Saturday, July 31, 2010
A problem for apologists and their description of "God".
"God" is said to be the creator of ALL things and to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial yet is said to exist "eternally". This alone seems quite absurd and logically impossible. We cannot, reasonably, even speak of "his" existence "prior" to the big bang, or "Creation", because there was no time. This calls into question the claim that "he" is "eternal" as it is relative to time necessarily. If time is finite, as claimed by the defenders of the faith, then nothing can be eternal and even making such a statement is little more than a tautology as "time is finite" and "nothing is eternal" are basically stating the same proposition. This would mean that without the universe (or all things said to be "created") this immaterial being, "God", exists, or existed, at no place and at no time. Could there be a more clear and concise way to state that there was nothing? This means that without the existence of the universe "God" has nothing on which to reflect or contemplate and no time in which to do so. This means that "he" has no time in which to will to action nor any time or place in which an action can be performed. It would defy logic to even contemplate what reasons "he" might have had for creating anything or how and/or why "he" had a desire to do so. For "God" there was nothing that was necessary, nothing to value and no reason to value anything. It is what we value, as Humans, and/or what is necessary for our health, welfare and quality of life that leads us to have desire. What is necessary to maintain our life and what we value depend necessarily on the Human condition and these things make us who we are in nature/character. There would be no reason for "God" to have any such character or "nature". It It seems to me, based on such arguments, that "God" is nothing more than a sophisticated Human abstraction projected, quite literally, onto naught or into the void.
This was my response to a criticism of "New Atheism" which claimed "..it represents such a wimpy, unserious atheism..".
In response to the blog posted here: http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/June-2010/Culture--Give-Me-That-Old-Time-Atheism.aspx#comments
Being an atheist myself I can appreciate much of what is being said but I do believe that most, if not all, of these people honestly do not believe and I know of no secret conspiracy or hidden agenda. I believe that much of the recent increase in vocal opposition to religious beliefs comes from the genuine belief that they pose a threat to civil society and that much of what we have come to call "New Atheism" is largely a result of the 9/11 attacks and Islamic terrorism. I suppose that such a threat could be argued as unnecessarily exaggerated or that atheism as an alternative could even pose a threat in and of itself but I doubt that it could be argued successfully that that religious beliefs and actions resulting from those beliefs pose no potential threat at all. I also don't think that most atheists would fall under "New Atheism" or that most are even vocal in their disbelief. People are often offended just to discover that I do not believe and I can imagine that, given the possible consequences, that many people keep their atheism to themselves, especially here in the US and in other countries where religious beliefs are a serious part of peoples lives. I am certainly vocal but don't always agree with the tone of many of the "New Atheists" or the manner in which many of them conduct themselves and don't see religious beliefs as being void of any value. If it were not for my religious upbringing as the son of a minister I'm not sure that I would have the interest in, or understanding of, the world that I now have. It was my doubt that introduced me to critical thinking, philosophy, science and literature and those things have become very precious to me. There were many ideas that I could not even grasp previous to my recognition and admission of the fact that I could not believe. For me to say that I do not believe in the existence of a "God" is simply a fact. I don't know how I could choose to accept any claim of that nature from any religious faith. I am also skeptical of the profession of many others as it seems that their lives and actions are not consistent with their claims and, in fact, I find it hard to believe that this doubt does not exist among many who profess belief, present company included. Explaining my disbelief, however honest, has been quite a challenge given that I have never been seriously challenged concerning my rejection of astrology, alchemy, Sikhism, Hindu, reincarnation or other religious beliefs outside of the Christian or "Abrahamic" traditions. It is easy to accuse someone like myself as simply being obtuse but that claim can be made with supporting argument about a Christian from a Muslim and if you doubt this then maybe you have not engaged one in a debate to see for yourself. Even a well versed Mormon or Jehovah's witness can offer a serious challenge to views seen as more "Orthodox". However shallow some of the explanations may be it doesn't mean that atheists are not genuine or serious about their concerns. Not every atheist, or believer for that matter, has put significant time or effort into defending their position and some may not feel it even necessary to do so. I have no formal education beyond High School and only my sincere interest in such a subject and my own seeking has equipped me to offer any argument at all. We may not agree on whether or not religious beliefs plausibly pose any serious threat to anyone but it is true that they have an extremely significant impact on the world it seems to me that this provides reasons that are more than sufficient to subject such ideas to serious criticism. As Thomas Paine said "It is error only, never truth, that shrinks from inquiry" and I see no reason that any idea should be immune from criticism.
Being an atheist myself I can appreciate much of what is being said but I do believe that most, if not all, of these people honestly do not believe and I know of no secret conspiracy or hidden agenda. I believe that much of the recent increase in vocal opposition to religious beliefs comes from the genuine belief that they pose a threat to civil society and that much of what we have come to call "New Atheism" is largely a result of the 9/11 attacks and Islamic terrorism. I suppose that such a threat could be argued as unnecessarily exaggerated or that atheism as an alternative could even pose a threat in and of itself but I doubt that it could be argued successfully that that religious beliefs and actions resulting from those beliefs pose no potential threat at all. I also don't think that most atheists would fall under "New Atheism" or that most are even vocal in their disbelief. People are often offended just to discover that I do not believe and I can imagine that, given the possible consequences, that many people keep their atheism to themselves, especially here in the US and in other countries where religious beliefs are a serious part of peoples lives. I am certainly vocal but don't always agree with the tone of many of the "New Atheists" or the manner in which many of them conduct themselves and don't see religious beliefs as being void of any value. If it were not for my religious upbringing as the son of a minister I'm not sure that I would have the interest in, or understanding of, the world that I now have. It was my doubt that introduced me to critical thinking, philosophy, science and literature and those things have become very precious to me. There were many ideas that I could not even grasp previous to my recognition and admission of the fact that I could not believe. For me to say that I do not believe in the existence of a "God" is simply a fact. I don't know how I could choose to accept any claim of that nature from any religious faith. I am also skeptical of the profession of many others as it seems that their lives and actions are not consistent with their claims and, in fact, I find it hard to believe that this doubt does not exist among many who profess belief, present company included. Explaining my disbelief, however honest, has been quite a challenge given that I have never been seriously challenged concerning my rejection of astrology, alchemy, Sikhism, Hindu, reincarnation or other religious beliefs outside of the Christian or "Abrahamic" traditions. It is easy to accuse someone like myself as simply being obtuse but that claim can be made with supporting argument about a Christian from a Muslim and if you doubt this then maybe you have not engaged one in a debate to see for yourself. Even a well versed Mormon or Jehovah's witness can offer a serious challenge to views seen as more "Orthodox". However shallow some of the explanations may be it doesn't mean that atheists are not genuine or serious about their concerns. Not every atheist, or believer for that matter, has put significant time or effort into defending their position and some may not feel it even necessary to do so. I have no formal education beyond High School and only my sincere interest in such a subject and my own seeking has equipped me to offer any argument at all. We may not agree on whether or not religious beliefs plausibly pose any serious threat to anyone but it is true that they have an extremely significant impact on the world it seems to me that this provides reasons that are more than sufficient to subject such ideas to serious criticism. As Thomas Paine said "It is error only, never truth, that shrinks from inquiry" and I see no reason that any idea should be immune from criticism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)