I know I get stuck on one topic every now and then. For those whom that annoys I apologize. Currently I am on this whole atheist compared
to Catholic kick. It simply fascinates
me.
If you watched the video on Tuesday you witness one of the
world’s most famous atheists and one of the princes of the Church . . . compare
and contrast I suppose. I understand why
the cardinal wants to use any opportunity to express his beliefs – he has what believes
is a divine mandate to do so. What
motivates the atheist? Why would it be
important to him that everyone understand him?
I suppose there are two main reasons – one, that he wants to be understood, and two, he must to some extent enjoy it.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV4gfrFXJqjJ4QVPrx3Qp0luQ_fQOncqWicsWxzZMkDRKLyeIilofB8p7_g1w0FXPoXgjDgzT4K82JTZnHXIcLDgnJ1GFtnPjigc8Twi2n4JD9_gR86WAKzU5t_IOAxrUFcXKT_ZhcJOE/s1600/zzz.png)
Of course, for the Christian, the universe is full of meaning
and purpose and direction and everything means something. Where we came from, where we are, and where
we are going are all very significant. “Why”
is based on a benevolent God who created all there is out of love and Who desires
to share that love with those who freely choose to accept it. All of creation is aiming toward that
love. So bringing others on board is
very important.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNjcNFMX-3JUQTMYn73FYoCgFF2MEUo4UlbLBx-Ufz2wqnhjJgNjX5BpyAFzM-FpT8Wi86RaOq6VLqLYnTlHYkKwCqPGhrfeQE7juUmiJ91t2Fe9tyNoixZEGjZWMFt0-6cg4CsGtHEjE/s1600/zzzz.jpg)
So we turn to Dawkins.
Firstly I was disappointed that a lot of his argument was based in
ridicule. There was the dismissives, “Surly
you don’t believe . . .” and his misleading presentation of the Christian
position that then made it easy for him to ridicule. But such is life.
What was truly interesting to me was his turn on the “why”
of the universe. He believes there is a
scientific why to the universe.
Something caused it to form. It
can be explained. It can’t be explained
yet, but science will eventually tell us.
(Here he we see a basis of atheistic “belief” the same as the Christian “belief.”) But as to the deeper why of the universe –
the meaning behind it, he calls an absurd question. There is no meaning to the universe. It is not achieving any perfection. It simply is.
So what does this debate matter unless you do it out of personal
joy?
So then he rejects social Darwinism and declares it wrong. But how can he declare it absolutely wrong if
there is no meaning to the universe? The
only way I can see is to say, “I have declared it wrong, I have the power (or
the majority or what have you) and have decreed it so.” Is that not, in effect, a form of Social
Darwinism? It can’t be both ways. The universe cannot be meaningless and full
of inherent good and evil at the same time.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_RyfQMhG9L6WmwWud9fDABfoUpRmp7oUCrTT0qPhrGg2gPIOhydWNt4bXw0iq8iuipg7SNBShOD-QfIKs-GMKUTdP11DdUrrx6TvkEqJhLYRQoGhwOqpKTsnTWDFphpst9QK0qSjrHzg/s1600/zzzzzz.jpg)
5 comments:
It was interesting to me how Dawkins explained the physics of "nothing," claiming it is made up of a substrate of particles and energy. Where then did the sustrate come from?
Furthermore, atheists tend to dismiss evolutionary arguments about the development of Christianity, but don't seem able to recognize that scientific thought and progress also develops. The Universe itself is still expanding, hence further developing too.
I would bet to differ on Dawkins as an atheist. He's not, he's anti theist. There's a distinct difference. Anthony Flew, one of the greater atheist minds recently, used strikingly logical arguments against theism. Dawkins, on the other hand, resorts to so many logical errors and fallacies I'm surprised he even has a scientific career, but now I'm sounding like him. I've read his books, and the constant underlying motive is " I wear a lab coat, that makes me an authority, therefore I know things and I know this is too ridiculous to be true so it is not true. If you disagree see my lab coat. "
Harris at least is more honest. Flew was good and challenging to read and he was very logically minded. But in the end Flew decided on theism, not Christianity, but a form of deism.
Now that being said the current rhetoric of the Dawkin is ridicule and leave no room for discourse. Disagreement is idiocy and therefore if you disagree your a fool. Of course there are self proclaimed theist philosophers and theologians with the same tact. I think the underlying motive is fear, for both sides. The theist is frightened that the god they're projecting is not real their world will fall apart, the Dawkins anti theist thinks the same way but that their world requires more. Meaningful discourse with a mutual respect will only bring clarity and understanding and if people are mature enough to handle a persons differing world view without belittling the person we would be able to understand one another and still disagree realizing that it's ok to disagree, but it's not ok to disrespect because of disagreement.
Wow! Great Redearth! Gave me lots to think about. I think you hit one thing right on the head in particular - I think most of the people with whom I've been trying to engage on this topic have been more on the anti-theist side rather than the atheist persuasion. Great distinction there which I failed to notice.
James,
Good to hear from you. Yes. These are the things that I would love to talk about with someone!
you want to talk with someone about apologetics?
Post a Comment