I find it possible to sympathize with the agnostic (though not with agnosticism). How can you argue with a man who says he doesn’t know? You can only agree and ask for the privilege of helping. One beggar telling another where he has found bread. Of course there are two kinds of agnostics. There is the tentative agnosticism of indecision which confesses merely “I don’t know.” Then there is the dogmatic agnosticism of arrogance which declares that the fact of God’s existence cannot be known. The second is, of course, but atheism thinly disguised. And for atheism we have no sympathy. The atheist we may regard. But to his views we offer no quarter. Let us consider one of the bedrock arguments which issues from that school.
The most obvious problem with atheism is that it accounts for nothing. How intellectually engaged people can be attracted to a system which can account for nothing at all escapes me, but there it is. Sartre, himself an atheist, had the courage to admit that the greatest philosophical problem is why there is something rather than nothing. You bet that’s a problem for atheism .And how. And an insoluble one at that. But the objection is deftly countered by proponents of the New Atheism Chic. Led by the likes of Professor Dawkins they respond:
“Of course we cannot account for the existence of the material universe. But neither can theists account for the existence of God. So the problems are equivalent. We are stymied then, and the score is a tie.”
But the score is not tied. The two “problems” -as a moment’s reflection will demonstrate - are manifestly not equivalent.
It was Aristotle (no evangelical he) who insisted that mind was much more likely to produce non-mind (or lesser minds) than non-mind was likely to produce mind. And Aristotle was absolutely right.
Dawkins’ difficulty (which he freely admits) is that he is not able to conceptualize God. He simply cannot imagine an uncreated Creator. And he begs that we not believe in God for that very reason viz. that he, Professor Dawkins, cannot imagine God. Forgive me if I don’t find that a compelling reason for unbelief.
Is it necessary for lesser creatures to comprehend the superior qualities in a higher creature (in this case the Creator) for those qualities to be validated? A dog may not be able to comprehend a good deal about a man: e.g. how a man can ride a bicycle, play a piano or read a newspaper? Is it rational to argue that the incomprehensibility of those capacities at a lower level of creation in any way vitiates their reality? That would be foolish in the extreme would it not? But it is exactly that kind of foolishness which Professor Dawkins asks us to base our convictions about ultimate questions upon.
To illustrate let us return to Aristotle’s principle.
The atheist asks us to believe that by a kind of spontaneous auto-generation the inanimate components of the universe appeared (this is so obviously far-fetched that the atheist sometimes pleads the eternal existence of matter- a proposition itself just as unlikely).These inanimate components SOMEHOW randomly combine to produce –Voila! - entities infinitely complex: quasars and neurons and ganglia and peacocks and other phenomena wondrous to behold. And we are asked to believe that such a thing is ACTUALLY MORE LIKELY than the alternative that a supernatural Creator is at the back of everything. Now let us break the argument down analogically and test its plausibility.
Consider for a moment Michelangelo and the ‘David’, the sculptor and his sculpture. There are certain inanimate components in the art. There is stone and color. There are certain animate components in the artist. There is brain and blood. Which is more likely, that the components in the art produced the artist or that the components in the artist produced the art? If you protest that the analogy is not proximate I maintain that this is PRECISELY the argument the atheist proffers.
And the argument is arrant nonsense.
The problems are not equivalent.
The score is not tied.
There is intelligence in the universe because there is a Mind behind it all.
There are extant components of personality because a personal God created what is there.
Love suffuses our being because love was the motive for Creation.
A marvelous patient love which is willing to endure even the most contemptible assaults on the reality of the Lover.
But we are told that even divine endurance has limits.
The most obvious problem with atheism is that it accounts for nothing. How intellectually engaged people can be attracted to a system which can account for nothing at all escapes me, but there it is. Sartre, himself an atheist, had the courage to admit that the greatest philosophical problem is why there is something rather than nothing. You bet that’s a problem for atheism .And how. And an insoluble one at that. But the objection is deftly countered by proponents of the New Atheism Chic. Led by the likes of Professor Dawkins they respond:
“Of course we cannot account for the existence of the material universe. But neither can theists account for the existence of God. So the problems are equivalent. We are stymied then, and the score is a tie.”
But the score is not tied. The two “problems” -as a moment’s reflection will demonstrate - are manifestly not equivalent.
It was Aristotle (no evangelical he) who insisted that mind was much more likely to produce non-mind (or lesser minds) than non-mind was likely to produce mind. And Aristotle was absolutely right.
Dawkins’ difficulty (which he freely admits) is that he is not able to conceptualize God. He simply cannot imagine an uncreated Creator. And he begs that we not believe in God for that very reason viz. that he, Professor Dawkins, cannot imagine God. Forgive me if I don’t find that a compelling reason for unbelief.
Is it necessary for lesser creatures to comprehend the superior qualities in a higher creature (in this case the Creator) for those qualities to be validated? A dog may not be able to comprehend a good deal about a man: e.g. how a man can ride a bicycle, play a piano or read a newspaper? Is it rational to argue that the incomprehensibility of those capacities at a lower level of creation in any way vitiates their reality? That would be foolish in the extreme would it not? But it is exactly that kind of foolishness which Professor Dawkins asks us to base our convictions about ultimate questions upon.
To illustrate let us return to Aristotle’s principle.
The atheist asks us to believe that by a kind of spontaneous auto-generation the inanimate components of the universe appeared (this is so obviously far-fetched that the atheist sometimes pleads the eternal existence of matter- a proposition itself just as unlikely).These inanimate components SOMEHOW randomly combine to produce –Voila! - entities infinitely complex: quasars and neurons and ganglia and peacocks and other phenomena wondrous to behold. And we are asked to believe that such a thing is ACTUALLY MORE LIKELY than the alternative that a supernatural Creator is at the back of everything. Now let us break the argument down analogically and test its plausibility.
Consider for a moment Michelangelo and the ‘David’, the sculptor and his sculpture. There are certain inanimate components in the art. There is stone and color. There are certain animate components in the artist. There is brain and blood. Which is more likely, that the components in the art produced the artist or that the components in the artist produced the art? If you protest that the analogy is not proximate I maintain that this is PRECISELY the argument the atheist proffers.
And the argument is arrant nonsense.
The problems are not equivalent.
The score is not tied.
There is intelligence in the universe because there is a Mind behind it all.
There are extant components of personality because a personal God created what is there.
Love suffuses our being because love was the motive for Creation.
A marvelous patient love which is willing to endure even the most contemptible assaults on the reality of the Lover.
But we are told that even divine endurance has limits.
2 comments:
Sometimes it's hard to find hope to continue talking to this group. We need to do so however, not for the Dawkins among us but for those whose minds are still willing to observe and question.
God Bless - See you there.
lulz there is no evidence for your god. You say it's a tie? How? That makes no sense. Your whole argument is that their is love in the universe. Therefore god.
I say if one goes by the bible and the bible is suppose to be the TRUTH. Yet their are contradictions all in it Then the bible is not the truth. Therefore the christian god is invalid. So there are no other ways to get to the truth when the bible is labeled invalid. The only way is through evidence and to date there is none for a personal god.
Post a Comment