A buddy of mine named Tim had a few things to say about my last post, and nice conversation ensued about the different views of God's existence. The first part of the debate occured mostly on Facebook, so for for everyone's benefit I thought I'd post the entire discussion here.
***The following is a conversation resulting from a video I found on youtube called The Atheist. These comments were posted on Facebook.
Tim:
Branson,
This video is well made, well thought out, but it is also ridiculous. I appeals to an emotional, instead of an intellectual argument, like most religious arguments, and results in gaining no ground. The first point that is counter-intuitive is the premise, which has the main character becoming an atheist on emotional grounds. This is ... simply not the most common case. Most atheists do not believe in god because they have made argument after logical argument tearing down what has taken centuries construct: false hope, weak emotional strength, and disregard for fact. There are several arguments presented after the initial premise which again do nothing to argue actual facts. They present an emotional gap, and fill it with metaphor and poetry. Evil is the absence of good, like a donut? Seriously? God has morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering? Man's purpose is the knowledge of god? These arguments are not persuasive. Indeed, they are not even arguments.
Branson:
(1) I put this up for people who left God for emotional reasons, because believe it or not, most of the people I know that want nothing to do with God, Jesus, or anything church related, are that way because of an emotional reason. Not saying that's always the case or even mostly the case. That's just what I personally have been dealing with...
(2) If remaining on intellect alone is what it takes to have a civil conversation between a Christian and an atheist, then I am all for it. The problem is most of the time the atheist believes just as dogmatically in his "anti-faith" as the Christian does in his faith. In order to have that kind of conversation, the atheist would have to be as open-minded to the possibility that there may be a God as the Christian would that there may not be one. And sadly, that never happens. Ironically, for all his reliance on fact and science, at the end of the day, the atheist really only has "faith" that there is no God.
Tim:
I can accept you first point, as most of the 'athiest' you have probably come in contact with were just believers with angry doubts. On your second point I am truly sorry if you have been unable to have a civil conversation with an atheist, as I have had the same problem with Christians. I would have to completely disagree with your last point, as ...being an atheist means shedding all faith, including that which you may disagree with. It means basing your decisions on physical evidence and reasoned logic. As there is no evidence for god, there can be no reason to include him in your decisions. If you have some physical evidence for god, I would be pleased to see it, as would the rest of humanity. Only theists base their decisions not on fact, and anyone would be hard pressed to make such a comparison fairly.
Branson:
You're absolutely right....mankind is pressed for physical evidence of God. As a believer in Christ, I can show you the results of God's handiwork throughout all of creation. But at the end of the day, I can't introduce you to God so you can shake his hand. I can't let you see a snapshot of Him from my wallet. There is evidence of God's work, ...not evidence of Him. That's where, for the Christian, faith and personal experience take over and fill in the gaps. You can get close to seeing the existence of God on fact alone, but it takes a "leap of faith" (pardon the cliche phrase) to actually believe. The point I'm trying to make is that for someone who does not believe in a God, they have to do the same thing. A lack of evidence to support the existence of God does not mean that there is no God, only that God can't be--or is very difficult to be--proven. In order to prove there is no God, a man would have to investigate every occurrence, circumstance, and phenomenon in the entire universe throughout all of time and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no way a supreme being commonly known as God could have possibly intervened in anyway. And mankind simply does not have the science or understanding to do such a thing. So, for a man to believe that there is no God, he has to look at the evidence presented and allow his faith to fill in the gaps, just like a Christian. So really, to have your decision on God based solely on fact, the best you could hope for in the "no God" direction in agnosticism.
The following is a continuation of the conversation above. All comments were posted on the blog site.
Tim:
Ok. So I'm going to post a few of your statements, and I'll try to tackle them one at a time. I'm just going to take them at random, since that's how they seemed to come out, but I do not want to belittle these, I only want to show why I disagree with them. So here we go...
1. "The problem is most of the time the atheist believes just as dogmatically in his 'anti-faith' as the Christian does in his faith." ... "Ironically, for all his reliance on fact and science, at the end of the day, the atheist really only has 'faith' that there is no God."
Alright. It is a complete misstatement to suggest that an atheist only has 'faith' there is no God. This statement suggests not only do you not understand an atheist's viewpoint, but you do not understand the basics of logic. There are many definitions of faith, but I will use the Merriam-Webster definition: 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof'. To suggest that someone's lack of belief is the same as faith is simply wrong. You do not believe in fairies. This is because there is no proof of fairies. Your A-fairieism is NOT faith that there are not fairies. You do not have to dis-prove the existence of something. The burden of proof is upon the argument of existence. This is why you cannot prove a negative. An atheist does not believe there is no God, he does not believe in a God. A subtle but important difference. Faith has nothing to do with it. If there was proof for God's existence, and the atheist still did not believe, then you might be able to apply the word faith. Unfortunately, no such proof of God exists, thus neither does the logical argument.
Branson:
Good point. "Faith" was the wrong word to use here when it comes to atheist beliefs. Let me see if I can re-word this to get the point that I'm trying to make across....
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a belief or lack of belief in God ultimately comes down to a personal choice, not a result of scientific fact. A certain interpretation of the facts may cause someone to lean one way or the other, but the facts alone aren't enough to prove either way correct.
This isn't the best of illustrations, but it's all I can come up with at the moment. Let's say two men are presented with identical apple pies and asked the question, "Did a chef bake this pie?" One man looks at the pie and says, "I see that the apples in the pie have been cut, which suggests the work of an outside hand. I see that the ingredients necessary to make the pie are measured and blended in exactly the right way to create the taste that it has, which suggests intelligent design. Therefore, it must have been made by a chef." The second man looks at the pie and says, "There are no fingerprints on the dish or in the dough itself, so there couldn't have been hands involved in the making of this pie. I cannot see or speak with or touch this supposed chef. Therefore, since I find no evidence that a chef exists, this pie could not have been made by a chef."
Not the best illustration, but it makes the point. Looking at the pie alone won't tell you whether the pie was made by a chef or a machine, because the evidence in the pie is interpreted based on the presuppositions of the observer. We of course can't assume that just because we don't see fingerprints or a chef standing nearby means that there is no chef. But at the same time, the existence and particular construction of the pie alone isn't proof enough that a chef exists. In other words, the system itself is not enough evidence for or against the existence of the system's creator.
It's the same with science and God. A man who believes in God will look at scientific fact and interpret it according to his beliefs. An atheist will do the same thing, only he interprets the facts based on the assumption that there is no God. And a man who doesn't know either way, after looking at the evidence, will most likely remain that way, unsure of whether a God exists or not. All three of them have to at some point decide how they interpret the information.
I'm sure someone said this before me, so I'll put it in quotes: "A lack of evidence for something does not equal evidence to the contrary." In other words, a lack of physical evidence for God does not mean God doesn't exist. So, if a man wants to base his belief or lack of belief in God on physical evidence, all he can say is that God's existence is ultimately unknowable; it can't be proven or dis-proven. If he does not believe in God, it is because he chooses not to believe in God, and if he does believe in God, it is because he chooses to.
Forgive my long-windedness (I think the late hour might have something to do with it), but what I'm trying to say is this: Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question, because it can't be answered by science. It is a decision of the believer or non-believer, and all science can do for that decision is to be interpreted in light of it.
Tim:
"A lack of evidence for something does not equal evidence to the contrary."
Again, your argument is _explicitly_ valid. Unfortunately, it just isn't useful. To illustrate, I will use a commonly accepted truism: Unicorns do not exist. Now the implicit argument (modus tollens) is as follows:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Now, your argument holds weight here. There is a lack of evidence for unicorns, but that does not explicitly mean there have never been unicorns. The problem is that if we used this rule, we could never have a reasonable understanding of what exists and what doesn't. We could never KNOW anything. And while this is explicitly true, it isn't useful. The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can’t observe the future!), but because that’s what it has always done in the past.
The point here is that I do not have to go around disproving every crazy idea that someone can up with. The burden of proof is not upon me. The world works perfectly well (and makes sense too!) without God, and without evidence, it simply makes no sense to believe in him. And the implicit argument holds weight. So while I cannot incontrovertibly PROVE that God doesn't exist, I can infer it. The opposite is not true. You cannot infer the existence of God, mainly because it would require evidence to support it.
The point here is that the only valid argument that can refute the logic that suggests God does not exist, is the same argument that suppresses ALL logic by implying you cannot know anything. In my experience, it is a weak argument.
"Whether or not God exists is not a scientific question, because it can't be answered by science. It is a decision of the believer or non-believer, and all science can do for that decision is to be interpreted in light of it."
I don't know how to argue this. You seem to be suggesting that a conclusion (God's existence) is somehow immune to logic (the scientific method). When people believe things that are illogical and cannot be proven, they are deemed INSANE. Everything is a scientific question. You see, the 'system' is all that we have. It MUST be enough, as there is nothing else from which to gain evidence.
Branson:
Before Galileo improved the telescope and made his observations about the Sun being the center of our solar system, everyone believed the Earth was the center of the universe. That idea was based on all the observations available at the time. Without Galileo's discoveries, there would be little to no evidence that the sun is the center of our solar system. So, assuming something isn't so simply because it can't be proven with contemporary science isn't always the most correct assumption.
You said, "The world works perfectly well (and makes sense too!) without God, and without evidence it simply makes no sense to believe in him." This illustrates what I've been trying to say for the past few comments. Atheism is a choice of the person's heart. You can envision and understand a world with no God, so that is what you believe, and you interpret science as such, namely pointing that God cannot be physically proven. To me, the world works perfectly well and makes sense with God, and I have personal experiences with God as my evidence, so it makes perfect sense to me that He exists. Because I believe that, a lack of physical evidence simply means that He chooses not to reveal Himself in that manner. So for both of us, our choice of belief or disbelief in God determines how the science is interpreted, not the other way around. Right or wrong, our positions on this topic are a result of personal choice, not science.
As for the existence of God being inferred, that's been done several times. One such instance is Intelligent Design Theory, which "holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." You can read more about it at http://www.intelligentdesign.org . Another instance is Thomas Aquinas, who came up with five logical arguments for the existence of God. You can read them at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html . Both of these are cases where scientific evidence and logic point to the possible existence of God.
Now, here's the thing...a true atheist will read those arguments and immediately dismiss them or come up with another explanation for the "intelligent designer" or the "first cause" other than God. Why? Because he chooses not to believe in God. And that decision dictates his entire world view and how he interprets the information presented to him. There are brilliant, intelligent, logic-loving scientists who are willing to believe that life was seeded here on Earth by aliens from outer space simply because they refuse to believe in God.
So, in response to God's existence being immune to logic, it isn't immune; it simply isn't a conclusion. It's an axiom. Whether or not you believe in God determines how you view the world, not the other way around.
Just as an aside, despite the burden proof not falling on disproving God, I know of two men who tried to do just that. And at the end of it, they both ended up becoming Christians. One such man is Lee Strobel, who's written several books about his journey, including The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator. The other man is Josh McDowell, who's compiled all of his research into one volume called The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Their journeys to Christ might prove enlightening as you see how they came to the beliefs they have now.
Tim:
1. Making a reasoned conclusion from available data is not an assumption.
2. Atheism is not a choice. It is a reasoned conclusion. My position is completely based in science.
3. I am well read in Aquinas. His five logical arguments for the existence of God are primitive and easily refuted. Intelligent design is one of his five proofs, and it too is easily dismissed. You see, intelligent design states that the world is so fundamentally complex, that it HAD to have been designed. The problem here is that the basis for its necessity (the universe being so complex that it demands a creator) is its greatest flaw (dismissing God, infinitely more complex than the universe, as not needing a creator). It refutes its own axiom. Ridiculous.
4. God's existence may be an axiom to you, but it is simply another logical argument to everyone who bases their conclusions on fact.
5. As I stated initially, I am not trying to persuade you. I am trying to let you understand an atheist's point of view: physical evidence and reasoned logic. I think you will find this series interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=762A731FA12BCB57&search_query=thunderf00t
Branson:
Thanks for the link. Although I think Ray has some valid points, he at times comes across a little more argumentative than I would want to be.
I think this is the point where we start to spin wheels and just agree to disagree. My belief in God is my defining point. Everything that I am and everything that I believe to be real about everything flows from assuming that the God of the Bible is real and active in my life. To you, God is an exercise in logic and reason, and short of God himself coming down and making Himself known, you don't believe He exists. And it seems there's no middle-ground where one of us can pull the other to the other side.
So, before this gets to be a long repetition of beating dead horses, and I start to sound exactly like the Bible-thwacking "Christians" that I take issue with, let me say thank you so much for the chance to talk. As I said before, this conversation has made me think hard about why I believe what I believe, and sadly that is something that just doesn't happen often enough for those who do believe in God.
I'd like to make just one more statement. Jesus said, "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened for you." (Matthew 7:7). Jesus was mainly talking about God providing for the needs of His people, but I would say that offer extends to beyond simple physical needs. If you earnestly seek after God, you will find Him. To the one who wants to know Him, He reveals Himself, and the science and the logic and everything else starts to work itself out. The issue is whether or not a man is willing to seek after God, to know Him.
So, if you're absolutely sure that there is no God to know, and nothing will make you even consider the contrary, then I applaud you for your steadfastness to your convictions--it is a lesson I wish some "Christians" would learn. But if there is ever a time that you even consider the possibility of God's existence, I promise you that if you look for Him, you will find Him.
Thanks again so much for this discussion. I hope its been as engaging and thought provoking for you as it has been for me. And feel free to comment on any of my posts that you feel a desire to. The last thing I want is the God issue to be a source of alienation for either one of us. Besides, it makes me feel good to know that somebody is actually reading my posts. ;-) Until next time, take care.
***This is pretty much where the conversation ended. I enjoyed the debate and am glad that Tim and I were able to discuss our beliefs without getting at each other's throats. A good debate every now and then is good for the soul.
Feel free to comment or ask questions. I'm always here.
Keep Soaring,
B
No comments:
Post a Comment