My best friend Marc posted this video on Facebook and said that he found it interesting, so I thought that I would check it out. It's about 10 minutes long, but is worth the watch...
The argument is nothing new. God simply cannot be proved with foundational, empirical evidence. And to this guy (who is definitely smart), no god at all can be proved based on any kind of logic. This is true. I guess my response back would be: God is outside of our logic, that is why He can seem illogical. All of the classical arguments for God attempt to use logic in order to form a scientifically acceptable persuasion as to whether God exists or not. And while there are a lot of good arguments, they all eventually fall short. It stands that an argument for God's existence cannot be based on human logic. Point conceded.
Also, these arguments for God do not necessitate the existence of a Christian God.
The point that I do not agree with is when he says that even if there IS a higher intelligence there is no way of making specific claims about it (for example, saying that he is loving, and forgiving). He argues that a statement like "an alien created the universe with a push of a button" would be just as valid as making claims that the creator of the universe is a loving savior. I disagree with that based on the arguments of religious tradition, and God's self-revelation. I believe that the tradition handed down to us through the Bible (by its various editors and writers) concerning God and Israel to be true. I believe that the same God whom I worship is loving and forgiving, etc. because he revealed himself to be so (most perfectly in the person of Jesus Christ). I believe the Christian God to be a God who has revealed himself both by breaking-in from outside of AND working within the laws of nature.
Over all, the argument is a scientific one that is based in the foundational and empirical reasoning of modernism. This mindset assumes that science is the be all and end all of everything. Have a problem? Science can solve it. Whatever science dictates is true. And while science does have value, purpose, and truth, it cannot (by necessity) provide all the answers. Even the most basic of science and math can be deconstructed to the point of belief. If we break something down enough it inevitably gets to a point where we just have to shrug our shoulders and say, "because I believe it to be true." The is true about science and religion. Start with any principle or belief and if you keep breaking it down, and peeling away at it there comes a point where you just can't explain it anymore, and that is where belief comes in.
But this is an argument that has been going on, and will continue to go on for...well, until the end of us. It will not be resolved here.
While I might not agree with every point of argument that this obviously very intelligent man makes, I do agree with his final assessment. Who we have faith in should dictate how we treat others. Since we believe in an all-loving, forgiving God who gave Himself up on the cross...it follows that we should strive to be loving, forgiving, and sacrificial. Demeaning people based on what they believe is not love. Love is giving, forgiving, listening, dialoging, communing, laughing, and crying with and to one another.
Even though this guy delivers this message at the end of an argument that basically states "a Christian God is illogical, and wrong", I still believe that his final statement is a noble one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
One of the best thinker's of the age, C.S. Lewis made these statements, "When I was an atheist I had to try and persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was to take a more liberal view."
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."
The point obvious to me about this video is not that the arguments aren't valid (even though at some point they aren't) it's that the author of the video is not asking the right questions.
He puts a lot of stress on how wrong Christians are (and yes he is specifically targeting Christians, though unstated) in how they treat others, but where did he come up with right and wrong at all? The hilarious point of the whole thing is that all of his arguments are coming from a moral foundation that nothing other than Christianity has given him. The guy is clearly biased, and though he may be intelligent, a biased intelligence will only ask the questions and come up with the answers that it wants to hear.
"Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God didn't exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning."
AJ Finch
(thefinchssong.blogspot.com)
Post a Comment