Whenever I am discussing the rational reasons for my faith with people outside of my faith I invariably get the “Bollocks!” response, followed by what I assume is sincere incredulousness at my faith. (I would not suggest any research whatsoever into the origin of the word “Bollocks” - personally it brings tears to my eyes 
)
But I only get this response from one type of person. The Secular Atheist, or one could say, The Complete Materialist (no matter how they feel about these or any other titles) always responds in this way to whatever rational faith argument is presented to them. They are the people who are convinced that there is nothing whatsoever beyond what can be measured and tested (even if it cannot be measured or tested just yet).
The “Bollocks” card is one that only this person has to play.
Even though it is a new card added to the same pack we’ve been playing with for thousands of years; it is supposed, by them, to beat any grouping of aces, full houses or royal flushes that anyone else could possibly present.
I will not play the “Bollocks” card on their entire belief system (even if I wanted to and even if they claim that they do not have a belief system but a non-belief system) because I don’t think that all scientific methodology or lateral thinking is “Bollocks”. But the materialist has to think that all of my faith is “Bollocks” (no matter how many intelligent, rational, educated people accept it; their evidence is necessarily admissible to the materialists only).
People of other faiths will argue eventually within the terms of faith. The complete materialist cannot afford to even begin to use terms of faith, because the minute he does that he has played all his cards. He has no choice but to deny their existence altogether.
I don’t think that the “Bollocks” card is necessary at all, but the materialist has no option but to play the “Bollocks” card at some stage in his argument.
As an example, in a recent post I was posed with a challenge from a fellow blogger which I think is really worth answering because the question says a whole lot more about the secular atheist than any answer could say about the Christian (or a member of any other faith). My atheist blogger friend, after assuring me that he always keeps an open mind about these things asked this of me “On the reverse, is there anything that could change your mind, and cause you to question the existence of a god, or the validity of the bible?” And the answer I must give is no. Nothing short of divorce papers from God’s lawyers could cause me to question either the existence or the nature of God.
I have seen too much, I know too much. And yet I can still claim an open mind to which he will cry “not fair“, and he would be right, it’s not at all fair..
Before I am finished he has already moved the “Bollocks” card to a convenient place in his hand. And, although he has said that he is open minded about these things, he actually is not, because he has to be utterly sure of his stance or else abandon it altogether. There is no open-minded middle ground for the materialist, by necessity. Even if he just acknowledged that I might have had experience that he has not his whole perspective is in danger. It must be explained in delusional terms.
The open-mindedness he claims is not actually what happens in his head (as can be clearly seen by the “Bollocks” response). What is really happening is what he himself says “It calls too much into question“.
I, as a Christian, am free to believe whatever I want to about the theory of Evolution (many Christians accept the theory and yet remain Christians). But, the worldview of the materialist demands that he accepts absolutely nothing about my or anyone else’s faith. Not one baby pixie in the garden, not one aura, not one second class angel, not one hint of divinely inspired words. Everything must be defined by the materialist within his narrow materialism. If it falls outside of the explained it must be labelled “Bollocks” - no matter how many have experienced it.
The worldview of the materialist has the dubious honour of describing the Universe perfectly and, at the same time, completely inadequately.
It lives on intellectual credit. Instead of saying “goddidit” the materialist says “naturedidit, and the humans of the future will understand it all” (if the species survives). On one level he is absolutely right… but on another, higher level the view of the complete materialist is a river much too shallow for the ship of the human mind to navigate in all it’s vast capacity. It explains everything by explaining nothing completely.
I have reason, rational thought. If I use it to examine everything, what can I use to examine reason itself? I cannot use reason to examine reason any more than I can use a microscope to examine all of another microscope. There has to be something higher in terms of importance, yet lower in terms of access. And when I look, with an openmind, I find that there is; but the materialist dare not look where I have found it. He certainly cannot look there and still remain a materialist.
The British Humanist Association last week started a Bus advertising campaign with these words on London busses “There probably isn’t any God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
The funny thing about the campaign is that I agree completely with the statement… I agree that we should not worry, Jesus said this 2000 years ago “who by worrying can add a single day to his life or a single hair to his head?”
But I also agree, in terms of probability, that there probably is no God. But that does not help me at all. Because equally there probably isn’t anything at all, let alone the whole Universe, let alone all the trillions and trillions of lives, let alone human reason.
They probably aren’t there either… and yet there they are.
