What does it mean to be human? If we consider the profound depth of it, we quickly conclude that every other question that can be asked concerning the realities of humanity falls under this singularly profound question. It is a question that has been asked since the beginning of time, and will no doubt be asked until the very end. It is, in fact, the central question around which a multitude of worldviews turn, and to which they must give an answer. The Christian answer to the question, of course, is rooted and anchored in the God who Himself created all reality. Being Ultimate Reality, He is both the beginning and the end of humanity and therefore the comprehensive answer to the question, “What does it mean to be human?”
While Christianity provides the positive answer, atheism has long offered the negative answer—in particular, the nonexistence of God. Consequently, on atheism, God is nottheanswertothequestion“what does it mean to be human?” because not only is God dead, but He never existed to begin with. However, that is not the end of it. In fact, traditional atheism has long been presented in the negative sense regarding anything to do with faith and religion. Traditionally, then, atheism can be said to employ no positive beliefs. When asked what an atheist club member did at their meetings,hecouldonlyanswer,“We don’t talk about God.”
To his credit, atheist philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg set out to change all of that in his book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality. In the book, Rosenberg argues that science, not religion, holds all the answers and should be brought to bear on everything related to what it means to be human. Rosenberg concludes his argument rather bleakly, stating that the cold, hard truth of physics tells us that there is no self (i.e., mind or soul), no identity over time, no free will, and no intentionality. In other words, what it means to be human is to live life as a robotic bag of atoms with no purposeandnomeaning.Rosenberg writes, “There is no self in around or as a part of anyone’s body,” and that the soul is just “wishful thinking.” Needless to say, I am not convinced. Despite my fondness for science, I don’t believe this is true. Rosenberg discusses almost none of the struggles that science faces concerning what happened before theBigBang,whatbroughtitabout, the origin of life, and the workings of theimmaterialmind,asidefromthe brain. In fact, I think it is a rather biased and absurd claim. Perhaps Rosenberg “protests too much.”
The fact of the matter is that Rosenberg himself does not live as if his argument is true. After all, it is quite impossible for any human beingtolivelifeasiftheyhavenoself or soul, which makes you uniquely distinct from everyone else—that part of your being that makes you, you.Ataminimum,itisanessential aspect of being human. Likewise, if a person has no enduring identity because, as Rosenberg claims, man does not possess a soul, then how can anyone be held accountable for their actions over time? What about the thief who steals your car but claims to be a different person the next day, and the next? Free will, Rosenberg says, is an illusion, but it is implicit in what it means to be human. Just about everyone is held accountable for their free will actions. And make no mistake, Rosenberg himself most assuredly holds others accountable for their free actions that impact his own life. Again, without free will, which emanates only from the soul, how does society ever hold its criminals liable? If there is no such thing as freewillandhumanscandonothing other than what they do, then open the prison doors! Finally, human beings act with intentionality; that is, they act with purpose, using thoughts, beliefs, desires, and hopes (all products of the soul) in almost everything they do. Interestingly, if we take Rosenberg’s claims at face value and apply them to his book, it should go without saying that he cannot live his life within the claims he makes. For example, he, existing as a unique “self,” at some point conceived of writing the book as a person with the same “identity over time” exercising his free will, ultimatelycompletingthebookwith determined “intentionality.” All in all, Rosenberg, by the writing of his book, exhibited all of these soulish aspectsthat hesoadamantly denies the existence of.
But that is not all he has to say on the subject. While Dr. Rosenberg acknowledges that his view of ultimate reality leads to nihilism (hopelessness), he ends the book with a simple yet startling suggestion for those who follow him in his beliefs: “Take a Prozac or your favorite serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and keep taking them until they kick in.” In the end, the case for atheism may be better served by abandoning Rosenberg’s questionable argument. After all, it seems to be a rather absurd notion to claim man has no soul, no free will, no continuity of identity, and no intentionality, which, by the way, is an intentional claim that can only be made by a free-willed person. Join us again next time as we turn our focus back to Jesus, the man from Nazareth. Until then, what say you? Is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.