Prove it.

“No theist can prove the existence of God,” asserts the atheist. But the atheist’s own philosophy doesn’t fare any better: no atheist can prove that God does not exist. When an atheist points out logical inconsistencies, fallacies, faulty arguments, etc., in the theistic approach (and may or may not be correct in so doing), he has still not moved the ball down field one bit toward the goal of proving the non-existence of God. The trouble is, the same criteria demanded of the theist by the atheist must also be demanded by the atheist himself. If it is indeed true that some theistic arguments are unconvincing, one may say only that they are not convinced, not that the point of the arguments have been settled by their lack of success. A person can have a correct position on a subject without being able to correctly argue that position. The truth of the matter stands whether or not it is argued well.

So, for example, the arguments of theodicy against theism are irrelevant (that is, if God exists, why is there evil? Evil exists, therefore there is no God; to put it too briefly). Arguing against an unpleasant deity are not arguments against that deity’s existence. That is to say, one may be angry with God, but in matters of existence it is irrelevant.

The atheist will never allow an argument to prevail, nor evidence to convince. He must, as a precondition to his atheism, deny God’s existence:

Romans 1:18–23 (ESV)

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

The theist and the atheist both must start with God: the theist presupposes God as the only possible explanation of anything, and the atheist in a presupposed denial. The Christian theist sees this; the atheist is blind to it. It should be remembered, however, that both the theist and the atheist know there is a God.

12 July, 2014

Libertarian Dogma: How Liberalism Became Intolerant

“From the dawn of the modern age, religious thinkers have warned that, strictly speaking, secular politics is impossible — that without the transcendent foundation of Judeo-Christian monotheism to limit the political sphere, ostensibly secular citizens would begin to invest political ideas and ideologies with transcendent, theological meaning.

Put somewhat differently: Human beings will be religious one way or another. Either they will be religious about religious things, or they will be religious about political things.

With traditional faith in rapid retreat over the past decade, liberals have begun to grow increasingly religious about their own liberalism, which they are treating as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good.

But liberalism’s leading theoreticians (Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill) never intended it to serve as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good. On the contrary, liberalism was supposed to act as a narrowly political strategy for living peacefully in a world of inexorably clashing comprehensive views of reality and the human good.”

Clear thinking from Damon Linker

Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also a consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press, a contributing editor at The New Republic, and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test.

The whole article here.

6 May, 2013

The New Atheism?

I wonder why atheism is now called “the new atheism.” Is there new evidence, or might it be that the old atheism is simply a failure? When you attempt to prove the existence of non-existnece, the burden of proof gets pretty demanding.

I think it’s a whistle-in-the-dark kind of marketing scheme. Sells books, anyway.