The buzz on the interwebs these days amongst lay people in religion forums where theists and atheists clash is what many people are calling "The Ontological Argument" which is in fact 'The Cosmological Argument.' It states that creation exists and therefore something caused it to exist, that 'cause' would be reasonably defined as God, i.e. an uncreated creator who is not temporally or spatially conditioned, and who is all powerful over creation (omnipotent and omnipresent). They are right to call this an ontological argument because, it deals with the existence of creation and God; and ontology is the study of being.
The great irony here is that the theist is taking up the side of rationalism and the atheist is taking up the side of empiricism. That's ironic, of course, because the claim leveled against theists by atheists is that they are irrational. The atheist is denying the existence of 'The Cause' because there is no empirical evidence of that 'Cause,' whereas the theist approaches the issue rationally like an algebraic equation where P= 1. The atheist's view states that all knowledge must come from experiencing what is, and the theist's view is quite the opposite and states that it isn't necessary to import any information about the universe in order to know something. For instance, if we say that 1=1 we know it to be true, and if we say 1<1 we know it to be false because it must be itself. But if we say 1<?, then we know that the latter two propositions cannot be the case and we know that any number less that 1 cannot be the case, and so by making an assumption, proving a contradiction, and ejecting it we know that there is such a number that is at least greater than one: 1<2. This is how we know that there are an infinite amount of numbers without having counted them all, because we can assume, show a contradiction and eject using the rational approach which doesn't import any premise found in the empirical universe. And further proof of that is, we can conceive of a number that is larger than any amount of anything in the universe, which exceeds tangible proofs.
However, the ontological argument that stands out in philosophical circles is St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God, or 'The Perfect.' Instead of using something which may be reasonably perceived as caused (creation itself) as a proof for God's existence, it offers a rational proof for the existence of God after the same manner of mathematics, and it goes like this (df means same as):
1.) The Perfect = df Something other than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2.) The Perfect = The Perfect = df (X=X)
/.: 3.) The Perfect cannot be conceived not to be.
Now, the average person will say," That is a load of crap. I could replace God or 'The Perfect' with a Unicorn and prove the existence of unicorns, square circles, a number which is both greater and less than one, and I can prove the existence of men who are women." Not so. This is because 'The Perfect' necessarily exists according to the definition of 'The Perfect' and is therefore a necessary being, whereas unicorns and the other things are contingent. I'll show you what I mean.
The above argument, the three premises, are predicated by the description of 'The Perfect' in St. Anselm's 'Proslogion II." It states that:
1.) 'The Perfect' has all positive properties. (This is because evil is a lack of something and not the presence of anything. Therefore, to have negative qualities would delimit anything perfect, even in a mathematical sense, but to be sure, also in an ethical, moral, and substantial sense. Thus, 'The Perfect' would not be perfect if it had negative qualities. So it's necessary for 'The Perfect' to have all positive qualities.)
2.) Existence is one such property.
/.: 3.) 'The Perfect' exists.
We cannot conceive of a thing such as 'The Perfect' that does not exist, because existence itself is necessary to formulating the concept of 'The Perfect.' Such a necessary being might represent X. Now, if we conceive of the selfsame being that is contingent, and say it is also X, then we have a contradiction, and the conception is necessarily false, because a thing cannot exist as a necessary being and a contingent being at once. This is because a contingent being can fail to exist, but a necessary being cannot fail to exist. It must be one or the other.
So, we can certainly conceive of such a unicorn that exists and we can conceive one that does not exist, because it is not necessary that unicorns exist for us to conceive of them accurately. But in order to accurately conceive of 'The Perfect' it is necessary to conceive of it existing, otherwise it is not itself. This is because 'The Perfect' is something other than which none greater can be conceived, and that being the case if we conceived of something other than which none greater can be conceived that did not exist, it would be less than something other than which none greater can be conceived that does exist. So, it is impossible to conceive of God not existing and have an accurate conception of Him because (X =X). That is not the case with unicorns, men who are women, square circles or the like.
Human beings are rational creatures, and one of the things that predicates reason in a being is its ability to distinguish between true statements and contradictions. Every person knows that (p=/=p) is a contradiction precisely because they have reason. However, the atheist thinks that he can conceive of 'The Perfect' not existing, which is a contradiction and necessarily false; it's unintelligible to even say. It only becomes intelligible if his conception is not identical to 'The Perfect,' in which case he still hasn't dismissed God but a non-God, and therefore the assertion is still nonsense and unintelligible. Again, this is because a being that must exist is greater than a being that can exist and not exist.
The most immediate and common atheistic reply to this argument comes from 'Positivism' which is basically empiricism. The atheist would reply," Very clever, but it's an empty concept. You have no empirical evidence of such a being and even if you could make contact with such a being you would have no way to prove it to be what it is because it is infinite, and likewise we atheists would have no way of disproving it because it is immeasurable."
However, this approach is problematic, because of two little words: good and bad. If you take this approach that states 'only that which is empirical has meaning', it follows necessarily that good and bad are also rejected, or at least diminished to a merely emotional value.
At that point the whole subject of ethics disappears. Saying that rape, murder, or genocide are bad, or that philanthropy, volunteering, and nurture are good becomes a mere expression of emotions, with absolutely no substance. Subjects aren't good or bad, they don't have positive or negative properties, you are merely projecting your emotions (which mean nothing) onto things which themselves have no intrinsic value (everything is worthless). So, ethics and morals become meaningless subjective nonsense under the lens of 'Positivism,' because 'Positivism' is empirical and excludes reason; and a 'do what thou whilt' attitude sets in. Rationalism is diametrically opposed to 'Positivism' because, rationalism states that sentient beings do have intrinsic value, and that because of this there are concrete morals and ethics, and an attitude of 'lawfulness' takes root.
So, the atheist empiricist comes off rather badly from this argument, because he is a fool for thinking he can conceive of what cannot be conceived and insists on a contradiction that is necessarily false, while admitting that he does not believe in morals or ethics, and that he believes nothing has any meaning and everything is worthless. On the other hand, the theist rationalist comes off rather well. He asserts what is necessarily so, gives assent to ethics and morals, and states that sentient beings do have intrinsic value.
This argument really pulls the atheist's pants down, and shows him to be in fact the opposite of what he wants to seem. He desires to seem a courageous, hyper-rational stoic who is brave enough to face the nothing that the theist is so afraid of he goes and makes 'an imaginary friend in the sky'. Because of this he would have people think that he is the moral and intellectual superior of the theist, because he makes himself seem braver and more rational. When in fact the atheist doesn't believe in any kind of real courage, because he doesn't believe in virtues, ethics or morals; and beyond this, he isn't the intellectual superior in any case because he gives assent to that which cannot be logically admitted... which of course makes him seem rather stupid.
Anyway, that's St. Anselm's Ontological Argument.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Showing posts with label Atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheist. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Abortion- Errors of Logic
Previously, I wrote a secular argument against abortion that left out moral judgment. For those of you who read my blog and other Catholic writings, you might come across philosophical language and theological three dollar words which at times may seem like little more than a vain attempt to sound smart. But they're actually quite necessary in conveying specific ideas and keeping clear of semantics in already complicated issues. To those of you who aren't used to the jargon, just hang on! You'll get used to it and understand why these subjects have their own terminology. I just wanted to throw that out there to whoever it applies to. Also, if you want to leave a comment in the form of a rebuttal or a counter question, all are welcome. You can be passionate, but please be respectful. I'll try to respond to any comment.
So, having said that much, this time around I would like to talk about the pro-choice ontological argument. That is, I'd like to address the pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument concerning "being." We often hear pro-abortion folks declaring that a fetus is not a human life. Without sliding into "yes it is! no it isn't!" style argumentation, I'd like to look at some of the assertions that are necessary to this stance that a fetus is not a human life. Now, I'm addressing the logic, or lack thereof, of some common pro-choice arguments. I'm not saying that everyone who is pro-choice believes these things, makes these arguments or that they don't for that matter. So, read with that in mind.
This is actually a very weak argument and I'll show you why. The pro-abortion side says," The fetus cannot live outside of the mother, it cannot live without the mother. Therefore, the mother and the fetus are synonymous biologically. Ergo, the fetus is not a human life, because it is part of the mother's body just like a fingernail, or an elbow." I don't think that any pro-choice individuals would say that I've misrepresented their argument, here.
Well, fine. Why would they point this out, though? Very obviously, it is because they wish to say convincingly what they always say," My body, my choice!" Let's look at our laws and see if they make provision for that kind of thinking, that sort of philosophy if you will. Can we do whatever we want to with our bodies, because they are our bodies? If I wanted to sell an organ, rumor has it that I could do so for thousands of dollars on the black market. But the black market is simply a phrase which means 'illegally.' Doesn't look like I can do what I want to with my own body. Or imagine that I was pulled over and given a ticket for driving without a seat belt. It's my body, why am I getting a ticket for not buckling it in? I obviously can't do what I want to with my body; it's obviously not my choice.
Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. Dr. Death, sits in prison because he agreed with a lot of people that they have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Looks like the law doesn't agree, there. And what about all those people incarcerated for drug possession and prostitution? It's their body, their choice, right? Well, the law doesn't agree. What about drugs? What about prostitution? The law doesn't agree that you have the right to do either of those "because it is your body." This is yet another reason why in my previous blog I mentioned that abortion causes hypocrisy in government. If we are allowing women to have abortions based on the idea that it is their body, their choice, then why are we disallowing these other things? Abortion keeps no continuity with our other laws; it's a contradictory and erroneous law. It's not derived reasonably from our other laws.
O.k. so I haven't made a moral argument, yet. Can you blame me? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. So, let me make an ethical argument against. An ethic of course is a moral generally agreed upon by a given society. Ethics are rapidly disappearing because of relativism. That's the real danger present in society today; it's not that we are becoming immoral. That's what the last fifty years were all about: immorality. Now, society is just becoming amoral," Morals are subjective. Who needs 'em?" they say.
Well, since ethics still exist I'll make use of them here. Another pro-abortion argument overlaps the one I just mentioned and it's that the fetus or the zygote are not human because they do not possess all of their body parts and don't function like an independent human specimen. Further, part of that assertion is what was stated previously, namely that it cannot survive independently. Their organs aren't formed completely and they don't even have a complete skeletal system. They point these things out to make the fetus or the zygote as dissimilar from a fully formed human child outside of the womb as possible, so as to make them seem like two different species of organism.
I'm going to indulge in sarcasm here and talk about the implications of those assertions. So, the fetus is not a human because it's organs don't work or aren't formed completely? Does that mean that people who have malformed hearts aren't human? Does that mean that the mentally and physically handicapped aren't human? Does that mean that people with rare bone diseases and deficiencies aren't human? Can we just kill them off, too?
What about that idea that people aren't human because they can't survive by themselves? Technically, human children are meant to survive by breastfeeding for the first portion of their lives. They still need their mother's bodies. They also need handling and affection, otherwise they die and/ or can develop serious psychological and chemical disorders. How old must a child be before it can survive independent of it's parents? Eight years old, maybe? Lot's of old people can't take care of themselves, neither can lots of invalids. There are many mentally and physically handicapped people who simply cannot survive without assistance. Some people need machines to stay alive. So, what are they trying to say? That we can just kill them off, too? They meet the criteria. Perhaps, we should bring back the practice of exposure and just leave unwanted infants for dead on hillsides to be picked apart or eaten by birds and wild animals.
And I'm not even going to mention the other subjective nonsense arguments concerning unwanted children, children born into poverty, into areas of crime. I'll just simply say, what I said above against the so-called disqualifying factors: does that mean we should kill all poor people, too? And the unwanted, whether they be elderly or in the womb? Should we just kill everyone in every ghetto in America like the Nazis did all over Europe?
You know, it sounds like they are supporting euthanasia at the same time when they support abortion. In fact, they are, de facto. But even more grotesquely the scope of who doesn't qualify as humans is astounding if we go by this definition of human life. We can kill all mentally and physically handicapped people, invalids, those on life support, all children under the age of eight, the elderly, the deformed, etc. The only people who would be classed as humans are those who are of sound body and mind, capable of surviving independent from all other human beings. Well, they'd quickly disqualify themselves, because no one who thinks that is of sound mind, unless they are pure, cold, calculating, intellectual evil.
Sounds a lot like eugenics; you know, the same thing the Nazis were all about. They say the apple never falls too far from the tree. Well, the rotten apple of modern abortion proves this maxim correct. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a.k.a. the abortion people, was an avid activist of eugenics. She thought that criminals and the mentally handicapped should be involuntarily sterilized. She even suggested the following to congress,"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." She also said," The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
She was an open racist. Do you know that today, right now, you can call Planned Parenthood and tell them you want to donate specifically to black abortions? Did you know that Planned Parenthood's all over America are intentionally and strategically placed near minority and low income areas? Eugenics in action here in the 21st century and we still look to the past and wag a finger at the Nazis. Looks like her philosophical offspring still agree, even if they deny it, even if they don't realize it. Those are the implications of their arguments; eugenics and euthanasia follow necessarily from these arguments.
So, where are the legitimate arguments for abortion? What's another one we all hear," Do you want it to go back to what it was like in the past?! Back alley with a coat hanger?! Do you know how many women died and became barren because of those illegal procedures?!" What kind of argument is that? That's like if tomorrow we passed a law that said people are allowed to break into houses and steal. If people tried to repeal the law, the ones who passed the law would say," Do you want it to go back to like it was in the past?! Back when criminals had to worry about being shot?! Do you know how stressful that was?! Do you know how many thieves died over a T.V. or a gold watch?!" You'd look at them and say after a long pause," ARE YOU INSANE???" We don't alter our laws because criminals suffer the natural consequences of their actions! That's not even an argument. That's argumentum absurdum.
Almost anyone who is pro-choice would look at the consequences and logic of these common arguments and say," No! Of course I don't believe any of that is ok!" But show the logical argument for abortion, then. Show a bullet-proof, iron-clad, objective argument for abortion. I'm not trying to paint everyone with one brush stroke, but let's face it, the pro-choice side is not a theistic stance. The pro-choice movement is primarily an atheistic one. I've never met an Atheist who wasn't pro-abortion; well, maybe one, but I can't recall exactly. Anyway, this seems to be the case. So, just like the Atheists like to put the onus on theists to prove that God exists, it's up to pro-choice individuals to prove that it isn't a human life. The onus isn't on the pro-life side to show that a human life does exist. We all know what the course of nature is for a zygote, we know what the fetus becomes. There is no denying what the course of nature is; that much is evident. The onus is on the pro-abortionists to prove their correctness, because nature is the ultimate default. If you are an Atheist and a pro-choice individual, don't be a hypocrite. Just make your objective argument. Or if you don't have and argument, accept the fact that you don't have one and the next time someone asks you why you're pro-choice tell them the truth," I don't have a real reason. I just am."
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
So, having said that much, this time around I would like to talk about the pro-choice ontological argument. That is, I'd like to address the pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument concerning "being." We often hear pro-abortion folks declaring that a fetus is not a human life. Without sliding into "yes it is! no it isn't!" style argumentation, I'd like to look at some of the assertions that are necessary to this stance that a fetus is not a human life. Now, I'm addressing the logic, or lack thereof, of some common pro-choice arguments. I'm not saying that everyone who is pro-choice believes these things, makes these arguments or that they don't for that matter. So, read with that in mind.
This is actually a very weak argument and I'll show you why. The pro-abortion side says," The fetus cannot live outside of the mother, it cannot live without the mother. Therefore, the mother and the fetus are synonymous biologically. Ergo, the fetus is not a human life, because it is part of the mother's body just like a fingernail, or an elbow." I don't think that any pro-choice individuals would say that I've misrepresented their argument, here.
Well, fine. Why would they point this out, though? Very obviously, it is because they wish to say convincingly what they always say," My body, my choice!" Let's look at our laws and see if they make provision for that kind of thinking, that sort of philosophy if you will. Can we do whatever we want to with our bodies, because they are our bodies? If I wanted to sell an organ, rumor has it that I could do so for thousands of dollars on the black market. But the black market is simply a phrase which means 'illegally.' Doesn't look like I can do what I want to with my own body. Or imagine that I was pulled over and given a ticket for driving without a seat belt. It's my body, why am I getting a ticket for not buckling it in? I obviously can't do what I want to with my body; it's obviously not my choice.
Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. Dr. Death, sits in prison because he agreed with a lot of people that they have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Looks like the law doesn't agree, there. And what about all those people incarcerated for drug possession and prostitution? It's their body, their choice, right? Well, the law doesn't agree. What about drugs? What about prostitution? The law doesn't agree that you have the right to do either of those "because it is your body." This is yet another reason why in my previous blog I mentioned that abortion causes hypocrisy in government. If we are allowing women to have abortions based on the idea that it is their body, their choice, then why are we disallowing these other things? Abortion keeps no continuity with our other laws; it's a contradictory and erroneous law. It's not derived reasonably from our other laws.
O.k. so I haven't made a moral argument, yet. Can you blame me? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. So, let me make an ethical argument against. An ethic of course is a moral generally agreed upon by a given society. Ethics are rapidly disappearing because of relativism. That's the real danger present in society today; it's not that we are becoming immoral. That's what the last fifty years were all about: immorality. Now, society is just becoming amoral," Morals are subjective. Who needs 'em?" they say.
Well, since ethics still exist I'll make use of them here. Another pro-abortion argument overlaps the one I just mentioned and it's that the fetus or the zygote are not human because they do not possess all of their body parts and don't function like an independent human specimen. Further, part of that assertion is what was stated previously, namely that it cannot survive independently. Their organs aren't formed completely and they don't even have a complete skeletal system. They point these things out to make the fetus or the zygote as dissimilar from a fully formed human child outside of the womb as possible, so as to make them seem like two different species of organism.
I'm going to indulge in sarcasm here and talk about the implications of those assertions. So, the fetus is not a human because it's organs don't work or aren't formed completely? Does that mean that people who have malformed hearts aren't human? Does that mean that the mentally and physically handicapped aren't human? Does that mean that people with rare bone diseases and deficiencies aren't human? Can we just kill them off, too?
What about that idea that people aren't human because they can't survive by themselves? Technically, human children are meant to survive by breastfeeding for the first portion of their lives. They still need their mother's bodies. They also need handling and affection, otherwise they die and/ or can develop serious psychological and chemical disorders. How old must a child be before it can survive independent of it's parents? Eight years old, maybe? Lot's of old people can't take care of themselves, neither can lots of invalids. There are many mentally and physically handicapped people who simply cannot survive without assistance. Some people need machines to stay alive. So, what are they trying to say? That we can just kill them off, too? They meet the criteria. Perhaps, we should bring back the practice of exposure and just leave unwanted infants for dead on hillsides to be picked apart or eaten by birds and wild animals.
And I'm not even going to mention the other subjective nonsense arguments concerning unwanted children, children born into poverty, into areas of crime. I'll just simply say, what I said above against the so-called disqualifying factors: does that mean we should kill all poor people, too? And the unwanted, whether they be elderly or in the womb? Should we just kill everyone in every ghetto in America like the Nazis did all over Europe?
You know, it sounds like they are supporting euthanasia at the same time when they support abortion. In fact, they are, de facto. But even more grotesquely the scope of who doesn't qualify as humans is astounding if we go by this definition of human life. We can kill all mentally and physically handicapped people, invalids, those on life support, all children under the age of eight, the elderly, the deformed, etc. The only people who would be classed as humans are those who are of sound body and mind, capable of surviving independent from all other human beings. Well, they'd quickly disqualify themselves, because no one who thinks that is of sound mind, unless they are pure, cold, calculating, intellectual evil.
Sounds a lot like eugenics; you know, the same thing the Nazis were all about. They say the apple never falls too far from the tree. Well, the rotten apple of modern abortion proves this maxim correct. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a.k.a. the abortion people, was an avid activist of eugenics. She thought that criminals and the mentally handicapped should be involuntarily sterilized. She even suggested the following to congress,"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." She also said," The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
She was an open racist. Do you know that today, right now, you can call Planned Parenthood and tell them you want to donate specifically to black abortions? Did you know that Planned Parenthood's all over America are intentionally and strategically placed near minority and low income areas? Eugenics in action here in the 21st century and we still look to the past and wag a finger at the Nazis. Looks like her philosophical offspring still agree, even if they deny it, even if they don't realize it. Those are the implications of their arguments; eugenics and euthanasia follow necessarily from these arguments.
So, where are the legitimate arguments for abortion? What's another one we all hear," Do you want it to go back to what it was like in the past?! Back alley with a coat hanger?! Do you know how many women died and became barren because of those illegal procedures?!" What kind of argument is that? That's like if tomorrow we passed a law that said people are allowed to break into houses and steal. If people tried to repeal the law, the ones who passed the law would say," Do you want it to go back to like it was in the past?! Back when criminals had to worry about being shot?! Do you know how stressful that was?! Do you know how many thieves died over a T.V. or a gold watch?!" You'd look at them and say after a long pause," ARE YOU INSANE???" We don't alter our laws because criminals suffer the natural consequences of their actions! That's not even an argument. That's argumentum absurdum.
Almost anyone who is pro-choice would look at the consequences and logic of these common arguments and say," No! Of course I don't believe any of that is ok!" But show the logical argument for abortion, then. Show a bullet-proof, iron-clad, objective argument for abortion. I'm not trying to paint everyone with one brush stroke, but let's face it, the pro-choice side is not a theistic stance. The pro-choice movement is primarily an atheistic one. I've never met an Atheist who wasn't pro-abortion; well, maybe one, but I can't recall exactly. Anyway, this seems to be the case. So, just like the Atheists like to put the onus on theists to prove that God exists, it's up to pro-choice individuals to prove that it isn't a human life. The onus isn't on the pro-life side to show that a human life does exist. We all know what the course of nature is for a zygote, we know what the fetus becomes. There is no denying what the course of nature is; that much is evident. The onus is on the pro-abortionists to prove their correctness, because nature is the ultimate default. If you are an Atheist and a pro-choice individual, don't be a hypocrite. Just make your objective argument. Or if you don't have and argument, accept the fact that you don't have one and the next time someone asks you why you're pro-choice tell them the truth," I don't have a real reason. I just am."
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Monday, 3 January 2011
Theodicy - The Problem of Evil
I was commenting recently to an Atheist friend; the eminent Richard Dawkins had come up on her page. I was wondering what Richard Dawkins would do with a guy like Ken Miller, a well published molecular and cell biologist who gives assent to evolution and does his own debates against American Evangelical Creationism. Ken Miller is Roman Catholic and says that he is a theist in the broadest sense. Admittedly, that can only mean one thing... he doesn't give much attention to his faith.
A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.
These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.
So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.
Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.
Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.
Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.
Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?
But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.
This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.
Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?
In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.
So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.
These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.
So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.
Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.
Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.
Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.
Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?
But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.
This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.
Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?
In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.
So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Sunday, 26 December 2010
When the 'Reasonable People' Make Unreasonable Demands
I have no desire to address the demeanor of atheists or theist. However, I would like to address this one statement I keep hearing from Atheist without relent; so, I may have to address their demeanor just a little bit and in a general sense. I've been arguing with a guy recently who basically has a very poorly informed Atheism, and by that I mean most Atheist would be ashamed of him. So, I apologize if this seems like I'm railroading Atheist. I have great respect for many Atheists and their arguments. That being said, this is designed as a treatment of the Atheists who commit the error discussed, so that theists can recognize it and defend accordingly; I have no intentions of painting with a brush all Atheists. Many people who don't know what to believe think that being an atheist is a magic pill to being smarter than everyone else, but we all know that really they're just as ignorant as before. In fact, I think that 'The Amazing Atheist' on Youtube says something to the same effect.
Likewise, theists in general take for granted that they are right and hobble around on crutches, arguments that dismiss people on principle. They parrot to themselves and to each other," They're blinded by the god of this age." or," The ways of God are foolishness to men and the ways of men are foolishness to God." or ,"The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, if they do make fools of themselves and say something stupid, and someone points it out and holds them accountable for it... suddenly their opponents are written of as having been hopelessly deceived by the great Satan himself. And other utterly stupid, unenlightened, and superstitious beliefs have they.
There never seems to be a shortage on the internet of fundamentalist Atheists and fundamentalist Christians to fight each other. It's as if each is the others private hell. They pass their time, futily trying to control each others beliefs and thoughts. In the midst of all this, they deteriorate into bizarre irrationalism and abandon what they said they had a sole claim to in the first place; namely, reason.
The product is a seemingly endless droning of illogical reasoning designed not so much to reveal the truth, but to torture and shame one another. Out of this comes an Atheist argument which seems natural," Show me God." However, very often they don't employ it to soundly defeat the theist or even to dumbfound them, but rather to embarrass the theist in front of whoever is watching. This argument is of course is a rather ignoble means on the Atheist's part, when so employed, to end the exhausting discussion by shaming his opponent instead of nobly claiming victory if it can be had through arguing well. Beginning like a man the atheist finishes like a boy, looking for a way to make his escape.
Further, before I continue onto my point which is actually quite brief, I have another criticism for both of them. That is, both sides only argue until one side is worn out; and the end point in the conversation is always for both of them their own position."We'll argue until one of us seems so right that the other is shamed beyond recovery." Yeah, that's the way to find the truth. And this is why I have a very egalitarian disposition towards the members of all such discussions, regardless of their beliefs.
Anyway, back to the whole point of the note, here. "Show me God," it seems to be a natural argument, doesn't it? Now, a natural question is necessarily a reasonable question, because reason is the course of nature and pertains to what exists and is fiduciary. However, the whole reason an Atheist supplies a reasonable question is to demonstrate that the theist has no reasonable answer.
But what we have here is a bifurcated strawman, which is an error of logic. If theists were claiming that God is quantitative, then asking to be shown God would be a reasonable request. However, it's quite the opposite isn't it? Mainstream theists, specifically Christians, maintain that God is uncreated and immeasurable. There are no measurable traits concerning God.
Imagine if you will that God is in form like a man. Let's just say that "God" in the most general sense is a man with the attribute of "immeasurability." His eye would be infinitely big and infinitely small; his knee would be infinitely big and infinitely small, and so on. He would be patently unobservable. There would be no point of reference to even make a measurement. These are the natural consequences of the theistic argument; God is immeasurable, therefore, God is unobservable.
Demanding to be shown God, then, is taking the theist out of context and demanding that he defend the strawman. That is absurd and ridiculous; not only because it has nothing to do with the argument of the theist, but because it demands the theist to defend something irrational. It's all highly irregular and unethical concerning civil discussions. Asking to be shown God is the same species of nonsense as if I were to tell you all that morality is 57cm long and periwinkle blue.
Aside from all this, even if this wasn't the case, and it's self-evident that it is, the request is still absurd. Let's say that God is observable, and therefore measurable. Let's play along with the Atheist. Now, imagine a little child begins to petulantly demand that an accurate and exhaustive explanation be given them concerning nuclear reactors. Do you suppose that just anyone of the child's peers will be able to teach him? No. Do you suppose that the older children will be able to teach him? No. Do you expect that the adults will be able to teach him? No. Only certain individuals will be able to supply that sort of knowledge; professors of high calibur, correct? And those scientists, don't they only teach to a select few other adults who have proven at length that they can understand what they will be taught? And so is the child even qualified to be taught by those teachers? No. Is the child even qualified to comprehend the discussion of the students? No. Can the child comprehend or understand the subject, then? No. Can the child's demand be met? Yes, a scientist could tell them everything they wanted to know. Will the child be satisfied? By no means, because he will not understand.
Now, imagine the child begins to mock the scientist because they couldn't teach him. Doesn't the child fail to realize that it was prevented from being satisfied in the inquiry because of its own ignorance and not that of the teacher's? So, if all these things naturally follow, how is it that Atheists have missed this? Not even the child would assume that everyone could be his teacher, but here the atheist demands that everyone who is a theist explain. The Atheist assumes that every theist is apt to teach on a subject they themselves couldn't possibly comprehend(God); it would be more reasonable to assume that all people who use nuclear power are nuclear physicists, and that is an insane notion. Even further, the Atheist takes for granted that they will understand perfectly everything that is propounded to them in the way of religion, science and evidences. What a singular dispensation of fortune these Atheists have, to understand everything and at all times!
How they can justify being dismissive of religion and God because someone made a weak argument for, I cannot tell. What's worse is when some poor wretch comes along and is tricked by the abundance of words into believing that the strawman the Atheist made for them is indeed their argument, then that poor unfortunate fool goes and defends the strawman to the death and fails utterly. And the Atheist pats himself on the back because he tricked a simple fellow into defending a strawman.
So, here we have it, that in both cases the request of the Atheist is irrational, unreasonable; whether we follow the the theists argument, or even if we experiment with the strawman the Atheist creates. I am more and more convinced that man does not want to know the truth; and I am reminded of the ancient words that say," The evil flee from the light and love the darkness." I've never offended more men than when I'm telling the truth and I've never seen them more at ease than when they share a common ignorance. One in a thousand maybe, I have seen who truly care for the truth and rejoice when they find it. Together they hypothesize, experiment, find conclusions, and make theories and strive to understand one another, to find the truth and agree in one thing. These men are excellent and well hated amongst the ignorant who always resent them.
Well, keep these things in mind the next time one of you is debating with an atheist. Make reasonable demands of him, that he not take you out of context or force you to reply to his statements that do not address your position. I find that I am often bettered and taught by a sincere atheist, even more often than I am a theist. If you can walk slowly the path of respect in such inquiries, you may find that you can do much good for each others souls.
Likewise, theists in general take for granted that they are right and hobble around on crutches, arguments that dismiss people on principle. They parrot to themselves and to each other," They're blinded by the god of this age." or," The ways of God are foolishness to men and the ways of men are foolishness to God." or ,"The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, if they do make fools of themselves and say something stupid, and someone points it out and holds them accountable for it... suddenly their opponents are written of as having been hopelessly deceived by the great Satan himself. And other utterly stupid, unenlightened, and superstitious beliefs have they.
There never seems to be a shortage on the internet of fundamentalist Atheists and fundamentalist Christians to fight each other. It's as if each is the others private hell. They pass their time, futily trying to control each others beliefs and thoughts. In the midst of all this, they deteriorate into bizarre irrationalism and abandon what they said they had a sole claim to in the first place; namely, reason.
The product is a seemingly endless droning of illogical reasoning designed not so much to reveal the truth, but to torture and shame one another. Out of this comes an Atheist argument which seems natural," Show me God." However, very often they don't employ it to soundly defeat the theist or even to dumbfound them, but rather to embarrass the theist in front of whoever is watching. This argument is of course is a rather ignoble means on the Atheist's part, when so employed, to end the exhausting discussion by shaming his opponent instead of nobly claiming victory if it can be had through arguing well. Beginning like a man the atheist finishes like a boy, looking for a way to make his escape.
Further, before I continue onto my point which is actually quite brief, I have another criticism for both of them. That is, both sides only argue until one side is worn out; and the end point in the conversation is always for both of them their own position."We'll argue until one of us seems so right that the other is shamed beyond recovery." Yeah, that's the way to find the truth. And this is why I have a very egalitarian disposition towards the members of all such discussions, regardless of their beliefs.
Anyway, back to the whole point of the note, here. "Show me God," it seems to be a natural argument, doesn't it? Now, a natural question is necessarily a reasonable question, because reason is the course of nature and pertains to what exists and is fiduciary. However, the whole reason an Atheist supplies a reasonable question is to demonstrate that the theist has no reasonable answer.
But what we have here is a bifurcated strawman, which is an error of logic. If theists were claiming that God is quantitative, then asking to be shown God would be a reasonable request. However, it's quite the opposite isn't it? Mainstream theists, specifically Christians, maintain that God is uncreated and immeasurable. There are no measurable traits concerning God.
Imagine if you will that God is in form like a man. Let's just say that "God" in the most general sense is a man with the attribute of "immeasurability." His eye would be infinitely big and infinitely small; his knee would be infinitely big and infinitely small, and so on. He would be patently unobservable. There would be no point of reference to even make a measurement. These are the natural consequences of the theistic argument; God is immeasurable, therefore, God is unobservable.
Demanding to be shown God, then, is taking the theist out of context and demanding that he defend the strawman. That is absurd and ridiculous; not only because it has nothing to do with the argument of the theist, but because it demands the theist to defend something irrational. It's all highly irregular and unethical concerning civil discussions. Asking to be shown God is the same species of nonsense as if I were to tell you all that morality is 57cm long and periwinkle blue.
Aside from all this, even if this wasn't the case, and it's self-evident that it is, the request is still absurd. Let's say that God is observable, and therefore measurable. Let's play along with the Atheist. Now, imagine a little child begins to petulantly demand that an accurate and exhaustive explanation be given them concerning nuclear reactors. Do you suppose that just anyone of the child's peers will be able to teach him? No. Do you suppose that the older children will be able to teach him? No. Do you expect that the adults will be able to teach him? No. Only certain individuals will be able to supply that sort of knowledge; professors of high calibur, correct? And those scientists, don't they only teach to a select few other adults who have proven at length that they can understand what they will be taught? And so is the child even qualified to be taught by those teachers? No. Is the child even qualified to comprehend the discussion of the students? No. Can the child comprehend or understand the subject, then? No. Can the child's demand be met? Yes, a scientist could tell them everything they wanted to know. Will the child be satisfied? By no means, because he will not understand.
Now, imagine the child begins to mock the scientist because they couldn't teach him. Doesn't the child fail to realize that it was prevented from being satisfied in the inquiry because of its own ignorance and not that of the teacher's? So, if all these things naturally follow, how is it that Atheists have missed this? Not even the child would assume that everyone could be his teacher, but here the atheist demands that everyone who is a theist explain. The Atheist assumes that every theist is apt to teach on a subject they themselves couldn't possibly comprehend(God); it would be more reasonable to assume that all people who use nuclear power are nuclear physicists, and that is an insane notion. Even further, the Atheist takes for granted that they will understand perfectly everything that is propounded to them in the way of religion, science and evidences. What a singular dispensation of fortune these Atheists have, to understand everything and at all times!
How they can justify being dismissive of religion and God because someone made a weak argument for, I cannot tell. What's worse is when some poor wretch comes along and is tricked by the abundance of words into believing that the strawman the Atheist made for them is indeed their argument, then that poor unfortunate fool goes and defends the strawman to the death and fails utterly. And the Atheist pats himself on the back because he tricked a simple fellow into defending a strawman.
So, here we have it, that in both cases the request of the Atheist is irrational, unreasonable; whether we follow the the theists argument, or even if we experiment with the strawman the Atheist creates. I am more and more convinced that man does not want to know the truth; and I am reminded of the ancient words that say," The evil flee from the light and love the darkness." I've never offended more men than when I'm telling the truth and I've never seen them more at ease than when they share a common ignorance. One in a thousand maybe, I have seen who truly care for the truth and rejoice when they find it. Together they hypothesize, experiment, find conclusions, and make theories and strive to understand one another, to find the truth and agree in one thing. These men are excellent and well hated amongst the ignorant who always resent them.
Well, keep these things in mind the next time one of you is debating with an atheist. Make reasonable demands of him, that he not take you out of context or force you to reply to his statements that do not address your position. I find that I am often bettered and taught by a sincere atheist, even more often than I am a theist. If you can walk slowly the path of respect in such inquiries, you may find that you can do much good for each others souls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)