Over the past few weeks I have been proactively searching numerous websites, blogs, etc, for anything related to religion—specifically the Christian/atheist debate. I came across a great article by Tom Flannery at WorldNet Daily called “The Irrationality of Atheism.” The article centered on a debate between two experts in their respected fields Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is the author of the atheist manifesto "God Is Not Great," while D'Souza is the author of "What's So Great About Christianity." Both books I plan to read in the near future.
I did not see the debate, but Flannery ends his blurb with:
"The evidence for God is so overwhelming that it takes far more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. That fact was demonstrated yet again in the debate between D'Souza and Hitchens, as anyone who watched it objectively would have to conclude."
So I ask the question: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Christian/atheist Debate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dinesh is awesome, I have heard him speak a couple times and have always walked away impressed at his ability to debate very sensitive issues without coming across as condescending or defensive.
I think his ability to debate in this way comes from the fact that he is secure in the rationality of his argument that there is a God and He created order out of chaos. Creating order from chaos is something that requires intelligence and purpose, neither of which is found in pure chance. The fact that each aspect of our universe is hanging on a perilous edge where with one slight falter the entire system would collapse makes it hard to believe that it is all the product of luck. Kind of like counting on a bomb blast to construct the Eiffel Tower...very illogical indeed.
No. By definition, it does not take faith not to believe something for which there is inadequate evidence. Any one is free to conclude that what they see and experience is caused by something they can not directly prove. If I consider your conclusion and do not find justification for it in your evidence then I am making an informed decision that is not based in any way on faith.
Godel's theorem (I and II) of incompleteness proves all of us wrong.
The thing is, if there is a god, the entity is so complex and incomprehensible to us, that all of our theories have the seeds of their own incompleteness.
Therefore, scientists will not be able to prove a god for one of two reasons: either god does not exist and there is nothing to prove... OR, there is a god and the entity, then, is so complex that its provability will always escape our grasp.
This, of course, is also true of the "believers."
The natural position to take on any subject is unbelief until something has been proved. The existence of God has not been proved so the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief or atheism. Also is no evidence for any God, only lame arguments which were alll refuted as soon as they were made.
Post a Comment