 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/21/2003 1:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Atheism / Agnosticism – Logical?
My main thesis is to judge the statements made by these two belief systems by the same logical rules that apply to all statements made about reality. When a statement is made (i.e., “God does not exist”) about the nature of reality it is in effect stating itself to be true over other definitions about reality (i.e., “God exists”). Obviously both cannot be true at the same time, and both must stand under its own weight. What I mean to say is that when making a statement, that statement cannot self-refute itself; otherwise it would logically be incoherent. The law of non-contradiction is simply this: “‘A’ cannot be both ‘non-A’ and ‘A’ at the same time.” In the words of professor J. P. Moreland (Ph.D., Univ. of Southern California):“When a statement fails to satisfy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of validity or acceptability), it is self-refuting…. Consider some examples. ‘I cannot say a word in English’ is self-refuting when uttered in English. ‘I do not exist’ is self-refuting, for one must exist to utter it. The claim ‘there are no truths’ is self-refuting. If it is false, then it is false. But is it is true, then it is false as well, for in that case there would be no truths, including the statement itself.” (J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1987), p. 92.) I wish to give an example taken from pantheism that shows how this relates to our experience. According to pantheism, there is no reality except the all-encompassing God. Everything else, meaning material things (i.e., train, floor mat, your arm, etc.), is an illusion (maya). This however is a nonsensical statement that is logically self-refuting. If everything is illusion, then those making that statement are themselves illusions. There’s a real problem here. As Norman Geisler (Ph.D., Loyola University of Chicago) pointed out, “One must exist in order to affirm that he does not exist” (Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1976), p. 187.) When we claim that there is no reality except the all-encompassing God, we are proving just the opposite. The fact that we exist to make the claim demonstrates that there is a reality distinct from God, which makes this key doctrine of pantheism a self-defeating proposition. It is an untruth by definition (the above is from my paper, “My thoughts on Buddhism. Hinduism, Karma, and Reincarnation.”)
This same problem applies to atheism and agnosticism, as will be shown later. Atheism also involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. There are numerous logical problems inherent in the atheists belief system, one will be quickly considered here. The declaration, “There is no God,” for instance, is unfounded. I realize that only some atheists explicitly state that there is no God, however, all atheists believe it – implicitly. Logically speaking (the rules that govern logical and coherent thought) this assertion cannot be defended by any from the atheistic position.
Observe the irrationality of the atheistic premise. The only way for the atheist to be absolutely certain that there is no God is for the atheist to know everything about reality. In order to maintain the premise, “there is no God,” the atheist must have total knowledge of all reality. He must know all facts and realities of existence. This would imply that an atheist must have a knowledge which only God could posses. He must posses infinite knowledge throughout time, be everywhere at the same time and be absolutely sure of everything. Theirs is not a statement made on facts (i.e., observation), since one would actually have to be God to claim this. Such a statement is based only on assumption or faith, not on the facts. Herein lies the dilemma, as Ron Rhodes (Th.D. & Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary) makes so clear:Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God. This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: “What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?” The atheist will likely respond, “I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent.” You can then ask: “Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?” Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it (From an online article found at: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html )
This does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence or this argument; however, to reject it is to reject formal logic and the rules of thought. By doing so, one would undermine his or her own argument from which their position is starting from, that is, reason. Philosopher William Lane Craig (Ph.D., Univ. of Birmingham; Ph.D., Univ. Munchen), probably one of the finest Christian theist debaters around, rightly notes, “Atheism is a claim to know something (‘There is no God’) just as much as theism (‘There is a God’). Therefore, it can claim no presumption when the evidence is equal” (William Lane Craig, The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. San Bernardino: Here’s Life (1979), p. 32.) You see, the atheist believes in life with no real meaning. By faith he believes there is no God and without any evidence he believes the universe was uncreated. He believes in morality with no absolutes. It is a journey without a destiny. So when a person says, “you cannot prove God and I cannot disprove God, this is why I don’t believe,” the weight of that decision should err on what gives life more meaning. Mark Twain put it best when he said, “It is amazing what a man will believe as long as it is not in the Bible.”
From a logical point of view it is impossible to disprove God:
Premise 1: The statement “God does not exist” is a universal negative;
Premise 2: But in principle it is impossible to prove a universal negative;
Conclusion: Therefore atheism is false.
(Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson (2000), p. 73.)
Atheism falls into the category of what logicians call “self-refuting statements.” In reality the atheist must be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, in which case the atheist must become God in order to prove there is no God. In fact, he has to become the very God he is seeking to disprove. But the atheist says there is no God, so how could he argue his position? There is no way by which he could defend his case. Consider the analogy: In order for me to affirm that there is no pin in your room, I must examine every space in your room. Then I could conclude there is no pin in your room. It would be meaningless to assert there is no pin in your room when I only have a limited knowledge of your room.
No one knows enough to be an atheist; therefore, there is no logical ground to claim such! Atheism, then, is logically impossible! The basis by which the atheist proclaims his faith is empty and he or she has no foundation, rationality, or epistemology for his denial of God. The atheist is committed to a set of beliefs, which makes the atheist – by faith – believe atheism to be true. He offers no evidence for his beliefs but merely imagines that there is no God, only because God is outside of his frame of thinking. The atheist mind-set is adequately illustrated in an analogy employed by the famous scientist Sir Arthur Eddington.He spoke of a fisherman who argued from his experience with a particular net, “no creature of the sea is less than two inches long.” The people did not believe it: they affirmed that a great number of sea creatures were shorter than two inches and simply slipped through the holes in his net. But the fisherman was unconvinced, he simply insisted, “what my net can’t catch ain’t fish,” and went on accusing his opponents of having a pre-scientific, medieval, and metaphysical bias. He confines God to a particular point of reference and defines him out of existence. The net which the atheist habitually uses is hopelessly deficient – what I cannot see does not exist. Whatever does not fit into his view of reality (naturalism – the reductionist view which insists that all reality is just matter and excludes the supernatural) is meaningless. His blind faith in naturalism will not allow anything supernatural, transcendent, and metaphysical, thus subverting the question before it is asked (Ibid., p. 76.). A clear example of this appeared in the classic debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston. Russell, arguing from a naturalistic base, insisted that God was a meaningless proposition outside empirical verification. Copleston gave a fitting response that merits our attention:“The proposition that metaphysical terms are meaningless seems to me to be a proposition based on an assumed philosophy. The dogmatic position behind it seems to be this: ‘What will not go into my machine is non-existent, or it is meaningless’” (John Hick, The Existence of God. New York: Macmillan (1964), p.p. 170-171.) The atheist in reality is engaged in explaining and defining God out of existence! The atheist (or, philosophical naturalist) cannot allow the possibility of a theistic world, the existence of God is ruled out a priori (a priori – existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience). Any discussion about His being, nature or behavior is futile; in other words, the naturalist (atheist) pronounces the answer before he asks the question (John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheist?. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press (2000), p. 33). I will illustrate with a mock conversation between a science professor and a student:Professor: “Miracles are impossible Sean, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, etc.].”
Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?”
Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.”
Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?”
Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’”
Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible”
(Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House (2001), pp. 63-64). So an honest “atheist” would realize that his position is philosophical / presuppositional (presuppose – to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance), and not rationally nor logically defensible. Plato was right, “atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” Another syllogistic example is in order before we go on to deal with agnosticism. The atheist can be shown that his starting point – presupposition – interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation:
Premise: Since there is no God,
Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.
Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,
Conclusion: there is no God.
(Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R (1986), p. 57.)
What about agnosticism, does the belief that one cannot ultimately know anything about God hold up to rational and logical thought? Before going any further, I should define the two different types of agnostics:Agnosticism: The state of not-knowing whether there is a God or not. The humble [soft] agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God. The less humble [hard] agnostic says that you don’t either… [and] thinks that we can’t ever really know (Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies. Chicago, Illinois: IDG Books Worldwide (1999), p. 238.) I am mainly dealing here with the “hard” agnostic. The “soft” agnostic is open to receiving information about God from others and then tests these claims by the rules and science of logic, history, and experience. An example that bears striking similarities to the “hard” agnostic is that of a conversation between a teacher and her student:
Teacher: “Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one person has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second… Elizabeth, do you have a question?”
Elizabeth: “Yes I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What’s the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?”
Teacher: “No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?”
Elizabeth: “Not at all. Rather I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every single person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.”
Teacher: “This should prove to be an interesting semester.”
Another Student: “(blurts out) Ain’t that the truth.” (Students laugh)
(Francis J. Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly In Mid-Air. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (1998), p. 74.)
The hard agnostic dismisses the argument even before hearing it. This type of agnosticism is refuted by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin, J. Budziszewski (Ph.D., Yale University):“To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him. Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him” (Norman Geisler & Paul Hoffman, editors, Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books (2001), p. 54.)
Agnostics basically claim that nothing can be known about reality (or, Reality). Norman Geisler points out that “in its ultimate form [agnosticism] claims that all knowledge about reality (i.e., truth) is impossible. But this itself is offered as a truth about reality” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson (1999), p. 637). Atheism and agnosticism are basically stating that, “God does not exist because his existence threatens my worldview.” That’s all it says! Nietzsche, however, predicted that someday people would realize the implications of their atheism; and this realization would usher in the age of nihilism – the destruction of all meaning and value in life (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books (1984), p. 64). We are in an age where people assign their own reality to the universe and their life, thus destroying all meaning and value in life. This subjective assigning of “reality” doesn’t magically give the universe or a life meaning, value or context. For one person can believe it to be one way (their reality) and another can believe the opposite (another reality). This being the case then, one isn’t confronted with an argument against atheism more so than with the reality of its outcome (Peter Kreeft, The Journey. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1996), p. 85.).
We have seen that the truth claims of atheism cannot be proven. The simple fact of the matter is that atheism is a faith, which draws conclusions that go beyond the available evidence (Alister McGrath, Glimpsing the Face of God: The Search for Meaning in the Universe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans (2002), p. 22.). And if true, is a “life [that] is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” ~ Macbeth (Clark H. Pinnock, Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock (1997), p.24.). Or as Sartre put it, atheism is “…a cruel, long-term business…” (John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington, England: Evangelical Press (2000), p. 134.). The antithesis, then, would be a universe and a life full of meaning, hope and context. Which is by default – theism.
Why I Am Not An Atheist
By Dr. Robert A. Morey (From an online article found at: http://www.faithdefenders.com/sermons/hu4.html )
As a worldview, atheism must justify itself intellectually just like any other worldview. It makes various statements about the universe, man and God, which it expects us to accept as the truth. These assertions must pass the same tests for truth that judge any and all such assertions. Atheism is thus not exempt from having to prove its truth claims.
The creed of atheism is as follows:In the entire universe,
there has never been in the past,
there is not now in the present, and
there will never be in the future,
any god, gods or goddesses
of any size, shape or description. We will now examine the creed of atheism to see if it passes the tests of truth.
1. The first question is this: Is the creed of atheism logically valid or invalid? If it is invalid according to the laws of logic, then it is irrational and unacceptable to the educated mind.The atheist’s creed clearly violates the laws of logic and is thus irrational in nature. A. According to the laws of logic, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. When an atheist makes the assertion, “There is no god anywhere at any time,” he is making a universal negative which he cannot prove. Since he cannot prove or demonstrate his assertion, he is being irrational.
B. The second logical problem is that the only way he could prove his assertion that there is no god is to become God.
1. He would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time, i.e. he would have to be omnipresent and infinite.
2. He would have to travel throughout the past, the present and the future at the same time, i.e. he would have to be eternal.
3. He would have to know all things, i.e. he would have to be omniscient.
4. In order to be infinite, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient, he would also have to be omnipotent.
C. Thirdly, if only an infinite and eternal God can logically say there is no infinite and eternal God, this itself would be a self-contradictory statement and, hence, irrational.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”
Edited by - SeanG on 01/21/2003 06:24:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/22/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Reading you, Sean, and enjoying, but I ain't got nuttin' to say, dude. I'm just going to sit and watch and learn!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/22/2003 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
A. According to the laws of logic, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. When an atheist makes the assertion, “There is no god anywhere at any time,” he is making a universal negative which he cannot proven. Since he cannot prove or demonstrate his assertion, he is being irrational.
B. The second logical problem is that the only way he could prove his assertion that there is no god is to become God.
1. He would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time, i.e. he would have to be omnipresent and infinite.
2. He would have to travel throughout the past, the present and the future at the same time, i.e. he would have to be eternal.
3. He would have to know all things, i.e. he would have to be omniscient.
4. In order to be infinite, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient, he would also have to be omnipotent.
C. Thirdly, if only an infinite and eternal God can logically say there is no infinite and eternal God, this itself would be a self-contradictory statement and, hence, irrational.
Sean,
I have heard this argument from many Christian thinkers and I must confess as a Christian and a thinker that I think it completely misses the mark as a response to atheism. Let me explain.
First, it IS POSSIBLE to prove a universal negative if you can show that the thing in question is logically contradictory. For example, "There are no square-circles." That's a universal negative statement, and a provable one. Many atheists argue that theism is internally contradictory. If they are right, then they have proven a universal negative in a way that does not presuppose omniscience.
Second, while is is correct that one cannot PROVE a universal negative where the statement is a CONTINGENT claim, one can still be RATIONAL in affirming it. The atheist need not claim to have PROVEN that there is no God. Rather, the atheist may simply argue that belief in God is unreasonable, that, on balance, the evidence weighs in favor of atheism over against theism. Now I think the atheist is mistaken on this point, but there's no inherent impropriety in his position. For example, we all believe that there is no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy, no leprechauns waiting with pots of gold at the end of rainbows, etc. These are all universal negative claims. Can we PROVE them? No. But so what? Anyone who seriously affirmed those things would be clearly irrational in the light of WHAT WE DO KNOW about the world. And it would hardly be a defense against the charge of irrationality to say that their falsity hadn't been PROVEN. The very kinds of reasons that we would give why it is irrational to believe in Santa Claus are the very kinds of reasons that atheists cite for rejecting belief in God. Again, I think that atheists are mistaken in their assessment of the evidence, but that's the issue that we need to engage them on.
In sum, atheist can argue for their view in two ways that do not self-destruct in the manner you describe. (1) They can argue a priori against the coherence of theism, and (2) they can argue a posteriori that atheism is more rational than theism in light of the available evidence. Thus, the argument you present is guilty of the STRAW MAN fallacy, and it does not engage with the way atheists actually argue for their conclusion that God does not exist.
With all due respect to Rhodes, Morey, Kennedy, Hanegraff, and other Christian leaders who use this argument, it's a superficial dismissive response to atheism that doesn't engage with any actual atheistic arguments and should be expunged from our apologetic arsenal.
In defense of the faith,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/22/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan-
You rock dude! I love reading your posts.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 1/22/2003 8:50 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm with TGB--you DO rock Alan! Thanks for the time you spend composing your posts--I have learned much from reading them. I have heard many Christians make that argument as well, and have also found it less than persuasive.
And SeanG, thanks for your post as well--it contained a lot of helpful information. I appreciate it.
"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 1/23/2003 12:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Rom 1:19,20 …that which may be known of God is manifest in an atheist; for God has showed it to them. The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, and understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that an atheist is without excuse…
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/23/2003 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with Alan - and I am glad that there are some theists who understand the atheist arguments and can therefore reply to them...I didn't read all of SeanG's post, but I don't think he mentioned that most atheists state that they don't have to prove anything- he who asserts a proposition has the burden of proof. I haven't read many atheists who try to go about proving there is no God. Kind of to Alan's point, that is really not relevant to their beliefs.
"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of
doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not
even mine."
Bertrand Russell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/23/2003 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | "I'm a grown up, and I believe in Santa Claus."
Tim Allen, The Santa Clause
(I kind of wished I did too, because then I'd get my Harley!)
The Starkman
(OH, I KNOW it's not academic, but work with me here!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/23/2003 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | I would disagree with the assertion that atheists don't have to prove that there is no god, if they are true atheists. A person who truly believes in something, believes it with their full being should want to spread such a belief to as many as possible. If it is true there is no god, all should know of it. The problem is all atheists know they can't prove their beliefs, so they cop out and simply cast doubt on the existance of God. But a person who says he doesn't have to prove his beliefs isn't a person worth listening to.
To attack and not be willing to depend is the sign of a cowardous person.
By the way, most atheists I know do assert their views...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/24/2003 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Asserting your view does not mean that you believe that you have the burden of proof. In the context of a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Although the defense has no burden whatsover, it is most often the case that they assert some sort of a view.
And there are many atheists who do go about proving their view that there is no God through many different arguments. However, many academic and philosophical atheists state they do not have the burden.
I'll quote here from Antony FLew:
"It is by reference to this inescapable demand for grounds that the presumption of atheism is justified. If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition. It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God. The same applies, with appropriate alterations, if what is to be made out is, not that theism is known to be true, but only -- more modestly -- that it can be seen to be at least more or less probable. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/24/2003 3:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, I accidentally posted before i intended to...
Honorman, you wrote, "To attack and not be willing to depend is the sign of a cowardous person."
I assume you mean "cowardly." And also that you meant "defend." And I agree, on all sides of the issue, to attack without having any knowledge to defend is cowardly, not to mention, ignorant. However there are lots of atheists and theists who do just that. An atheist "off the street" so to speak, who says, there is no God, just because he hasn't taken the time to do his homework , or just because he wants to live an amoral life, is not credible. But atheists who have studied the issues, philosophers, religions, etc., and put together cogent arguments, are credible and do deserve to be engaged in debate. It's really cool to read and listen to debates between these types of atheists and theism defenders, such as Wm. Lane Craig, who more than holds his own and shows that there are educated intelligent Christians out there.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/24/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Most of those off the street who "say" they are atheists are not really atheists at all, but simply don't know or are mad at God because of events in their lives...in my opinion there are few true atheists in the world.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/24/2003 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman, for once, I actually agree with you 
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/27/2003 1:02 AM (GMT -6) | | atheist – n. One who denies the existence of God [MF < Gk. a-, without + theos, God]
Atheists do not exist… its as simple as that. He, or she, is saying that there is no evidence for God. Whereas the “soft” agnostic is saying, “you know what, since I haven’t got all the time in the world to look at an issue, maybe you have some evidence that could persuade me towards a rational belief in God.” Theists say that God exists because there is evidence (whether presuppositional or evidential) for the rational belief in his existence. They have found the pin in the room in other words. However, atheists and “hard” agnostics must come to terms that maybe they cant find God for the same reason the thief cant find a police officer.
I have every debate between every major atheist and William Lane Craig (for a list of whom he has debated, see: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/resources.html ), and so far not one has challenged this critique. To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, the one who said it must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. Unlike a square-circle, believing in God is rational. Antony Flew, the editor of the Encyclopedia of Atheism, and the well-known book, Atheistic Humanism, even says that it is rational to believe in God. If you don’t believe me, get the video debate between Dr. Flew and Gary Habermas called Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (Found at www.johnankerberg.org , or you can listen to it for free [video has graphics that add visually to the debate] at: http://defendingyourfaith.homestead.com/JesusChrist.html , should be near the bottom – Real Audio format.)
I have not come across any argument yet that shows belief in God to be self-refuting (like a square-circle), like I showed atheism to be. If anyone here can think of one, let me know. Someone who calls him or herself an atheist is just an agnostic on crack!
Dr. John Warwick Montgomery makes the point that “the historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of testability” (“The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, p. 319). A good example of someone taking the faith up on its claims were Viggo Olsen, M.D., author of Daktar: Diplomat in Bangladesh, and his wife, who were both skeptics who “decided to embark on a detailed study of Christianity with the intention of rejecting it on intellectual grounds. Little by little, as they studied works that deal with data common to apologetics and evidences… they were led step by step to see the truthfulness of Christianity. Their study was no minor investigation or causal perusal. It was an exhaustive search…” (Frederick R. Howe, The Role of Apologetics and Evangelism). And this claim to truth includes the possibility of self-defeating constructs within the framework of Christian philosophy, which I have shown to be in the atheists philosophy. Mortimer J. Adler is one of the world’s leading philosophers, chairman of the board of editors for the Encyclopedia Britannica, architect of the Great Books of the Western World series and its remarkable Syntopicon, he is also the director of the prestigious Institute for Philosophical Research in Chicago. Adler says, “I believe Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world” (Christianity Today, Nov. 19, 1990). Did you get that? One of the greatest philosophers of our time said that unlike Christianity, every religion that claims to have an epistemology is self-defeating.
Dr. Drew Trotter, a Cambridge University graduate, argues convincingly that “logic and the evidence both point to the reality of absolute truth….” George F. Gilder, one of our century’s “greatest minds,” and author of Wealth and Poverty and Telecosm, says “Christianity is true, and its truth will be discovered anywhere you look very far” (David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth, p. 13). Principle at Wycliff Hall, Alister McGrath, author of Intellectual Don’t Need God and Other Myths, says the evidence for Christianity is akin to that found in doing good scientific research:“When I was undertaking my doctoral research in molecular biology at Oxford University, I was frequently confronted with a number of theories offering to explain a given observation. In the end, I had to make a judgment concerning which of them possessed the greatest internal consistency, the greatest degree of predictive ability. Unless I was to abandon any possibility of advance in understanding, I was obliged to make such a judgment… I would claim the right to speak of the ‘superiority’ of Christianity in this explicative sense” (“Response to John Hick,” in More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, p. 68). Noted Christian scholar Dr. Carl F. H. Henry wrote a three thousand page, six volume work on the topic of God, Revelation, and Authority. After his exhaustive [to say the least] analysis, Henry declared that “Truth is Christianity’s most enduring asset…” (Ajith Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ, p. 109).
Dr. Robert A. Morey writes, “There is more than enough evidence on every hand from every department of human experience and knowledge to demonstrate that Christianity is true… [It is the faith of the non-Christian [that] is externally and internally groundless. They are the ones who leap in the dark. Some, like Kierkegaard, have admitted this” (Introduction to Defendig the Faith, p. 38). James Sire points out in his book, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?, that an argument for belief, religious or otherwise, must be secured on the best evidence, validly argued, and able to refute the strongest objections that can be mustered against it (p. 10). Dr. Norman Geisler adds that “In the face of overwhelming apologetic evidence, unbelief becomes perverse” (Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, p. 529). Even though you may argue from an atheist website (even though you aren’t one), you must realize that they post papers by atheists who don’t even believe Jesus to be a historical person, that he was non-existent. The bias runs so high at these sites that they will pass over actual history to push an idea that Jesus never existed, as Michael Martin does.
All this being said… I invite you to show me a self-refuting aspect of the Christian faith. I have heard almost all of them, “can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?” Or, “If everything that exists needs a cause, and you say the universe was caused, hence, needing a Causer, that Causer exists! Who caused the Causer?” In other words, who made God?! I have even heard the teapots floating around a planet one, where the person challenged with the universal negative responds, “prove to me that there aren’t teapots floating around a planet somewhere in the cosmos.” However, I will wait to hear from you my friend. The atheist may believe that Christianity commits the error of self-repudiation, however, I have – in all my years – never seen a good instance of one. So go hunting around the atheistic websites (even though you aren’t one), and get back to me.
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/27/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | SeanG: though my debates with atheists are limited, I would add this: I believe atheists by and large are believers in God, yet believers in rebellion who are angry at God for (what the believe to be) his intrusion into their lives. From my perspective, those who believe themselves to be atheists are the true believers, yet unwilling to admit it because of their intense anger at God. Excellant post.
By the way, many times Christians object to such straightforward talk not because they disagree with what is being said but because they don't want to appear "unloving" or "closeminded."
Edited by - honorman on 01/27/2003 6:12:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | "From my perspective, those who believe themselves to be atheists are the true believers, yet unwilling to admit it because of their intense anger at God" - Honorman
Hey Honorman, what evidence do you have to support this? From my perspective, it is just the opposite. Only about 1% of AMericans claim to be atheists. Those people are NOT favored by society. Atheists are viewed as angry nerds who have problems getting along with society.
You don't have to be an atheist to live a sinful life and live as though God does not exist. My point is, atheists are not necessarily anymore immoral than theists (or Christians)- it is their belief that God does not exist that separates them.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman, I would concur with your assessment, thank you for the props by the way.
ReasonableDoubt, No one has said that atheist are any less moral? However, atheists have no moral foundation to refer to other than themselves. You see, the theist can say “rape is wrong at all times (past, present, future) and at all places (in the entire universe).” The atheist says rape is wrong because it doesn’t benefit society (in the present), so rape is morally wrong because it is socially taboo. What if, in our “struggle for existence” in our evolutionary past, rape was the only way to survive, thus social taboos wouldn’t apply. If survival is the highest moral goal for a species, then rape would not be wrong at all times and in all places.
Let me elucidate, if you will, by a response I gave another gentleman on the subject:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
******, great question! Let us see it again: “How does the Constitution not work for a secular state?”
I cannot answer for [President] Adams and his personal reasons for stating: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"; alternatively, Adams is not my concern. Your question, however, is.
Secularism believes in evolutionary origins, this is easily demonstrated by the high-profile secularists who signed the Humanists Manifesto’s I, II, and III. The Constitution and the previous Declaration of Independence are based on a moral premise, which is based in the doctrine of creation and a Creator. Why is this important?… as all the framers were creationists in some form or manner – even the Deists [keep in mind that if you were to look up the word deist in lexiconal books of the time of the Founders, and how it was used in Webster’s original compilation of word definitions, Deist is something quite different than what Deist means today]. Let me explain, and please take the time to thoughtfully understand these lines of thought ******, thanks.
In religious thought, i.e., theistic thought, rape is wrong at all times and at all places. However, if evolution were true in any form, rape is NOT wrong at all times and at all places. Rape will always be morally wrong to the Judeo-Christian theist. Notwithstanding, rape might not be wrong in our evolutionary the future, nor might it have been wrong in our evolutionary past. Allow me to expound my thought.
Objection
Morality can be adequately explained simply as an evolutionary device for survival. Tribes that treated each other morally (kindly, justly, honestly, etc.) survived; immoral tribes died out. Killing, stealing, raping and lying didn’t work. Morality can be explained by natural selection, “the survival of the fittest.” There’s nothing more to it, nothing mysterious at all about it.
Reply
This common objection reduces morality to a biological instinct, learned through trial and error. Cooperation “works” so it becomes “the herd instinct.” This reduction of obligation to instinct simply does not square with our moral experience. We do not experience morality as an instinct, but as a law which tells us which instinct to follow in which situations. No instinct is itself always right, but morality is always right, therefore morality is not just an instinct. Rather, morality transcends instinct, as sheet music transcends the notes on a piano. Instincts are notes; the moral law tells us how and when to play these notes
It is also logically impossible to reduce morality to biological instinct because that would be deriving more from less, “ought” from “is.” The premise or ground or source of morality for the instinctualist is simply “this is an instinct,” and the conclusion is “therefore this ought to be done.” but this syllogism is invalid unless you add the second premise, “all instincts ought to be followed.” That premise is obviously false and impossible, since our instincts often contradict each other. (“Objection” & “Reply” from, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Kreeft and Tacelli, pp.378-379.)
The idea that morality is a matter of self-preservation is frankly absurd, as we often exercise moral judgments on issues that have no direct bearing on our personal (or societal) well-being, let alone our preservation. Another point is, “how can any culture be an absolute guide for morality if those who drive it have no transcendent reference-point.” The following story should elucidate: The story is told of a man who stopped outside a clockmaker’s shop every morning on his way to work and synchronized his watch with a large clock standing in the shop window. One day, the owner of the shop got to talking to him and asked him what kind of work he did. Rather sheepishly, the man told him he was the timekeeper at a nearby factory, and that one of his responsibilities was to ring the closing bell at five o’clock every evening. As his watch kept very poor times, he synchronized it very morning with the clock in the shop window. The shop-owner, even more embarrassed, replied, “I hate to tell you this, but the clock doesn’t work very well either, and I adjust it every time I hear the factory’s closing bell!” When movers and shakers in any given society have no moral absolutes to guide them, how can their culture claim to have any ethical integrity [this is the main catalyst behind the political-correctness movement and the multi-culturalism we find in the secular state, what’s called cultural relativism]?
Human beings in a given society might agree, for selfish mutual benefit, not to harm each other, but how does this social contract give any meaning to the words such as “rights,” “justice,” “fairness,” “right” or “wrong”? Os Guinness says, “With the death of absolutes the prospects are grim for any lover of justice, freedom and order.” Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s maxim rings just as true today as it did in his day, “If there is no God, all things are permissible.” Even Voltaire had an inkling that social morality needed some objective basis, and may not have been entirely cynical when he said, “I want my lawyer, tailor, valets, even my wife to believe in God. I think that if they do, I shall be robbed less and cheated less.”
Michael Ruse and Edward Wilson in the New Scientist magazine say that they are the byproducts of evolution:“Morality, or, more strictly, our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends… Ethics is seen to have a solid foundation, not in divine guidance, but in the shared qualities of human nature” (“Evolution and Ethics,” #208, 17 October 1985, p. 50). Elsewhere they wrote, “No abstract moral principles exist outside the particular nature of individual species” [materialism] (“Moral Philosophy as Applied Science,” Philosophy, 61 [1986], p. 186). According to materialist / secularist, the idea that there is a divine source of ethical absolutes and guiding principles for human society can be dismissed as a religious illusion; blind, godless evolution explains everything. This ties in with what Francis Crick called his “Astonishing Hypothesis”:“‘You’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” (The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, p. 3) This is the standard line now taken by atheistic biologists. Where, however, is the connection between survival and morality? If human beings come from nothing and are going nowhere, what is the sum value of survival, let alone of having ethical standards in the process? Thomas Huxley conceded the point without blinking:“The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and evil tendencies may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than what we had before.” If people are simply genetically programmed machines, detrained biologically or in some other way, why should we be concerned over the issues of justness and fairness, or feel any obligation to treat other human beings with respect? Scientist Rodney Holder elaborates:“If we are nothing but atoms and molecules organized in a particular way through chance processes of evolution, then love, beauty, good and evil, free will, reason itself – indeed all that makes us human and raises us above the rest of the created order – lose their objectivity. Why should I love my neighbor, or go out of my way to help him? Rather, why should I not get everything I can for myself, trampling on whoever gets in my way? After all, I am nothing but a ‘gene survival machine,’ and my sole purpose is to propagate my own genes. The best we can do can be to come to some kind of agreement in our mutual interest along utilitarian [having regard to utility or usefulness rather than beauty, ornamentation] lines to live in peace, but if it suits us we shall be free to break any such agreement. Our behavior could degenerate to that which we see in the animal world – after all, we are just animals anyway” (Nothing But Atoms and Molecules?, p. 21) Judeo-Christian theism will always declare that it is morally wrong to torture children for fun at all times and at all places. Reductionist theories, (reducing the mind to natural / biological interpretations only), of the mind can never say that at all times and at all places in the universe, is it wrong to torture children for fun.
Stephen Hawking (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Einstein’s chair), at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” Discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms? Alternatively, the Constitution is a document of liberation, of freedom. We cannot have this “freedom/liberation” in its ultimate sense, as with the words “justness” or “fairness,” if the reductionist view is true. Period.
Words like “rights,” “justice,” “injustice,” “fairness,” “right” or “wrong” lose their transcendent meaning and become merely selfish means to further the individual / society. Laws, then, lose there true – transcendent – meaning, and become the vessels of human selfishness and advancement. Laws, then, become opinions no greater than the opinion of any other man. A society that loses its grip on the ascendant moral values given by our Creator (as our Declaration declares), it loses grip on the absolutes that bind us together as a people.
Our thirteenth president, Calvin Coolidge, knew that absolutes existed when he said: “Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws… must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.” However, this thought is countered by the modern thinker as displayed in a comment made by John Dewey who said:“There is no God [i.e., a law – truth – moral, Giver and Author] and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props or traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable [unchangeable] truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent moral absolutes.” Of course Dewey’s philosophy of thought pervades our academia, and we can see the chaos (callousness disregard for teachers and authority, crime, etc.) that has ensued in education, as well as the declining levels of competence at every level. I hope we embrace the absolutes our Founders did, if only to keep the meaning behind “freedom,” “liberty,” and “justice” alive.
Books I highly Recommend
I will check (*) the few “must haves”
*Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air, by Beckwith and Koukl;
The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man, by Budziszewski;
In Defense of Natural Law, by George;
Human Rights & Human Dignity, by Montgomery;
*Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible?, by Geisler and Turek;
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, by Bork;
The Closing of the American Mind, by Bloom;
The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control, by Kramer and Kimball;
From Dawn to Decadence, 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, by Barzun;
The New Absolutes: How They Are Being Imposed on Us, How They Are Eroding Our Moral Landscape, by Watkins;
*Written On the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, by Budziszewski.
Edited by - SeanG on 01/28/2003 12:57:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/28/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | honorman, a good resource for thinking about atheism critically can be found the Origins web site ( http://www.origins.org/ ), more specifically, at: http://www.origins.org/menus/atheism.html
A good paper is by Paul Vitz, a professor of psychology at NYU, it is: http://www.origins.org/articles/vitz_psychologyofatheism.html
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/28/2003 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey SeanG,
It is funny how people's perceptions are so different. When Honorman said he thought that atheists are just angry at God, I took that to mean, that they don't want to have to live a life acceptable to God, or, in other words, that they really DO believe in His existence, but prefer to live a life of sin rather than own up to God.
My point was that I don't believe that most real atheists live lives much different than theists. So I wondered why would they be angry at God- | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 1/28/2003 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | I would be angry as well if I saw all the evil taking place in the world and was not able to say that it is indeed evil. And if I did go about saying that “I don’t believe in a God because of all the evil His church has done,” as an example, knowing that I was using a cosmic scale (beyond my own personal tastes that is – like vanilla or chocolate ice cream [e.g., Mother Teresa or Hitler]) to determine what is in fact evil, thus, borrowing the philosophical view of the Judeo-Christian worldview… I’d be pissed too!
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/28/2003 7:53 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: In my post I plainly state this is my experience, so I am not claiming statistics. It is from my own experience.
Sorry to disagree with you, but our society (by and large, at least in the intellectual community) vastly favors atheists as the "open" thinkers, while Christians who take a stand are "closeminded" and "intolerant. Not in favor...please!
A friend of mine once said all stereotypes have a bit of a truth in them, otherwise they wouldn't have been formed. Such is it with atheists.
What I meant by my comments about atheists being angry at God, is that I believe most atheists who are so passionate against the idea of there not being a God, are that way because deep in hearts they know there is a God and to admit to such an idea is to admit to the consequences of it. Most atheists simply don't want God messin' with their lives. I mean, how dare God tell any of us how to live...
RD: my point was NOT that atheists feel they have to live a life acceptable to God, but rather that God would have the gall to make demands on them...
Sean: Kouhl's book is great. As is his website. I liked when he use to (I don't know if he still does. I haven't been at his site in awhile) post opponents website. Great for learning. Written on The Heart is a great book as well. Hey, have you read Faith Of The Fatherless by Vitz. Its excellant.
Edited by - honorman on 01/29/2003 12:58:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 2/3/2003 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, Faith of the Fatherless is a great treatise! I am currently hunting down an old book he did that is often quoted. It is entitled Censorship : Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks, in this book he methodically goes through many textbooks and shows how the history of our nation is being censored. Any history that has religious connotations is simply removed. One study cited by 20/20 mentioned an eighth-grade textbook that had two pages devoted to Marilyn Monroe, and three sentences devoted to George Washington – pop culture gone mad!
SeanG!"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."
“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.” | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|