Cursory analysis of the contents of The Skeptical Review provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Till’s expressed faith in atheism has led to a modus operandi that relies more upon subjective ridicule, rather than objective reason or empiricism, to defend his paradigm. The presupposition of a purely naturalistic universe that excludes the possibility of supernatural events to occur is an untenable position, and cannot be objectively defended with reason and empirical evidence. Ultimately, it is impossible to prove both naturalism and atheism; both must be accepted as an act of faith in human reasoning.
The logical defense of atheism from a scientific perspective requires identification of the characteristics of God, and the subsequent search of the universe for evidence of Him or lack thereof. For example, if it is postulated in this exercise that God preexisted and that at some point in the past He created the universe, then His existence would have to be independent of the creation, including both time and space (or space-time). In this case, God would be eternal (independent of time), noncorporal (independent of space), and transcendent, thereby possessing three intrinsic characteristics that cannot be tested by physical tools confined to four- dimensional space-time. A simple analogy is the inability of a hypothetical two-dimensional creature, confined to the limitations of a plane, to fully test and comprehend the totality of three-dimensional space. Although humans can construct mathematical models of multidimensional space-time (such as superstring theory), it is not possible for four-dimensional humans to fully grasp the physical and nonphysical implications of higher dimensional space-time.
Human knowledge and wisdom are indeed limited, and in all cases based on some set of presuppositions. In "The Universality of Presupposition" (TSR, July/August 2001, p.8), I provided four examples of common presuppositions held by both skeptics and Christians. First, I claimed that both groups encourage individuals to test everything, such that they are individually responsible and accountable for their beliefs. Second, I stated that both skeptics and Christians attempt to proliferate their beliefs through proselytizing. Third, I claimed that both groups believe in absolute truth. And fourth, he claimed that both groups believe that truth can be discerned by the human mind. Rather than address these four, simple, clearly defined presuppositions, Till resorted once again to subjective ridicule to defend his position, stating that "one would have to be naive to claim that (the presuppositions of Christians and skeptics) are effectively identical" (TSR, July/August 2001, p.9). However, a purely naturalistic evolutionary paradigm necessitates the belief that there is no "nonphysical" self, as well as the belief that all human thought is merely a consequence of chemical reactions governed by immutable natural laws, such that all human cognitive processes are chemically, and thus fundamentally, identical.
Contrary to Till’s claim that the guiding Christian presupposition is reliance on the supernatural, objective investigation into the claims of Christianity clearly demonstrates that faith in Jesus Christ is based on empirical, documented, historical evidence. The most important evidence to be evaluated in any investigation of Christianity is the life and death of Jesus Christ. Subsequently, it is valuable to study the causal relationship between Christ Himself and the actions of His disciples after His death. Third, it is valuable to examine the historical and contemporary influences of Christian thought and practices on society. After diligent examination of the available biblical and extrabiblical evidence, an individual must ultimately decide for himself what to believe. For example, there are many individuals like Nathaniel who were once skeptical about the claims of Christ (John 1:46) but later affirmed Christ to be the Son of God (John 1:49) after examination of the evidence. Many others find difficulty in the evidence and choose to turn away (John 6:66). Nevertheless, at least these individuals examine the evidence. Till’s extreme belief that Jesus Christ "may never have lived at all (TSR, July/August 2001, p.14) demonstrates, even in liberal circles, his apparent ignorance of or contempt for available historical evidence. Simply stated, there is no credible evidence to indicate that Christ "may never have lived at all."
Again, resorting to subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence, Till has claimed that I employ "pseudoscience" in a desperate attempt "to reconcile (his) beliefs with scientific realities" (TSR, July/ August 2001, p. 9). However, it is incumbent upon the skeptic to provide actual evidence to support this rather extravagant claim [As an autobibliographic note, I have B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering, with expertise in heterogeneous catalysis. I make a comfortable living via the objective analysis of scientific data and the application of said data to the development of new technology for the production of chemicals]. That is, a skeptic must prove that Christians like me are actually struggling to reconcile their Christian paradigm with that of science (in my case, it must also be considered that I came to faith in Christ only after the receipt of my Ph.D.). Possibly, Till will simply resort to subjective ridicule and claim that the documents I have authored, which Till has kindly published in TSR, are sufficient evidence to demonstrate my lack of mental rigor, and likely are also an indicator that I am not likely a good practitioner of science. Whatever the rebuttal, the reader should be encouraged to access and investigate my scientific work (available on request) prior to making a decision.
I do believe that, "as it is written: there is no one righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3: 10); "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23); that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23); that just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the Son of Man had to be lifted up, that whoever so believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:14-15). Dear reader of TSR, have you examined the evidence about Jesus Christ? What do you believe?
Endnote: Through the privilege of contributing work for publication in TSR, I have had the privilege of sowing seeds (Luke 8:4-8, 11- 15). However, Till’s reliance on subjective ridicule and the parroting of "critical scholars" as his two primary forms of debating make it apparent that any future correspondence from me will likely be but an exercise in futility. Therefore, Till will not receive (probably to his delight) any future contribution to TSR from me.
(Michael C. J. Bradford, 9 Essex Street, Reading, MA 01867)
