RC Isn’t a Cola

“IT’S NOT PC” isn’t about Mac versus PC—rather, PC has come to mean “Politically Correct.” Similarly, “RC” could mean “Religiously Correct.”

Lately, the media is all atwitter with the high wisdom—the towering insight—that says it’s RC to aggressively and contemptuously dismiss as intellectually and pitiably naive any belief in such utterly outdated ideas as the existence of God—or that He supposedly created the universe.

Christopher Hitchens has been all over TV channels of late, flogging his new book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. As of today, its #9 on Amazon’s best seller list—#4 on the New York Times list of non-fiction (!) best sellers. Hitchens’ book follows in the wake of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger; The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, by Sam Harris; and others of like ilk.

Against this tidal wave of doubt and scorn stands the simple statement of Psalm 14:1, NLT: “Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.'” Hitchens, et al. would indict anyone credulous enough to cling to the “scientifically proven” anachronism of a real God, as a “fool.” Psalms and Hitchens can’t both be right.

At the same time, disdain for the idea of a literal Creation is also an increasing staple of the daily news. Creationism, to be made more “PC” for the secular humanist crowd, has morphed into a presumably more palatable version dubbed “Intelligent Design.” Both, however, meet with the same derision from those convinced that science solidly supports evolution. When three presidential candidates recently raised their hands in support of belief in Creation, TV talking heads found that highly amusing.

Against this tidal wave of doubt and scorn stands the simple statement of Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis and the evolutionists can’t both be right.

It’s my conviction that we who believe in the existence of God—and in His role as Creator of everything—should not be intimidated by those who claim that science and revelation are incompatible. We should not feel intellectually backward because we choose to exercise faith in the conclusions we reach by examining the available evidence. We should not be cowed, as an elephant fearful of a mouse.

I can’t prove God exists. No one can. While for now, we “see through a glass darkly,” we operate on the basis of the weight of evidence—not proof. Weighing the evidence is the task each of us faces. And we reach our conclusions individually. For me, the available evidence for God’s existence—and for divine Creation—is overwhelming.

Three last thoughts: One, we should give all others the same freedom of choice that God has given us. The atheists and agnostics, the humanists and skeptics—they too get to choose. So we violate the essence of our own faith if we dismiss with contempt the choices of any others.

Second, there has to be a reason for this resurgence of anti-God, anti-Creation communication. I’m more than passing suspicious that maybe the devil—whom I also believe literally exists—could be inadvertently signaling the desperation of his end game.

Third, rather than meeting this new wave of skepticism with an arsenal of key texts and denunciations, perhaps we should channel our energies into telling the world what we’re for—not what we’re against. Perhaps instead of attempting to dissect and expose error, we should focus on sending our own opposing tsunami of truth to meet and submerge the growing “tidal wave” of doubt.

I have no doubt that God is supremely interested in getting the truth out through anyone who volunteers to be a channel for sharing it. And truth is well able to overcome error.