My Response to an Atheist who Believes that the Belief in God is Utter Foolishness:
While I share your high estimation of skepticism – it was skepticism that brought me from agnosticism to Christianity – you claim that the existence of God is an “extraordinary claim without the support of extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan paraphrasing David Hume).” In this, I don’t think that you are sufficiently skeptical about your own claim of naturalism.
While I agree with you about the “extraordinary claims” that require “extraordinary evidence,” I must point out that we all must grapple with the same two “extraordinary” choices – Either Naturalism or Supernaturalism is the origin/explanation of the universe. Let me now set forth some arguments for Supernaturalism in favor of Naturalism.
1. Our experience uniformly demonstrates that the cause must be greater than the effect. Intelligent causation is greater than non-intelligent causation. Therefore, supernaturalism must be the preferred hypothesis.
2. Supernaturalism (transcendence) is a better explanation than Naturalism (materialism) for the immutability of the physical laws. Something must transcend our expanding universe of molecules-in-motion. (Where do the “natural” laws come from?)
3. Supernatural Transcendence is also a better explanation than localized materialism for the uniform operation of these laws throughout the universe.
4. Supernatural Oneness is more parsimonious than the idea of myriads of independently operating natural laws. It better accounts for the stability and regularity of the physical world.
5. Although we all agree that phenomena occur formulaically and predictably, there is absolutely no evidence that the laws that govern are natural as opposed to their being part of a Super-Intelligence.
6. Naturalism is utterly inadequate to account for many phenomena – life, DNA, consciousness, freewill, the fine-tuning of the universe, reason and logic – while Supernaturalism is adequate.
Danny, I'm convinced. However, there's also the whole subjective realm. I suppose it's connected to consciousness and free will, but for me it's somehow more. Categories that make up personality, tastes and temperament, creativity and imagination, language, ambition; those qualities which add flesh to the bones of what might be the skeleton of materialism--qualities that makes us full-orb humans and separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. All these are elements are elements of our imago Dei. Atheism is hard-put to account for this dimension--this humanness.
ReplyDeleteFirefly,
ReplyDeleteI’m going to try to read between the lines in order to respond to your concern. You seem to be arguing for a natural-supernatural model that will also help us to account for the subjective and changeable elements??
I think that it’s very possible that God created laws that are not part of His mind and work formulaically. If this is the case, my working model would be something like SUPERNATURAL --> natural, thus indicating that the existence of the natural depends upon the SUPERNATURAL.
(But I fear that this really doesn’t address your concern, so please help me out a bit more!)
Theres a difference between being skeptic and being closed minded. Part of the reason atheists think belief in God is unintelligent, is because Christians like yourself transform God from an unfathomable mystery to fairytale superhero. You said "Intelligent causation is greater than non-intelligent causation". That is illogical. Thats like saying that it would better to pick the leaves off the trees than to let them wither and fall on there on. If anything, mankind has proven one thing. Non-intelligent causation is better than intelligent causation. We pollute this world and completely destroy all natural cycles in our path under the assumption that we know better than that which comes natural. If existence teaches us anything, its that we should leave well enough alone. Instead, we seek to ultimate control over nature. As for your second point, just because you cannot explain universal motions, does not mean those motions are because God willed them to happen. That is like the child who looks to the rain and says God is crying. What the child doesn't understand is that rain is just apart of the water cycle. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it was caused supernaturally. Point 3 isn't even a point, its an statement of opinion, and therefore it is a logical fallacy. Point 4 just proves that you are closed minded to scientific fact because you are unable grasp the complexity of nature. Oddly enough as it is, point five can easily be reworded to support atheism. "Although we all agree that phenomena occur formulaically and predictably, there is absolutely no evidence that the laws that govern are Supernatural as opposed to their being part of nature." If your logic can be reworded to support the opposing party then it isn't logic. It is a statement. As for your 6th point, once again you are only proving that your closed mindedness is all a result of your inability to grasp concepts greater than your ability to reason. You have not offered one bit of logic in this article. Its riddled with opinions, and cleverly masked in intelligent vocabulary. The reality is that this proves only one thing; you are threatened by what you don't understand. You are scared of what you can't reason with. The idea that nature is self sufficient is terrifying to you because you desperately want God to be in control of your life. That way, you don't have to take responsibility for yourself. That way, you have someone to blame.
ReplyDelete