One of the most persuasive arguments against the existence of an omniscient, omnibenevolent God is the level of pain and suffering in this world. Dostoevsky brings the full force of this argument home in The Brothers Karamazov. However, it's interesting to note that it is in the very instant that this argument succeeds that it must necessarily fail. For if we are, indeed, merely animals, where do we ground our moral objections to these events? If Hitler's and Pol Pot's and Stalin's and Chairman Mao's actions are morally indefensible, in what sense are they immoral? If we agree that genocide is objectively wrong, on what basis do we believe this?
A few weeks ago, Richard Dawkins publicly refused to debate William Lane Craig when the latter visited London. Among Dawkins' many excuses, he stated, "Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that [a defense of Yahweh's commands with respect to the Canaanites in the Old Testament]? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty."
The problem is that Dawkins himself has claimed in his published work, "Nature is not cruel, pitiless, indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous -- indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose." If Dawkins were right, then genocide itself, committed as it would then be by mere animals, would be "neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind," and therefore, he would have no reason to criticize either Craig or God.
I certainly agree with those who say that inconsistent behaviour of Christians is the main reason many reject Christianity. But I think it's particularly fascinating to note that, while someone like Dawkins pretends to hold the moral high ground in his complaints about Yahweh and Craig, he has publicly stated that pedophilia is not necessarily grievously wrong, that there should be provisions for parents to kill their disabled children up to two years of age, and that rape is not necessarily objectively wrong.
Interestingly, the commission of terrible crimes against children by religious in the Roman Catholic and other churches made public in the media in recent years has not served in any way to lessen the objective wrongness of those actions. Indeed, if possible, these actions seem all the more wrong for having been committed by people who represent the faith in such a prominent way. However much damage these priests and ministers have done to individuals within the church, however much damage they have done to the Church itself, they have strengthened, not weakened, the opinion of the objective moral depravity of their actions.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Stephen Hawking says...
Well, according to today's news, Stephen Hawking has figured out that God didn't create the universe. Now, as it happens, he does expect me to believe in aliens and M-theory: "11 space-time dimensions, 'vibrating strings, ... point particles, two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs and other objects that are more difficult to picture and occupy even more dimensions of space'" (CNN.com). Maybe I'm misunderstanding Occam's Razor here, but it seems infinitely simpler to buy the idea of God than this rather tortuous workaround.
In any case, Hawking seems to have missed the point. When I ask the question, "Why am I alive?" the answer, "Because gametes from your parents joined and the resulting blastocyst implanted and began to divide," is obviously not the answer to my question, whether or not the response is technically correct. It seems to me that the only questions that can occur to me are those that are ultimately answerable, and answerable in the real sense in which I mean them.
In any case, Hawking seems to have missed the point. When I ask the question, "Why am I alive?" the answer, "Because gametes from your parents joined and the resulting blastocyst implanted and began to divide," is obviously not the answer to my question, whether or not the response is technically correct. It seems to me that the only questions that can occur to me are those that are ultimately answerable, and answerable in the real sense in which I mean them.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Death
Today a student stopped by my office for a conference. In the course of our discussion, she mentioned the number of people she knows who have died recently. It seems to have provoked a questioning of faith (I'm not sure where her faith was at to begin with). I wish I had more freedom to discuss faith issues with my students. I would have liked to have told her this:
We're going to die anyway, whether you believe in God or not--that's a given. Your choice is to believe that there IS some meaning to it all, and that one day you'll understand that meaning OR that there is no meaning...period. It's just a fact of life...period. Your choice is to believe that you will never, ever see your loved ones again OR that you will be with them again for eternity. The reality of the separation imposed by death in this life won't change if you reject God. In the face of loss, in the face of death, you have the power to hope, to believe, to be victorious OR you can choose to despair, to be overcome with grief, or at best to pick up the pieces and plod onward, knowing your own death waits inexorably in the wings; neither your death nor your life will have ultimate meaning.
This, folks, is the ultimate no-brainer. I wish I'd told her.
We're going to die anyway, whether you believe in God or not--that's a given. Your choice is to believe that there IS some meaning to it all, and that one day you'll understand that meaning OR that there is no meaning...period. It's just a fact of life...period. Your choice is to believe that you will never, ever see your loved ones again OR that you will be with them again for eternity. The reality of the separation imposed by death in this life won't change if you reject God. In the face of loss, in the face of death, you have the power to hope, to believe, to be victorious OR you can choose to despair, to be overcome with grief, or at best to pick up the pieces and plod onward, knowing your own death waits inexorably in the wings; neither your death nor your life will have ultimate meaning.
This, folks, is the ultimate no-brainer. I wish I'd told her.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Free Will
Today I overheard our resident atheistic philosophy instructor discussing with a student in the hallway the topic of Free Will. I very nearly laughed out loud to hear him stating that, in his view, we do have Free Will, limited, of course, by such things as our cultural milieu.
The reason I found this to be so funny is that it seems to me that there can be no Free Will outside of God's Existence. While I recognize that there are some difficulties with reconciling God's Will with Free Will, nonetheless, it is clear to me that God's Existence is a prerequisite to Free Will. And here is why.
If we posit an existence based on random chance and not some grand design, there is no ultimate plan against which our choices make any difference. There's no particular reason to believe that anything we choose to do, whether driven by pure choice or by biological determinism will take us to any particular point. In the first place, then, we have no point of reference against which to measure our beginning, middle, or end points. Ultimately we will be wherever we end up being, with no one end point being better than any other end point. Second, without a point of reference above our human one, if we are mere animals among other animals, in what sense can our choices be meaningful? How is our choice to feed the hungry any different than, say, a dog's choice to feed its young? It's immaterial--irrelevant. Whether we choose because we "thought about it and made a conscious decision" or moved in that direction by virtue of some biological imperative means absolutely nothing, and there is no frame of reference from which to make any judgement about the action. How could we possibly ever have a clear enough vision to be able to see above the circumstances in which our decisions are formed to understand our motivations. No, only an omniscient God could determine the influence of our circumstances on our decision making.
In my humble opinion, when a secular humanist rejects God, he or she must henceforth reject Free Will. And yet, is it not clear to us as humans that there is Free Will? And if we sense that Free Will exists, is it not as compared with some grand design, some master plan? As difficult as it may be to understand the paradox of Divine and Free Will co-existing, is it not very natural for us to understand it? We see it in politics all the time at election time, when voting for one's preferred candidate will only serve to take a vote away from the most plausible candidate closest to the voter's own political views. We see it when a parent takes a child for a walk, only to lose the child in traffic when the child pulls out of the parent's grip.
We know that we have Free Will, but we also know there are serious limitations to that Free Will, not only culturally and socially, but also as an individual's free Will must conflict with the Free Will of others; in addition, it can only be free to the degree to which we understand the ramifications of the choice. Thus, the apparent conflict between Divine Will and Free Will only describes what our human nature sees occurring every day.
The reason I found this to be so funny is that it seems to me that there can be no Free Will outside of God's Existence. While I recognize that there are some difficulties with reconciling God's Will with Free Will, nonetheless, it is clear to me that God's Existence is a prerequisite to Free Will. And here is why.
If we posit an existence based on random chance and not some grand design, there is no ultimate plan against which our choices make any difference. There's no particular reason to believe that anything we choose to do, whether driven by pure choice or by biological determinism will take us to any particular point. In the first place, then, we have no point of reference against which to measure our beginning, middle, or end points. Ultimately we will be wherever we end up being, with no one end point being better than any other end point. Second, without a point of reference above our human one, if we are mere animals among other animals, in what sense can our choices be meaningful? How is our choice to feed the hungry any different than, say, a dog's choice to feed its young? It's immaterial--irrelevant. Whether we choose because we "thought about it and made a conscious decision" or moved in that direction by virtue of some biological imperative means absolutely nothing, and there is no frame of reference from which to make any judgement about the action. How could we possibly ever have a clear enough vision to be able to see above the circumstances in which our decisions are formed to understand our motivations. No, only an omniscient God could determine the influence of our circumstances on our decision making.
In my humble opinion, when a secular humanist rejects God, he or she must henceforth reject Free Will. And yet, is it not clear to us as humans that there is Free Will? And if we sense that Free Will exists, is it not as compared with some grand design, some master plan? As difficult as it may be to understand the paradox of Divine and Free Will co-existing, is it not very natural for us to understand it? We see it in politics all the time at election time, when voting for one's preferred candidate will only serve to take a vote away from the most plausible candidate closest to the voter's own political views. We see it when a parent takes a child for a walk, only to lose the child in traffic when the child pulls out of the parent's grip.
We know that we have Free Will, but we also know there are serious limitations to that Free Will, not only culturally and socially, but also as an individual's free Will must conflict with the Free Will of others; in addition, it can only be free to the degree to which we understand the ramifications of the choice. Thus, the apparent conflict between Divine Will and Free Will only describes what our human nature sees occurring every day.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Why I Am Not Atheist: Why Atheism is Unreasonable
A few days ago, after having read a string of comments at the Raving-Atheist-Turned-Raving-Theist blog, I had a revelation. Having some friends who are atheist, I have tried to think of ways to explain my faith to them that they can comprehend, and I think I may have stumbled onto something.
I've often thought that if God created people of varying levels of intellect, it would be unfair to make access to faith in Him easier for those of higher intelligence. When I explained this to an atheist friend, she argued that it shouldn't, however, be more difficult or impossible for those of higher intelligence to have access to God because of their reliance on reasoning. Although there is something within me that thinks there might be more fairness in this than she thinks, I've given some thought to her complaint and now might actually have an answer.
Atheists (in particular, weak atheists) want proof that God exists. I have heard many of them state that they would be willing to entertain the possibility of God's existence if anyone would just offer clear proof of His Existence. This seems reasonable. However, I'm going to explain why this position is actually quite unreasonable.
What do we know about the Judeo-Christian God? The most fundamental thing that we know about the God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures is that He exists. This may appear to the uninitiated as merely begging the question; however, it is not. Let me explain. When Moses asked God who He was, "God said to Moses, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you" ' " (Exodus 3:14).
This matters because it is, therefore, impossible to understand Yahweh God outside of His existing. If an atheist says, "I am willing to entertain a belief in God if you can prove He exists," that position is unreasonable. We can't discuss God outside of His existence, since that is a fundamental principle of who He is. Christians often explain that one must have faith, but that seems nonsense to one who views rational thought as supreme. However, the position can be explained quite reasonably when we realize that if ongoing existence is a fundamental characteristic of God, then positing a God who may or may not exist does not take us to a discussion of the Judeo-Christian God, but to a discussion of someone or something quite different. In the same way that we cannot discuss the hypothetical responses of a golden retriever which is reptilian or a snake with four legs, so we cannot discuss the nature of a Judeo-Christian God who does not or even may not exist. For any atheist to reasonably discuss the nature of God, he or she must, first of all, acknowledge God's existence.
Thus, the most reasonable of atheists cannot begin to explain his or her atheistic belief (or lack of belief) because a discussion of God requires taking an initial position of acceptance of His ongoing existence.
I've often thought that if God created people of varying levels of intellect, it would be unfair to make access to faith in Him easier for those of higher intelligence. When I explained this to an atheist friend, she argued that it shouldn't, however, be more difficult or impossible for those of higher intelligence to have access to God because of their reliance on reasoning. Although there is something within me that thinks there might be more fairness in this than she thinks, I've given some thought to her complaint and now might actually have an answer.
Atheists (in particular, weak atheists) want proof that God exists. I have heard many of them state that they would be willing to entertain the possibility of God's existence if anyone would just offer clear proof of His Existence. This seems reasonable. However, I'm going to explain why this position is actually quite unreasonable.
What do we know about the Judeo-Christian God? The most fundamental thing that we know about the God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures is that He exists. This may appear to the uninitiated as merely begging the question; however, it is not. Let me explain. When Moses asked God who He was, "God said to Moses, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you" ' " (Exodus 3:14).
This matters because it is, therefore, impossible to understand Yahweh God outside of His existing. If an atheist says, "I am willing to entertain a belief in God if you can prove He exists," that position is unreasonable. We can't discuss God outside of His existence, since that is a fundamental principle of who He is. Christians often explain that one must have faith, but that seems nonsense to one who views rational thought as supreme. However, the position can be explained quite reasonably when we realize that if ongoing existence is a fundamental characteristic of God, then positing a God who may or may not exist does not take us to a discussion of the Judeo-Christian God, but to a discussion of someone or something quite different. In the same way that we cannot discuss the hypothetical responses of a golden retriever which is reptilian or a snake with four legs, so we cannot discuss the nature of a Judeo-Christian God who does not or even may not exist. For any atheist to reasonably discuss the nature of God, he or she must, first of all, acknowledge God's existence.
Thus, the most reasonable of atheists cannot begin to explain his or her atheistic belief (or lack of belief) because a discussion of God requires taking an initial position of acceptance of His ongoing existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)