A Direct Response

This article, by MalayMail contributor Boo Su Lyn is arguably the first( to my knowledge ) popular atheistic wave to hit Malaysia in recent memory, and has managed to spark interesting philosophical/theological discourse over the past few days within the blogsphere. This article is also a follow up to a previous article titled " Why I left the faith ", in which many critics have effortlessly exposed it for its fallacious feminism( sorry for being redundant ). My response will be centered around her latest article, in which she tries to justify her atheism. It seems to me that from her justifications, she is either uninformed on the matter or a village atheist. I would propose the former to be the better conjecture, but would not rule out the latter.

This is where my refutation begins.

" Firstly, this assumes that time is linear and that the universe came into being at a certain point, popularly known as the Big Bang Theory. But another theory posits that time could be cyclical and the universe could have existed forever, without requiring a beginning. "

- This of course is the typical retreat atheists go to in hopes of salvaging the century old, empirically refuted ' Steady State Theory ' . With Einsteins equations of General Relativity, time is linear, with the speed of light moving from one moment/point to another in ONE direction at a given speed constant. This allows physicists to safely assume the adoption of the A-theory of time, whereby the past, present and future do in fact move in one direction and they do not coexist simultaneously or in other words, linearly. Using Einsteins's equations, George Lemaitre( a priest ) and his colleague Alexander Friedman managed to prove that the universe is indeed expanding theoretically. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble empirically verified this via the discovery of the red shifts of distance galaxies using the Hubble telescope. To briefly explain( because I'm not an actual scientist ), Hubble observed that the further away a galaxy is from his point of view( his observatory ), the ' redder ' it is, the nearer it is, the ' bluer ' it is. This is significant because based on the electromagnetic spectrum,the further away an object is from you, the wavelength increases, and the frequency decreases. Which means that the object( in this case the galaxies ) in question would become more red, given that speed of light is a constant. Hubble's empirical evidence also shows that the universe expanded from a point of infinite density, where the space-time continuum began to come into existence. This is known as the ' Big Bang ' . In 2003, a monumental study on modern cosmology put the ' static universe ' notion in the grave. This study was formulated by three scientist- Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin and Arvind Borde. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorum almost definitively shows that a universe cannot be past eternal, and have a beginning. The mountains of evidence available from modern cosmology points almost unanimously to a beginning of the universe, to not accept the scientific evidence is to display a deep seeded dogmatism in Boo Su Lyn's( BSL ) worldview. Unless she wants to be a bible-hating village atheist, she would do well to reconsider her views on cosmology.


" Why should God be the Uncaused Cause? If we can accept that there is something which doesn't need a causal origin, ie: God, then why not apply it to the universe itself? If God can exist on its own, so can the universe. "

- In the first segment, she proved herself to be scientifically inept. In this, she proves herself to be philosophically inept. Educated Christians don't argue that the uncaused first cause needs to be Yahweh. It could be any one of the Abrahamic Gods. Given that the beginning of the universe requires a cause, because it can't be self causal, whatever the cause is, it must be outside the space-time continuum. Which immediately opens up the possibility of God as an explanation. God may not be the only candidate for the uncaused first cause, but the logicality of this strongly implies that atheism is false and should not be taken seriously as an intellectual pursuit. In short, whatever you want to label the uncaused first cause, the universe itself can't be in your list possibilities, which immediately disproves the static universe( eternal universe ), which directly disproves BSL's version of atheism.


" A Christian friend told me that he could not accept the randomness of existence. He said he found atheism depressing as without God, there is no reason why we're here on this Earth. Of course, science can only explain the how, but not the why. For centuries, mankind has struggled to explain the purpose of our existence. But we cannot answer that question by inventing God just to resolve our existential angst. That is putting the cart before the horse. We like to feel special, like we are different from the other seven billion people on this earth. It's comforting to believe in a God who knows us personally to the extent that every hair on our head is counted (Luke 12:7). However, all the belief in the world cannot make God real. "

- But as BSL points out herself that her Christian friend is making an existential argument, not a rationalistic or empirical argument. Her friends challenge to her is not about truth, but meaning. What her friend says is true. If there is no God, and may a reiterate the importance of the ' IF ', then life is meaningless. Which means her feminism is meaningless, her atheism is meaningless, and ultimately her life is meaningless. We are but atoms and molecules awaiting the impending doom of the universal heat death . Which then begs the following existential question: " Why is she behaving as if this article is meaningful? "


" However, I have a problem when the bible tells a man to love his wife, while the wife is to respect her husband (Ephesians 5:33). This reflects a relationship with unequal power dynamics, akin to a parent-child or a boss-subordinate relationship. The woman is not of equal status with her husband; she is meant to “respect” or obey his authority. This notion can be easily misused in abusive relationships, in which the man claims that he is beating his wife out of love to “teach” her. "

- Her atheistic assumptions proved bearable, but her feministic ones are out of touch with reality. What more does she want the bible to say? Does she think that love isn't enough? Taking the verse out of context, does she assume that the bible tells men to disrespect women, simply on the basis that the Ephesians 5:33 never spelled out everything BSL wants to hear? Taking into account that the bible asks men to give himself up to women isn't sufficient? What more does she want? If the man of the household abuses his wives via authority, don't you think that will be an unloving act? Therefore violating the very commands that the Lord gave man? Come on...


" Even if we accept the argument that women are treated fairly in the bible, it certainly isn't reflected in society, where right-wing Christians in America oppose abortions, the Obama administration's birth control policy and gay marriage. The Christian church in Malaysia is also fairly conservative. "

- Christians oppose most abortions because they are murder. Does BSL support murder of the innocent? Birth control policies is a debatable issue I admit. What does gay marriage have to do with women rights? So she incessantly complains about these supposed problems within the Christian community, but does she acknowledge that conservative Christians in America would fight for a women's right to vote, to choose her spouse, to work in any economic industry, to have free speech etc? Or is her mind filled with the deluded modern liberal indoctrination manufactured by the American Left?


"  It's strange to see right-wing Christians attacking same-sex marriage when churches allow divorcees to remarry, even though divorce is frowned upon in the bible. "

- Allowing divorce and frowning upon it isn't contradictory. I can allow my children to drink as much as they want but that doesn't mean I don't frown on it.


" Religious believers who oppose other people's right to marry someone of the same sex are like vegetarians who want meat banned. It's as bad as banning interracial marriages, which would be unthinkable at this time and age. "

- This is not true, given that meat/race and gender differences are vastly unanalogous( I am not sure what the negative is for analogous ). I won't go into this subject in this article because this deserves an entirely new post.


"  Then there is the teaching of creationism at some schools in America instead of evolution. Malaysia doesn't fare much better as the government has banned the Malay translation of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. How can we teach children myths instead of basic science? Young minds should be encouraged to explore and to question. Simply teaching children “God did it” will only hamper their growth and create an unquestioning generation that thinks in absolutes. "

- I can safely concur with her sentiments on creationism. While it is true that evolution needs to be taught in schools, it must not include the atheistic presuppositions that Darwinism adheres to, but instead allow students to rationally explore the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory as an explanatory mechanism of the natural world. Regarding absolutes, I wonder if BSL finds it acceptable for anyone treat her feminism and atheism as non-absolutes? Or perhaps the absolute view that no absolutes should be rooted in society? Absolutely!

" Religion has inspired violence too, whether it's the Crusades launched by the Christians during the Middle Ages or the massacres currently carried out by the Islamic State that includes beheadings, crucifixions and rape. The holy scriptures may not explicitly permit such violence, but it is problematic when belief in God is the main motivation for such acts. We can't simply dismiss such barbaric groups as minorities who are wrongly interpreting their holy books. Holy scriptures are always open to interpretation anyway. The problem is with the holy text, not believers, because it can push men to commit such dastardly acts in the name of God. "

- As I've pointed out in a previous post of mine, religion maybe responsible for some wars, but the overwhelming majority of wars are political and secular in nature. Atrocities in World War II are perfect examples. Yes, we should condemn the abuse of scripture, but that's a problem with human nature, not the holy scriptures of the Bible.

" However, I must stress that in the same vein, the lack of meaning of our existence should have nothing to do with whether God exists or not. We create our own purpose in life. As Jean-Paul Sartre says, humans are “condemned to be free.” "

- If one wishes to mistreat women, burn homosexuals and harm infidels, then justify it by saying: " That is our self-engineered purpose in life!", I wonder how BSL would react? Would she condemn such acts of violence, or would she start mining for more quotes from french philosophers?