(On a radio-show about deconversions, I left this comment)
I sympathize with people deconverting from theism if they were never given any intellectual basis for believing in god. It is no wonder then, that for many people, mainly emotional and psychological factors influence their decision. But for those who claim to have seriously thought about the rational ramifications of god’s existence or non-existence, I would expect more careful deliberations and more modest conclusions.
Take for example the statements from T. and D. Rather than atheism, the reasons they give should lead them at the very least to agnosticism.
They make the following points (in red):
1) All religions couldn’t be right, so they’re all wrong
- Actually, you could end up with two possible conclusions: a)All religions are wrong, or b) at least one religion is right and the others are wrong. It does not necessarily follow that ALL religions are wrong.
2) There is no empirical evidence for god; and
3) There has to be a beginning but what came before that?
- If god is a spirit being, why would one expect to find direct empirical evidence? This commits a category mistake (like asking what the colour blue taste like – although a synesthete could probably tell us). But, a more modest approach looks like this – the empirical evidence shows that there are some features of the universe that make it suggestive of something beyond the universe, features like the intricate design and fine-tuning of the constants of physics. And in particular the initial conditions of the big bang were themselves fine-tuned, so nothing in the universe itself could have done the fine-tuning.
- And the beginning of the universe points to a beginner. Anything that begins to exist requires a cause. This doesn’t lead us to atheism. It leads us to ask: Where did the universe come from and who or what brought it into being? An all-powerful and all-knowing god is certainly a good candidate.
4) The fact that anything exists doesn’t make any sense whatsoever
- In other words: Why is there something rather than nothing? Indeed, why? And why would atheism be considered a better answer than some form of theism? If atheism is true, then it makes it more likely that there is no explanation for our existence or the existence of the universe. But effects require causes. Again, god seems like a good candidate.
5) You can’t prove a negative
- This is actually a problem for the atheist. The atheist says that god does not exist. This is a negative universal existence claim, the most difficult kind of claim to demonstrate. The atheist would be on safer ground if he took the more modest position of agnosticism.
Theists have arguments for god’s existence. One can disagree with them but they are there. If one objects that god cannot be argued for rationally, I ask, why not? Simply saying so doesn’t make it so. And so that no one accuses me of simply saying that “god exists” is so because I say it’s so, here’s a few arguments for god:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment