In Defense of the Faith

Contradictory Concepts of God—Which Is Correct?

Question: The oldest and most popular concepts of God are either pantheism, the belief that everything [i.e., the universe] is God, or polytheism. Why couldn’t either of these be true? Why is the Bible so adamant against these beliefs, and why does it so severely condemn what it calls the pagans who have sincerely held these beliefs for thousands of years, certainly long before Jesus Christ came along?

Response: Pantheism is really the same as atheism. Obviously, if everything is God, then nothing is God, because the very term has lost any meaning. Pantheism leads to numerous contradictions: God would be the emptiness of a vacuum as well as the substance of matter; He would be sickness as well as health, death as well as life, evil as well as good. Furthermore, if the universe itself is God, then there is no outside reference point from which the universe can be evaluated and given purpose and significance. Nor is there any hope of changing its downward course or that of mankind.

Nothing has meaning or value in and of itself but only as some personal being has use for it and values it. This is a universal truth that holds equally for everything. A car has no meaning in itself, no purpose unless there is someone to drive it. The most costly diamond ring has no value unless there is someone who wants to buy and own and wear it, and so on. Obviously, what is true of every part of the universe is equally true of the whole.

According to the second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy), this universe is running down like a clock. Left to itself and without some outside Intelligence of infinite power rescuing the universe from its certain doom, all of man’s personal and corporate dreams and schemes will one day be like sand castles washed out into a cosmic ocean of nothingness. The entire universe will be approaching absolute zero, and all will be as though it had never been. What kind of god is this? Without a Creator who had an eternal purpose for His creation and who is able to reach in from outside (not with reincarnation or evolution but with resurrection and new creation), neither the universe nor man in it could have any ultimate meaning. Pantheism can offer only meaningless, hopelessness, and ultimate despair.

There is a neopantheism in the world academia today called ecotheology. It is the old pantheism but now held by some highly educated people. One of its advocates, Georgetown University professor Victor Ferkiss, says it “starts with the premise that the Universe is God.” Like many other ecologists today, Ferkiss seems to think that the pantheistic worship of nature will “prevent the environmental exploitation of the Universe.”

Neo-Paganism and the Return to Nature

One can’t worship both the creation and the Creator; and the Bible says there are serious consequences that come from worshiping the creation instead of the Creator (Romans:1:18-32 [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; [19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, [30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: [32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
See All...). One’s conscience becomes dull, and mankind falls prey to all kinds of evil and cruel behavior because there are no morals in nature. Try to find a compassionate lion or an honest eagle—or a sympathetic hurricane.

Historian/philosopher Herbert Schlossberg reminds us, “Animals do not act morally or immorally; they only act naturally. A system of ethics that says human beings ought to base their behavior on nature therefore justifies any behavior, because nature knows no ethic.” Nobelist Sir John Eccles agrees:

“The concepts of injustice, unfairness…the obligations to honor, to respect…are intelligible only within a moral context and to moral beings. In the mindless universe of mere nature…there is neither justice or mercy, neither liberty nor fairness. There are only facts.”

The temptation to worship the universe seems to be virtually an occupational hazard for atheistic scientists. Their arguments against God often betray an almost-subconscious adoption of pantheism both as an excuse for denying the infinite Creator (to whom man would otherwise be accountable) and an attempt to find some other basis for purpose and meaning. Consider these words in the frontispiece of a huge (more than 800 pages) compendium of atheism titled 400 Years of Freethought and published in 1894: “Yet I doubt not thro’ the ages one increasing purpose runs, and the thoughts of men are widened with the powers of the suns.”

The cornerstone of Freethought is explained in the book as the rejection of “all authority” and “the conquest of nature.” Whence then this “purpose,” what are the purposeful “powers of the suns,” and what part could they play in widening the thoughts of men? The contradiction is almost humorous, but what option does the atheist have in attempting to repress his innate recognition that purpose and meaning exist? He is forced to attribute something of the sort to nature itself.

Carl Sagan, a modern atheist, becomes very reverent and worshipful in the presence of the Cosmos, which he credits with having spawned us and all life. As quoted at the beginning of this chapter, he says it makes sense to reverence the sun and moon. Reverence the sun and moon? On what basis? And how is that different from bowing down to a piece of wood or stone as one’s god? What could the sun or moon have to do with morals, with purpose and meaning, with love and beauty?

The Folly of Polytheism

As for polytheism, if there is more than one god, then who is in charge? The many gods of polytheism fight wars and steal one another’s wives, with no one to set the standard and call the universe to account. There is no basis for morals, truth, or peace in heaven, nor therefore could there be on earth.

If one God is stronger or has more authority than the others, then none of the rest of the gods can really be God, so we are back to monotheism. As the Bible says:

“Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works…. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.” (Psalm:86:8Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.
See All..., 10)

If there are many gods, to which god should one pray? To one’s favorite god? On what basis has a particular god become one’s favorite? Is it because it was once prayed to and seemed to provide an answer? How can there be any assurance that a particular god can do what is asked? It is like praying to the various saints. Yet Saint Christopher, the patron saint of the travelers to whom millions looked for protection, has lately been removed from the Catholic pantheon. It is now admitted by the Church hierarchy that Christopher was a myth and that any power he seemed to have wielded on behalf of his devotees was obviously a delusion.

So it is with all the gods of the world’s many religions. In fact, they are worse than myths; they are representatives of Satan and his minions. Behind each idol is a demon using it to draw people away from the true God, as Paul states: “The things which the Gentiles [pagans] sacrifice [to their gods] they sacrifice to devils and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils” (1 Corinthians:10:20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
See All...–21).

There is no compromise with God because at stake is the eternal destiny of every person who has ever lived or will ever live. Suppose a certain man convinces a large group of people to give him their possessions and to follow him to what he promises will be a veritable paradise on earth—and instead he leads them into a swamp where they are all swallowed up in quicksand. Should he not be prosecuted as a liar and murderer? How much more serious is it to promote false gods and to sell tickets to heaven that actually take people to hell!