Piece of Cake Part Two
I want to take a closer look at something I overlooked in part one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, there is no God. In fact, all definitions of the word "God" are either self-contradictory, incoherent, meaningless or refuted by empirical, scientific evidence. Although the nature of the disproof will necessarily vary with the god under review, I will usually be raving against the modern monotheistic (or triune) Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, having (in various permutations) the characteristics of being, conscious, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (omnibenevolent), immaterial, transcendent. immutable, immortal, infinite, omnipresent, disembodied and eternal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find the atheist's singular repugnance of the Abrahamic religions very interesting.
I'm not going to deal much with his talk of empirical or scientific evidence except to remind the class that this goes back to David Hume, who said something to the effect of, "If a statement is not scientifically, empirically or mathematically provable it should be disregarded as mere sophistry." Well, Doesn't that just sound all nice and peachy! Oh, except for the fact that it is not scientifically, mathematically, or empirically provable. "The statement fails it's own truth test," as Ravi Zacharias said.
Which brings me to my next point. If the God of the Abrahamic religions is so far out of the scientific/mathematic/empirical realm, where on earth did we get these ideas from? They might say, it is in our genes. But how did it get in our genes? Because of our ancestral heritage. Where did they get it from? I smell an infinite regress, to which the only answer they can give is: It just is; roll the bones.
And that is the meat of it. Am I supposed to feel intellectually inferior at the thunderous profundity of that answer? They certainly seem to be going for that effect. Why am I so inferior to say that: 1. God does exist in a form that is so beyond our human logic and 2. That He reveals Himself in small ways that fit into our understanding (see the post Hooray for Me for my thoughts on Kant) without losing his absolute "otherness", as G.K. Chesterton put it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, there is no God. In fact, all definitions of the word "God" are either self-contradictory, incoherent, meaningless or refuted by empirical, scientific evidence. Although the nature of the disproof will necessarily vary with the god under review, I will usually be raving against the modern monotheistic (or triune) Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, having (in various permutations) the characteristics of being, conscious, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (omnibenevolent), immaterial, transcendent. immutable, immortal, infinite, omnipresent, disembodied and eternal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find the atheist's singular repugnance of the Abrahamic religions very interesting.
I'm not going to deal much with his talk of empirical or scientific evidence except to remind the class that this goes back to David Hume, who said something to the effect of, "If a statement is not scientifically, empirically or mathematically provable it should be disregarded as mere sophistry." Well, Doesn't that just sound all nice and peachy! Oh, except for the fact that it is not scientifically, mathematically, or empirically provable. "The statement fails it's own truth test," as Ravi Zacharias said.
Which brings me to my next point. If the God of the Abrahamic religions is so far out of the scientific/mathematic/empirical realm, where on earth did we get these ideas from? They might say, it is in our genes. But how did it get in our genes? Because of our ancestral heritage. Where did they get it from? I smell an infinite regress, to which the only answer they can give is: It just is; roll the bones.
And that is the meat of it. Am I supposed to feel intellectually inferior at the thunderous profundity of that answer? They certainly seem to be going for that effect. Why am I so inferior to say that: 1. God does exist in a form that is so beyond our human logic and 2. That He reveals Himself in small ways that fit into our understanding (see the post Hooray for Me for my thoughts on Kant) without losing his absolute "otherness", as G.K. Chesterton put it?
posted by Geoff at 3:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home