Atheist vs. Christian - JM's response to Hugh's critique

June 15, 2:06 PMMethodist ExaminerJames-Michael Smith

Previous Next

26 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Methodist Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Hugh and James-Michael's philosophical and theological sparring continues...

Why I reject atheism as a valid worldview:
JM’s rebuttal to Hugh’s response

Below in bold are my rebuttals to Hugh's critique of my initial answer in this dialogue.  My replies are in bold.

---------------------

Hugh said:
“For most atheists though, what's important isn't just the conclusion we reach, but how we get there. We may not offer "ultimate" or "absolute" explanations for Life, the Universe and Everything, but what we do offer is a way of evaluating explanations: critical thinking.”

Hugh, I can appreciate this honesty. Many atheists irrationally try to defend life having some sort of intrinsic meaning or purpose but no ultimate teleological meaning or purpose. I commend you for being logically consistent here.

Hugh said:
“Logic is one of the tools we use but it's not our exclusive property. Theists use it too. It's a pretty good tool for making arguments but, Iike all tools, it has it's limitations. Any argument, regardless of whether it's scientific, philosophical, religious or magical can be made logically consistant provided you accept the assumptions (in math these are called axioms) upon which it is built. It is here that the skeptical or critical thinker comes into his (or her) own by asking questions like "What are the assumptions underlying the argument? Are the assumptions warranted by evidence or observation? Is there a logical relationship between the assumptions? Do they justify the argument's conclusions or can they be interpreted some other way as well?"

Agreed.

This is an excellent summary of how we should approach any such questions.

Hugh said:
“Even if it can't be used on unobservable, purely supernatural things like, say, the temperature variation between Heaven and Hell, it can be used to judge the validity of any claims of the effect the supernatural has on the natural world.”

This is also a good point and one that, as a theist, I wholeheartedly agree with. Whenever the supernatural and natural are claimed to interact, it is appropriate to use natural means of investigation to explore whether the claim can be substantiated or not. In religions that are purely ethereal or philosophical this can never happen. But in religions that make historical claims, such as my own, it becomes extremely important—even required (see for example Paul’s appeal to tangible living eyewitnesses in 1Corinthians 15, etc.).

Hugh said:
“Other ideas don't fare so well when looked at critically; Kalam's cosmological argument, which my esteemed opponent brought up, for instance. This is the Islamic philosophical name for an argument better known to most as the "first cause" or "uncaused cause" argument. I am going to quote SASnSA's post from the comments section of round 1 of this debate since he explained the argument so concisely. I put his final comments in bold print since they illustrate some of the problems a critical thinker has with this argument:

The three premises of the Kalaam cosmological argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

Does this seem familiar to anyone else?

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Nothing anywhere shows that a complex living being (or) even a supreme living being could possibly (I would have used "must" here instead of "could possibly") be that first cause. You have to go out of your way to believe such a being exists in advance and was not itself created to accept either argument. And if you claim that God always existed, you fall against the wall of "An actual infinite cannot exist."

Unfortunately for your case, Hugh, this is a flawed summary of the argument—at least the way Christian theists use it. Here is a better summary:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause
4. Every cause is either personal/intelligent or mechanistic
5. The cause of the universe is not mechanistic
6. Therefore the cause of the universe is personal/intelligent

Rather than defend every aspect of the argument (and risk boring the readers who want to continue in this summary dialogue!) I’ll simply recommend you (and SASnSA!) brush up on the current state of this debate by reading one of its ablest proponents (who’s also a really nice guy I’ve met on several occasions!), Dr. Bill Craig:

The Cosmological Argument - The Kalam Argument
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe
Must the Beginning of the Universe have a Personal Cause: A Rejoinder
A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
The Caused Beginning of the Universe: A Response to Quentin Smith

Hugh said:
“I think what offends my opponent the most about the atheist worldview is that most of us don't embrace what he calls ultimate causes, ultimate purposes and "ultimate objective source of justice and morality." Because of this, he says that we should "stop trying to embrace (an) intrinsic (or maybe he meant "intrinsically"), objective purpose to life," follow our worldview to its logical conclusion and admit our nihilism. While it's true that atheists aren't big on "ultimates" and absolutes when it comes to the meaning of life, etc., it doesn't mean that our only other choice is to think that nothing has any meaning. Like most human beings, we're quite capable of providing our own meanings to life (I address this more fully in this essay)."

Note: atheism doesn't "offend" me anymoreso than flat-earth theory or alchemy does.  I just believe it is wrong.  ;)

As long as you realize the inherent subjectivity of any “meaning” you may come up with makes it no more valid than any other “meaning” anyone else may come up with I’ll applaud you for being consistent. But the moment you declare that life really does have a meaning or purpose beyond whatever personal meaning you make up for it in your own life you immediately negate your claim.

Feel free to embrace whatever purpose you feel like. But you have to recognize that within an atheistic worldview, any such meaning is nothing more than sentimental decoration meant to camouflage the underlying nihilistic reality of a closed system universe with no purpose, justice or moral foundation.

If you can live this way consistently, great...but I don’t know of many atheists who have. Even the most ardent atheists continue to make claims of an absolute nature in areas of morality, purpose and justice quite often.

From my theistic point of view, this is because their inner being, with its innate grasp of reality, is crying out against the false atheistic worldview they’ve created in their minds.

Hugh said:
“In my opinion, this is exactly what theists do too except that they are making a leap of faith over a vast gap in evidence to do so. I would rather try to look at the world as it is instead of trying to rationalize away the problems inherent to a worldview I might prefer.”

This is interesting, Hugh, because it is precisely the presence of multiple lines of evidence which lead to my theistic view!

The philosophical and scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator (which persuaded renowned atheist philosopher Antony Flew after 8 decades of atheism)...

The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus...

The psychological evidence against naturalistic reductionism...

The anthropological evidence for innate human knowledge of the spiritual...

The subjective evidence of my own personal encounters with the Holy Spirit…

...all of these to me are powerful lines of evidence rather than any sort of leap of faith.

In fact, I NEVER believe faith should be “blind”…nor does Scripture endorse such a view. This is a caricature of mature faith that provides an easy target for opponents of theism, not the real faith of Biblical theists (I can’t speak for other theists though).