.JPG)
Last week I got particularly irrittated by the nation's evangelist for athiesm Richard Dawkins. Given airspace on Radio 4 he babbled on about religion being not founded on reason and that believers like me are simply talking to an imaginary friend rather than praying to God. He is entitled to his opinions but I cannot believe he was let off the hook so easily on religion, in particular Christianity, being unreasonable. For something to be devoid of reason it would have to be incoherent, implausible, and illogical.It strikes me that it is quite valid to believe that an intelligent reasonable being was able to create the universe from nothing. Further more, it I can't see anything unreasonable or illogical in believing that this being would incarnate himself into a living human being. You may not believe it, you may not like it, but you have to accept that it is possible. Likewise it is no dimunition to someones intelligence to believe in this. Instead we should remember that some of the best brains have been, and are, practising Christians.
So if there any militant athiests out there, come on, tell me how is my faith unreasonable?
9 comments:
Q: "So if there are any militant athiests out there, come on, tell me how is my faith unreasonable?"
A: A resurrection from the dead cannot prove the divinity of the recipient of that resurrection.
Assuming for the moment that the miracles, teachings, resurrection and ascension of Jesus actually did occur:
Miracles, teachings, a resurrection and an ascension cannot prove anything about anyone. They cannot prove that the recipient of the resurrection was the supreme being of the universe. They cannot prove that the recipient of the resurrection was the son of the supreme being. They cannot prove that the recipient of the resurrection was a lesser deity. They cannot prove that the recipient of the resurrection was an immortal being of any kind at all. They cannot prove that everything the recipient of the resurrection said about himself was in fact true. They cannot prove that anything anyone else said about the recipient of the resurrection was in fact true. All that we can know about these events is that something occurred that we can't explain. We can't explain the how. We can't explain the why. And God knows that that is all that we can know about these events. God knows that miracles, teachings, a resurrection and an ascension cannot prove the divinity of the recipient of that resurrection.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/1.html
Just to clarify, the gauntlet that I am throwing down to people like Richard Dawkins is one of reason. He claims that the Christian religion is without reason. What I and many others are saying is that you may not believe in what we believe but it is inaccurate to say that it is without reason. In other words faith is based on reason. This is different from the arguments against religion on the basis of 'proof' (ie. logical positivism).
For something to be reasonable, it should coherent, logical and plausible. You may personally believe that it contains the wrong verdict, lack evidence, but you cannot argue that it is unreasonable. Therefore it strikes me that belief in a 'supreme being' who created the universe is totally plausible even it is not somehow found out (by some extraordinary means) at a later date not to be true.
For example, if I make the statement 'I believe in a fair tax system for all' then you cannot dispute that this is an unreasonable statement because it is coherent and makes sense. You might not agree with it but it cannot be denied that it is the basis of good economics and philosophy. Conversely if I said 'I sometimes believe in fair tax system for the upper classes on Mondays and Saturdays' then I am being unreasonable and stupid.
To quote Aminal Farms, ultimate statement of unreasonableness (itself an judgement on athiestic tyranny)
"Two legs good, four legs better."
Thanks for your prompt reply. I'm enjoying this dialogue with you. I hope we can keep it going so that in true godly humility we can learn from each other's arguments.
I appreciate your clarification, but in all honesty, everything you clarified was already understood.
I agree with your statement, "For something to be reasonable, it should be coherent, logical and plausible." I agree that Christian theology is internally coherent, logical and plausible. I agree that the internal logic of Christian theology is valid.
But all of that does not make its conclusions true. For its conclusions to be true, the premises of its (logically valid) arguments must be true. The premise that, taken together, miracles, teachings, a resurrection and an ascension prove the divinity of the recipient of that resurrection, is a false premise.
I am left wondering, do you have a direct answer to this argument? Your comment did not reply directly to the argument in my previous comment, so will you reply directly to this one or not? Do you agree with me that miracles, teachings, a resurrection and an ascension cannot prove anything about anyone?
Now it's your turn to show logically how the recipient of that resurrection can only be, and therefore must be, God Himself, and cannot possibly be just a mere mortal man.
Thankyou for your interesting blog & lovely pics of Salcombe.I worked in the Salcombe hotel in the early 60s.now in New Zealand 35 yrs.
I read an article by Richard Dawkins recently where he said it is his quest to show why the universe has the 'illussion'of being designed! Hope The Lord shows him one day, my son is a biochemist working on his PHD. & I have many interesting talks with him( I understand 'some' of it!) he is having a struggle with his faith but I know I can't talk him into the Kingdom-- my prayer is that God the Father will lead him to God the Son, Jesus Christ. The Lord bless & lead you . Ian Mabbitt.
P.S. When I used the word “prove” I should have defined it as:
To demonstrate, through the use of evidence and reasoning, the truth or acceptability of a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The above definition of “prove”, in my opinion, is an integral part of our God-given gift of reason.
Now, I honestly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I must state this clearly:
There are many possible causes, both natural and supernatural, for each and every historical event that is recorded in the Gospels, in Acts, and in the Epistles. There is nothing in the New Testament that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the claim that Jesus the man literally was, and is, God.
If anyone is in the habit of claiming that Jesus the man literally was and is God, then it is morally incumbent upon her or him to present the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that such a claim is in fact true.
Thanks for reading!
Many thanks for your email on the subject of proof and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
The first thing I would say is that the New Testament obviously ascribes to the belief that Jesus is God incarnate. There are many examples that the writers give, for example the words of Thomas, John chapter 20.1 "My Lord and my God."
There is a whole range of literature from the first century onwards where Christian theologians and bishops discussed their belief in the divinity of Jesus. Theses texts are readily available today and form part of the living Tradition (or Magistrium) of the Church.
Christian orthodoxy understands the Sciptures and the Tradition as God's revelation to mankind. We believe that they are inspired by God the Holy Spirit and are therefore truthful and reasonable.
We also believe that Jesus is the Son of God because it makes sense. The words of St Anthanius comes to mind, 'That which was not assumed was not redeemed.' In other words to save the world, God became one of us, took human nature, entered into the very depths of humanity, so as to heal the chasm between God and man.
My original posting was about faith being reasonable. This is different from using scientific proof. Doubt is a normal part of being human and can be at times a constructive part of growing in faith. However applying scientific proof to the nature of God is unreasonable and will get us nowhere. But this does not deny that a belief in God can be a reasonable conclusion for someone to make, even if as mortals we lack the ability to see him. We cannot put God under the microscope because he is beyond our range. But that does not mean we cannot see the results of his work or be open to his self-revelation through Jesus Christ.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments! You have given me much food for thought. Here's my true story:
At the age of 20 I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, was born-again and baptized-in-the-Holy-Spirit, all in the same moment. It was a thrilling experience. Since then I have been a devoted Christian, active in a large Spirit-filled church and in several different ministries. I love the Lord and His people, and they love me. Filled with the Holy Spirit, I walk daily with the Lord, and actively seek His Truth wherever I can find it. I believe that all Truth is God’s Truth and that all Truth originates with God.
Therefore, I have taken up the study of Critical Thinking and in the process have learned quite a bit about myself and about the seeking of Truth. Here’s a portion of what I’ve learned as the Spirit has been leading, guiding and teaching me:
Critical Thinking is about being both willing and able to think, about developing two aspects of God’s gift of Reason to us: our Critical Thinking skills, and the disposition to use those skills to form good judgments.
Disposition means developing the habitual intention of being truth-seeking, open-minded, systematic, analytical, inquisitive, confident in reasoning, and prudent in making judgments.
Those who are ambivalent on one or more of those aspects, or who have the opposite disposition [biased, prejudiced, intolerant, disorganized, heedless of consequences, indifferent toward new information, mistrustful of reasoning, imprudence] are far less likely to use their God-given gift of Reason for Truth-seeking.
I’ll leave it there for now. I look forward to hearing any thoughts from you and any other brothers and sisters.
Check out my comments and the comments of others on this same topic right here:
http://www.flowerdust.net/2008/05/21/jesus-brand-spirituality/
I'll be back from vacation in 2 weeks so Adios till then.
Post a Comment