One story was about Frank Tipler, a mathematics professor at Tulane University who uses Einstein's theories of general relativity and theories of quantum mechanics to come to the conclusion that God must exist.
The other is a debate between Kirk Cameron (yes, that Kirk Cameron) and another evangelical friend who use three arguments to "prove" God exists and the rebuttal from two atheists who come across as equally fanatical in their arguments.
For the record, I think it is a travesty when people refuse to use their ability to critically think about something and instead trot out trite, emotional, vapid arguments either for or against. There were several good points from both sides, and several arguments that just made me cringe with their silliness.
Here is a suggestion. If you are going to use logic, then use it correctly.
Several of the points atheists often use to refute the existence of God were used in all their "originality." Please pardon my smarminess as I share them with you so you can revel in their illogic.
1. Horrible things have been done in the name of religion, so God does not exist
2. Different religions cannot agree on what God is, so God does not exist
3. People have believed in gods such as Poseidon who we know does not exist, so God does not exist
4. The Bible tells you that you can do anything and be loved by God, so God does not exist.
5. God wouldn't invent cancer or evil, so there must not be a God.
6. Every journey of 1,000 miles begins with the a single step. Micro-evolution exists, so therefore macro-evolution must exist.
This last is my favorite. We learned in logic class on day one that
(If A Then B) does not infer that (If B then A)
(If it is a car then it has wheels) does not infer (If it has wheels it must be a car)
Every journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, but not every step leads to a journey of a thousand miles.
I would not have any problem if instead they said "Because horrible things have happened in the name of God I choose not to follow or worship that God" because that is logical. I believe in God and subscribe to that statement. To say that God doesn't exist because I choose not to follow Him is not logical. (Isn't the English language fun!)
I also love seeing people in opposite corners engaging in silly accusations and definitive statements.
We can't trust science because science has been wrong (flat earth, sun revolves around the earth).
We can't trust the Bible because it contradicts itself and advocates slavery, stoning, polygamy (therefore God doesn't exist).
Scientist: We cannot prove God with science because science is about the natural, not the supernatural. To even ask the question is absurd.
Priest: God cannot be proven by math. He can only be proven by faith.
Me: We learned in Biology class that you can prove that spontaneous generation never has occurred, but not that it can never occur.
Here is an interchange between evangelists and atheists with some of my comments interjected.
Believer:
I see a painting, I know there was a painter.
I see a house, I know there was a builder.
I see a universe, I know there was a creator.
Atheist:
You know there was a painter because you can call him.
You know there was a builder because you know he had to get building permits.
You can't call God to verify He exists.
Me: If you found a painting, but there was no historical record of the painter, wouldn't you still believe there was a painter? Have you called the builders of Stonehenge, the heads on Easter Island, the Nazca lines, or the sphinx?
Believer:
Micro-evolution is one thing. We know each species evolves. That doesn't mean species evolve into other species (macro-evolution).
There is no fossil record of these missing links. Darwin himself said if we didn't find evidence within 100 years the theory would be suspect.
Atheist:
We don't need to see no stinking fossil records to believe in evolution.
Me: We don't need no stinking painter, either. You can't have it both ways, dude!
I fully admit I have had several days to ponder on the arguments made by both sides. I have picked more on the atheists only because they were so darn condescending and self-righteous and because we have pretty much heard all the evangelical arguments before. I would have made mistakes in the debate format because I am a ponderer, not a rapid thinker. I have to cogitate.
The point I am trying to make is that they would have had much more effect in uncovering the truth by engaging in a dialog rather than a competition. By critically thinking we can uncover the truth. In order to do so we must be detached from the outcome, be committed to finding the truth, and expect to find clues in the most unusual places. No question is absurd. To find the truth is to ask questions.
I got a little worked up about this one. I find that exploring truth works with just about anyone, and it is usually those with the least amount of faith who feel most threatened, whether they believe in God or not. I'd love to hear what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment