we "must face reality," for only that will "make you happy."
By saying that "truth is gratifying" and urging us to "face reality" for it will "make us happy" to do so, Till implicitly assumes a standard--happiness. If we shall reach gratification, we must face "reality," which, of course, per the professor, means that there is no evidence for the existence of God.
But this is a subjective standard. What makes one man "happy" does not necessarily make another happy. "Some may like to help other people and others may enjoy torturing them" (James Bales, Darwinism, the Devil's Gospel, p. 39). Happiness, in itself, has no moral content. For example, Till pursues his skeptical dream, because "truth is gratifying" and "makes him happy," but what if I enjoyed inflicting pain to the bodies of others? One man's meat is another man's poison, you know. "After explaining away morality by equating it with happiness, evolutionists [and skeptics, BL] usually then contradict themselves and establish some sort of moral standard by which to determine what is true or good happiness and what is bad" (Ibid.).
Second, besides the subjectivity of the standard, if happiness is the goal, there is no ground upon which to condemn or even criticize the individual who seeks his own pleasure and preservation at the expense of others. In fact, per Till's logic of "happiness" being the chief goal, he could not any longer even chastise any group of people that purposefully utilizes religion to control or master others, let alone the thousands of members of the Lord's church who go about seeking to do good. Pseudopreachers who are actually powerbrokers, who have indeed plagued society, could not even be consistently criticized by poor Till, since power is what makes them happy, not seeking "truth." Till cuts his own atheistic heart when he says "religion ruins lives." Professor Till, upon what basis do you pass such judgment, since "ruining lives" may be that which gives the most pleasure to so many? Will you tell us now that we "ought" to seek truth as a goal and find that pleasurable? Will you, as all atheists do, ascend the judicial bench and give us an edict about what things "ought" to make us happy?
Third, if happiness is the goal of life, and I find happiness in believing the Bible, even though it is a lie, why have I not achieved life's goal? Why bother with your Skeptical Review ? Leave me alone, leave the world alone--we don't need you now to come along and make us unhappy by exposing the fraud in which we have staked our existence.
Fourth, "[i]f the truth about life is that it has no lasting meaning or purpose, and dust is its destiny, happiness will be found only when one forgets the truth about life" (Bales, p. 44).
Fifth, if pleasure is the ultimate goal, why would Till wish to rescue "Bible believers who die for nothing"? Till uses the Waco tragedy to illustrate. Setting aside whether or not they were real "Bible believers," I ask Till, "If those in Koresh's compound were HAPPY dying for what they believed, why is it a less worthy goal than you have found in skepticism?" This is funny. In one breath, Till wishes me to believe happiness is the chief goal, but in the next he wants to mandate to us that there are "good" happinesses and "bad" happinesses. Indeed, those who reject the one true God wish to become God for the rest of us. Till writes, "all those people [Koresh's followers in Waco, Texas] died for a belief that wasn't true." So what, my skeptical friend, if it made them HAPPY?
Till next ponders "how much better off they would have been had they been exposed to papers like The Skeptical Review in their formative years." Yes, readers, there he goes again, assuming his little skepticism and its brand of happiness is "better" than Koresh's. But the fact is, upon Till's standard, Koresh's duped followers are on equal footing with Till. They all found happiness.
The professor becomes bold to suggest that all of us Christians should be delighted to discover that we have been "wasting time" in preaching Jesus. Once more, "SO WHAT?" Why should it bother Till if we waste time, as long as we are happy in so doing? If life is purposeless, and Till's thesis of no God allows nothing else, then how has he been able to assess by value judgments what is the best use of time as opposed to a poor use of time? The skeptic's view is that "matter in motion" is the sole reality--similar to a rock rolling down a hill. Since that is so, the way I use my time is no more under my control than how many bushes the rock smashes on its way down the mountain. Till's view of man is that one rock rolling down a mountain one day called itself "thinking man" and told the rest of us rocks that we are traveling down the wrong side of the hill and that his side of the hill is the right one! Professor, your view of man would never allow you to discover what is the proper use of time as opposed to an improper, let alone tell us how to be better managers thereof. Besides that, if I enjoy wasting my time preaching Jesus, "What is that to thee," you who suppose pleasure is the measure of all?
Now, readers, we come to the most absurd blunder of all. Till wrote of the "intrinsic value of truth" and implied that we are somehow obligated to seek and find it. First, this is the reason, like the reason of all evolutionists and atheists, for publishing his Skeptical Review. What a dilemma!
Happiness is the goal of life but if one thinks of the futility of life when viewed in the framework of evolution, he will become unhappy. However, truth is more important than happiness, so he should exchange the happiness which faith in God brings him and accept the truth which undercuts happiness. Then since happiness is the goal of life, he should forget the truth concerning life's futility in order that he may become happy (Ibid.).
Till evidently cannot spot the pitfalls that he creates for himself. If the truth of life per skepticism (that there is no God) makes one unhappy in contemplation thereof, what shall we do? Till thinks we are under some obligation to accept this "truth," even if it makes us extremely unhappy. Or if religion makes you happy, ought we to keep this greatest happiness by forsaking Till's truth? Which goal do skeptics rank highest? If we are somehow "intrinsically" obligated to follow truth, then this may be at the expense of every single thing Till had to say! Forget being happy, forget "pleasure"--find truth, now says Till. He even quotes his unfavorite person, Jesus Christ, at John 8:32. But if we are to pursue happiness as the highest goal, and we may find it in religious belief, why should Till blow about the value of truth?
Second, and the most telling mistake of Till's thesis, is the notion of the "intrinsic value of truth." Do not fail to get the point, readers. Till's world view allows only matter in motion--no God, no purpose in living, nothing but rocks and dirt set in purposeless motion. Thought, then, which is only the result of our thinking processes, is no more than the same--the purposeless twitching of gray matter in one's skull. "Thought is matter in motion," wrote Woolsey Teller (The Atheism of Astronomy, pp. 10-11, quoted by Bales, Man on All Fours, p. 51).
If Till tells the truth about thought, then it is worse than absurd for him to tell us about the inherent value of truth. Truth could be nothing more than the result of naturalistic forces, and, hence, per Till's view, there is no reason to speak about even the rationality of thought. Thoughts are merely the physical reaction to physical forces--haphazard twitching of one's nervous system. Yet Mr. Skeptic's twitching of gray matter has concluded that his twitching is more valuable than mine and that there must be somewhere an "intrinsic value" in it. Come now, professor, can you not do better than this? You have fallen on your own sword.
(Bill Lockwood's address is 211 North 5th, Marlow, OK 73055).
