tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post1969106953713803499..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Insulting Our IntelligenceDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-59856739124869064362015-10-28T19:01:57.680-04:002015-10-28T19:01:57.680-04:00Indeed so. I would argue...and have argued in pri...Indeed so. I would argue...and have argued in print, and to atheists, that atheism is simply *never* a rational, intellectual option. Agnosticism is possible, of course, though how proud one should be for trumpeting one's ignorance (which is cognate of the root meaning of "agnostic") is a good question.<br /><br />Moreover, the situation is again not equally balanced. For the atheist, who claims to have disproved God, has burdened himself to show how he's done such a thing. (Nietzsche, the famous atheist, compared such a proof with extinguishing stars or drinking up the ocean. Even he realized is was a preposterous claim to claim to have proved God's non-existence.) But if the theist can produce just one evidence of God -- one genuine prophecy, one actual revelation, one genuine divine miracle, one true experience of God, or one single case of Incarnation, say) then the atheist's case is obviously utterly defeated. So the atheist bears a burden of proof far too great for him, and faces instant and total defeat if the theist can provide but one instance of a genuine God moment.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the durability of any doubt the Christian may have is just as fragile as the atheists' whole position is, and for just the same reason. For let the doubting Christian experience but one single moment of true revelation of God, in any form it may come, and his doubt can no longer remain. At least, it can no longer be rational to doubt, for once one has a genuine experience of God, doubt no longer makes any sense.<br /><br />So again, atheism is by far the less rational of the options. It has no right to be regarded as rational, let alone as scientific.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-10448497474762663572015-10-28T11:09:22.867-04:002015-10-28T11:09:22.867-04:00Quite right. And the careful and thoughtful atheis...Quite right. And the careful and thoughtful atheists, do make it clear that their arguments and reasonings yield more to strong agnosticism rather than strident atheism, for the reasons you state. Similarly, if the believer is honest, he must admit that perhaps there is no God, for that also is a logical possibility.Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290921435307877508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-7031108377074439312015-10-28T00:17:59.893-04:002015-10-28T00:17:59.893-04:00That's because one's interpretation of the...That's because one's interpretation of the data is so heavily influenced by what one is prepared to see in it. <br /><br />If one has already arbitrarily ruled out the God hypothesis, it's easy to imagine there could be no data at all for it; but if one is open to that hypothesis, it's actually extremely easy for a person of reasonable intelligence to find the requisite data. <br /><br />So theistic intellectuals and atheists, in my experience, often end up speaking very confidently past each other, each side feeling quite certain its belief is founded on good data, and each side quite sure it is being scientific in its claims.<br /><br />That being said, it isn't a balanced matter. The atheist's closedness to the indications of the data isn't the equivalent of the agnostic's or Christian's willingness to see God in the data. For the latter is open to all reasonable interpretations of the data, including purely secular interpretations, but the former is not. A Christian scientist can believe in gravity or entropy every bit as easily as an atheist can; but the atheist is simply not prepared to accept any indications of the God hypothesis, no matter what. And that is why, as I have found, so many of them insist with such unreasonable ardency that "there is no evidence for God," and "only the unscientific believe there is."Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-19820064447485138832015-10-27T22:23:35.870-04:002015-10-27T22:23:35.870-04:00Trying to co-relate faith in a supreme being or at...Trying to co-relate faith in a supreme being or atheism with one's belief or strength in science does not yield any significant data. It's clear from history as well as the present day that there are many good scientists who have faith in God and a supreme being. And many who are atheists as well. It's just a not a strong argument, either way.Quisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13290921435307877508noreply@blogger.com