Gary discusses three recent items that address the ideas of the intellectual “elites” who believe they know how to understand and fix the world.

The long-term consequences of brains, bodies, and babies are that in the end we are nothing more than meat machines that have no intrinsic value. If this is so, and science tells us it is so, then in the future there will never be a valid moral argument against genocide.

In Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov the character Ivan concluded that if God is dead and the grave is our final destination, “nothing would be immoral any longer, everything would be permitted, even anthropophagy [i.e., cannibalism].”[1]

The French existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre understood the implications of a consistent atheism: “Existentialists find it extremely disturbing that God no longer exists, for along with his disappearance goes the possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven…. Dostoevsky once wrote: ‘If God does not exist, everything is permissible.’”[2]

Jerry Coyne wrote the following in the introduction to his book Why Evolution is True: “If, after all, we are simply beasts, then why not behave like beasts? What can keep us moral if we’re nothing more than monkeys with big brains? No other scientific theory produces such angst, or such psychological resistance….”[3]

In his book, Coyne set forth the stark consequences of his atheistic worldview:

Naturalism is the view that the only way to understand our universe is through the scientific method. Materialism is the idea that the only reality is the physical matter of the universe, and that everything else, including thoughts, will, and emotions, comes from physical laws acting on that matter. The message of evolution, and all of science, is one of naturalistic materialism. Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time. As far as we can determine, the same forces that gave rise to ferns, mushrooms, lizards, and squirrels also produced us.”[4]

Fortunately for him and his fellow atheists, they are not consistent with their atheistic religion. They have the biblical reality of God’s moral law to thank for that.

Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor

Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor

The most damning assessment of a matter-only cosmos devoid of a Creator is that we got to this place in our evolutionary history by acts of violence whereby the strong conquered the weak with no one to support or condemn them. Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor repeatedly raises the issue of accounting for the conscience, good and evil, and loving our neighbor. It’s shocking to read what atheists say about a cosmos devoid of meaning and morality.

Buy Now

Gary discusses three recent items that address the ideas of the intellectual “elites” who believe they know how to understand and fix the world. Their primary solution is to eliminate you and others like you to stop you from messing up the world, but their borrowed capital only takes them so far.

Click here for today’s episode

Click here to browse all episodes of The Gary DeMar Podcast

[1] Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Richard Prevar and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002), 69. Quoted in Mitch Stokes, How to be an Atheist: Why any Skeptics Aren’t Skeptic Enough (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2016), 154.

[2] Quoted in Stokes, How to be an Atheist, 155.\

[3] Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Penguin, 2009), xvii.

[4] Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 224.