Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Atheism Part 1
Friends. This will be short. We had a friend come over and stay late with us discussing apologetics. This has been an exciting evening for me in many ways and a stunning one. However, I am fighting right now to keep my eyes open. Thus, I will only tackle one part of this chapter where Loftus tells us why he’s an atheist. Let’s see if the reasons establish atheism even if true. Please note this is also why he’s not an agnostic.
The first is the relationship between faith and reason.
Loftus starts by saying how there are two views that seem to present us with absurdities. Either something always existed or something popped into existence out of nothing.
I only see one of those as absurd. Guess which one it is….
The latter is treating nothing as if it is something. Nothing is nothing and something is something. Nothing is not something. It’s simple law of identity. They see it as absurd rightly because all things that begin to exist need a cause. (Hmmm. What about causality? Is it eternal?) Everyone believes in something eternal. I just happen to believe that it’s intelligence and personality.
I happen to enjoy how Sam Harris is quoted as saying “Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists.”
I find this interesting. The why question is raised rather than the how. This is something we’ll get to when discussing other issues. Why does the universe exist. However, I think an intellectually honest person can admit that he is sure how it came about. That is by the creation of God. Of course, Harris would say I am either not honest or intellectual or that I am ignorant.
That has yet to be established.
Don’t you just love this atheist game? We don’t know implies that supernatural explanations are already ruled out a priori. I have no problem with naturalistic explanations, but for the sake of argument, let’s suppose the universe did begin fiat by God at the Big Bang? If that’s the case, you won’t find a naturalistic explanation.
But you do enjoy the assumption that there must be a natural explanation.
It’s so nice to be a theist and not have to have a natural explanation for everything a priori and being open to both natural and supernatural causes and getting to choose which best fits the evidence. Good thing our worldview doesn’t pre-commit us before we study something.
Apram08 30, 2007 at 10:12 PApr
“Don’t you just love this atheist game? We don’t know implies that supernatural explanations are already ruled out a priori.”
No. Who is ruling out supernatural explanations? An atheist doesn’t ‘believe’ the supernatural explanations, that is all. An atheist is someone who has ruled out supernatural explanations because until there is evidence for them, in the same way you have ruled out alien or extra-dimensional explanations (except that even if there is evidence for this, if it goes against you religion, you will deny it).
It’s the theist who rules out anything that doesn’t fit his holy book. The atheist is just waiting for evidence to back up ANY theory.
Apram08 30, 2007 at 10:12 PApr
I just love the way these guys exemplify the principles of coherent thought, don’t you?
He’s not ruling it out, he just doesn’t ‘believe’ it. Of course. Who could have missed THAT distinction? Duh hah….
Of course, when it comes to “evidence” on this they still have their noses up Hume’s arse, even though he was embarrassed even in his own time.
Aprpm08 30, 2007 at 10:12 PApr
Let us see… if God exists, where did he come from? He is supernatural? Well, I guess that he is made out of unobtanium and technobabble makes everything okay!
Seriously, saying something is supernatural is saying “logic, casaulity and physics don’t apply to me”. Why don’t they? Because it is supernatural! And why does supernatural get such and exemption? Because it makes it easier to make stuff up! If there was evidence, it wouldn’t have to be supernatural.
Aprpm08 30, 2007 at 10:12 PApr
Not at all. God doesn’t have a cause as he is eternal. The Cosmological argument only says that which begins to exist has a cause.
Logic does apply to God however. Logic is part of his essence. God cannot contradict himself and God cannot make contradictions. God cannot make a square circle. Now you say causality needs to apply to God. If everything needs a cause, does causality? If causality needs one, then was there no causality before causality? If not everything, then why not God?
And physics? No. Physics doesn’t apply to God because God is not physical.
Sorry. I don’t believe in the supernatural blindly. I believe in it because it has revealed itself, unless you have a better basis for logic. (And do define logic.)