They say there are no atheists in the foxhole.

Even fewer when death is certain.

None once the final curtain falls.

God’s Word declares, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14).

For three decades, until his death in 1953, Josef Stalin was the mass-murdering atheist dictator of Soviet Russia.

He was also a fool.

In his 1994 book, “Can Man Live Without God,” famed Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias recounts a story he heard firsthand from British Journalist Malcomb Muggeridge “that stirred [him] then and still does even yet.”

Muggeridge had collaborated with Svetlana Stalin, Josef Stalin’s daughter, on a BBC documentary about her God-hating father. She recounted his last act of defiant rebellion against the Creator: “[A]s Stalin lay dying, plagued with terrifying hallucinations, he suddenly sat halfway up in bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens once more, fell back upon his pillow, and was dead.”

“[H]is one last gesture,” observed Zacharias, “was a clenched fist toward God, his heart as cold and hard as steel.”

In my experience it is something common among atheists: an inexplicable, incongruent and visceral hatred for the very God they imagine does not exist.

Indeed, Romans 1:20 notes, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Yet excuses they make.

Psalm 19:1 likewise observes: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

The manifest intentionality and fine-tuning of all creation reveals design of breathtaking complexity. The Creator is of incalculable intelligence and infinite splendor. As I see it, atheism provides a case study in willful suspension of disbelief – all to escape, as the God-denier imagines it, accountability for massaging the libertine impulse.

Wouldn’t the atheist “suspend belief”? you might ask.

No, the phrase is properly “suspension of disbelief.” It is defined as “a willingness to suspend one’s critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.”

In the case of the atheist, or the “freethinker,” as they paradoxically prefer, that which is unbelievable is that somehow everything came from nothing – that there is no uncaused first cause; that God does not exist, even as knowledge of His being is indelibly written on every human heart and proved by all He has made.

Be they theist, atheist or anti-theist, on this nearly all scientists agree: In the beginning there was nothing. There was no time, space or matter. There wasn’t even emptiness, only nothingness. Well, nothing natural anyway.

Then: bang! Everything. Nonexistence became existence. Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe governed by what mankind would later call – after we, too, popped into existence from nowhere, fully armed with conscious awareness and the ability to think, communicate and observe – “natural law” or “physics.”

Time, space, earth, life and, finally, human life were not.

And then they were.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Christian author Eric Metaxas notes:

“The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ nuclear forces – were determined less than one-millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction – by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 – then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp. … It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?”

Secular materialists claim it can’t be – that such explanation is a “God of the gaps” explanation and, therefore, must be banished from the realm of scientific inquiry. They demand that anything beyond the known natural is off-limits. Atheists attribute all of existence to, well, nothing. It just kind of happened. Genesis 1:1 of the materialist bible might read: “In the beginning nothing created the heavens and the earth.” Even in the material world that’s just plain silly. Nothing plus nothing equals something? Zero times zero equals everything?

And so, they have “reasoned” themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.”

Reader, meet God.

In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

Fred Hoyle is the atheist astronomer who coined the term “Big Bang.” He once confessed that his disbelief was “greatly shaken” by the undisputed science, writing that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

Albert Einstein, who is often dishonestly characterized as having been an atheist, agreed that God-denial is foolishness. He once said of non-believers: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist,” added Einstein. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Illustrious NASA scientist (and agnostic) Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) put it this way:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Yes, with time and chance, even science may eventually catch up to God’s Word.

This intellectual revolution began with four lectures in late 1915 presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. The lectures were given by Albert Einstein, and before the end of the year Einstein would publish his argument for a “General Theory of Relativity.” Those lectures launched an intellectual revolution, and Einstein’s theory of relativity is essential to our understanding of the modern age.

The 100th anniversary of a scientific theory is not necessarily a matter of great cultural importance. Einstein had developed his Special Theory of Relativity a decade earlier, but his General Theory–extended to the entire cosmos–was breathtaking in its revolutionary power. Einstein replaced the world of Newtonian physics with a new world marked by four dimensions, instead of just three. Time, added as a fourth dimension, changed everything.

Einstein summarized his own theory in these words:

“The ‘Principle of Relativity’ in its widest sense is contained in the statement: The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of ‘absolute motion;’ or, shorter but less precise: There is no ‘absolute motion.’”

Thus, time, matter, and energy are relative, and not absolute. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Thomas Levenson recently called Einstein’s theory “the greatest intellectual accomplishment of the twentieth century.” The Economist, marking the centennial of Einstein’s lectures, called the General Theory of Relativity “one of the highest intellectual achievements of humanity.” It is no exaggeration to claim Einstein’s theory as the very foundation of modern cosmology.

And yet, most modern people–even well educated moderns–have little idea of the actual theory or of its scientific significance. In everyday life, Newtonian physics serves very well. Cosmologists may depend on Einstein’s theory in their daily work, but few others do.

Nevertheless, the cultural impact of Einstein’s theory extends far beyond the laboratory or the science classroom. As the twentieth century unfolded, Einstein’s theory of relativity quickly became a symbol and catalyst for something very different — the development of moral relativism.

Einstein was not a moral relativist, nor did he believe that his theories had any essential moral or cultural meaning. He recoiled when his theory of relativity was blamed or credited for the birth of modern art (Cubism, in particular) or any other cultural development.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin defended Einstein against any such charge:  “The word relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial, or doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values.” He continued, “This was the opposite of what Einstein believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were expressed in all he was and did.”

Fair enough. Albert Einstein was not a moral relativist and his theory of relativity has nothing to do with morality. The problem, however, is simple — Einstein’s theory of relativity entered the popular consciousness as a generalized relativism. The issue here is not to blame Albert Einstein. He is not responsible for the misuse, misapplication, and misappropriation of his theory. But, in any event, for millions of modern people relativity was understood as relativism. And that misunderstanding is one of the toxic developments of the modern age.

As Walter Isaacson, Einstein’s most important biographer, explains:

“In both his science and his moral philosophy, Einstein was driven by a quest for certainty and deterministic laws. If his theory of relativity produced ripples that unsettled the realms of morality and culture, this was not caused by what Einstein believed but by how he was popularly interpreted.”

That is exactly the issue. Einstein, Isaacson reveals, was an influence on the emergence of relativism as a major theme in modern art, philosophy, and morality, even if that was not his intention at all. In Isaacson’s words, “there was a more complex relationship between Einstein’s theories and the whole witch’s brew of ideas and emotions in the early twentieth century that bubbled up from the highly charged cauldron of modernism.”

Historian Paul Johnson gets it exactly right as he describes the cultural impact of Einstein’s theories:

“Is was as though the spinning globe had been taken off its axis and cast adrift in a universe which no longer conformed to accustomed standards of measurement. At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism.”

Johnson goes further, arguing that “the public response to relativity was one of the principle formative influences on the course of twentieth-century history. It formed a knife, inadvertently wielded by its author, to help cut society adrift from its traditional moorings in the faith and morals of Judeo-Christian culture.”

By the middle of the twentieth century, moral relativism was a major influence in the cultural revolutions that reshaped entire societies. Artists, filmmakers, authors, and playwrights were joined by an army of psychotherapists, academics, liberal theologians, and academic revolutionaries — all seeking to reject absolute moral norms and absolute truth and to establish relativism as the new worldview.

They were stunningly successful.

As Allan Bloom famously observed in his 1987 bestseller,The Closing of the American Mind, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”

Moral relativism and the rejection of absolute truth now shape the modern post-Christian mind. Indeed, relativism is virtually taken for granted, at least as an excuse for overthrowing theistic truth claims and any restrictive morality.

And so, Einstein is variously blamed or thanked for a moral revolution he never intended or wanted. The lesson for the rest of us is clear. Not only do ideas have consequences, they often have consequences that are neither foreseen or predicted.

Or, to put it another way — as we think about the centennial of Albert Einstein’s famed lectures on the General Theory of Relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences back in 1915, let us remember that what happens in the lecture hall will not stay in the lecture hall.

This article was originally posted at AlbertMohler.com

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.

To wit:

• Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?
• Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?
• Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?
• Should a “progressive,” environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?
• Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as “gay”?
• Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes so-called “marriage equality”?

If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.

To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.

I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”

And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.

No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.

It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.

Freedom, man.

Because ‘Merica.

While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.

Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, “gay” or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.

As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph “gay weddings,” then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.

And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.

See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re “pro-choice,” right?

Starting to get it?

Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.

No debate. No question. No compromise.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.

Poo paper for puppy.

So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.

I rarely agree with “gay” activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:

I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.

And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”

Why indeed?

Yuck.