One of my teachers liked to use the analogy of a cattle rustler. Viewed from the outside, the cattle rustler looked just like the legitimate rancher. Both wore expensive hats and boots. Both had shiny belt buckles. Both could boast corrals filled with a beautiful herd of cattle. The only difference was that the legitimate rancher could account for his cattle. The rustler could not. In fact, the rustler would have no cattle at all if he had not “borrowed” them, so to speak, from the legitimate rancher. He only had them because he had “swung a wide rope” and taken them.
In a similar way, I look at my atheist friend, and I see that he possesses a great deal of what I possess, as one who believes in God and in our creation in God’s image and likeness. He believes in moral absolutes. He’s committed to the equal worth and dignity of every person. He believes in the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He’s got meaning and purpose. He believes in freedom and moral accountability.
He’s got the very same cattle in his corral that I’ve got in mine! And he lives each day as though all of this naturally belonged to him.
But for the life of him, he cannot account for how he came to possess these cattle on the basis of what he says is true about the universe in which he lives. If his materialist worldview were really true, his corrals would be quite empty.
So how did he come to possess these fine head of cattle? In short, he has borrowed them from a worldview that can account for them and make sense of them.
In short, he is living on borrowed capital.
I think Ken does a marvelous job making his point. I've seen this sort of argument made many times, and I think this is one of the best versions or perhaps even the best version I've ever come across. The writing is very clear, concise, and engaging. I highly recommend the series!
For more apologetics, see my book, Why Christianity is True.
Posts
