A few weeks ago I followed a provocative link while surfing and ended up staggering into a website popular with atheists. The author was lampooning the virgin birth and Marian apparitions, with readers gleefully piling on with vulgar jokes and comments. I asked a simple question and boy, did I get my hat handed to me. Here is my initial comment that brought what felt like the wrath of God down upon me:
So you're an atheist. Why be so derisive of those who don't share your views? Also, I ask your intellectually superior readers to examine the rolls of history's greatest minds. There you will find believers and non-believers alike.
Why is it so many critics of religion swaddle themselves in smug condescension? I guess everybody's gotta believe in something.
I suppose I brought it on myself with references to intellectual superiority and smug condescension. You can read the whole article and the sorry thread that follows here. My comments start at # 141. You will notice I never criticized their (non)belief, nor tried to convert anyone. That didn't save me though. They flamed me mercilessly.
I still wonder why so many atheists are not satisfied with merely disbelieving, but must make jolly fun of mocking the Almighty and his believers. It is insecurity? There also seems to be a lot of anger in their comments. Many non-believers take their non-belief quite personally. I wanted to know why.
I really upset the faithful when I opined that non-belief becomes a belief with its own orthodoxy. Those who question that orthodoxy become the target of witty, sarcastic derision or worse, angry personal attacks. Keep questioning, and then the comments get angrier. When I pointed that out, it seemed to only engender more anger. From there it became a downward spiral of charges and countercharges, each accusing the other of smugness and condescension.
I have also noticed that atheism and the use (or misuse) of logic go hand in hand. Atheists see themselves as supremely logical, while we believers are illogical, superstitious boobs. Our historical accounts are worthless, although they are of the same kind we trust to inform us of the battle of Marathon or Tamerlane. Rather than use logic as a rapier to slice and dice confusing issues, bringing order out of chaos, they misappropriate it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon those unfortunate enough to stumble into their presence.
Well, Dinesh D’Souza has the antidote. He uses Kant’s philosophy to refute atheism. We learn from him that those who try to prove or disprove the existence of God with traditional logic are committing what philosophers call a category error. God exists outside of time and space and is not subject to natural laws. Indeed, miracles are a contravention of the laws of nature. Just because you cannot see something doesn't mean it does not exist. Anyway, D’Souza breaks it down so ordinary people can understand it. I recommend you check it out.
Finally, I am not nearly as smart as Kant or D'Souza, or the Atheist Richard Dawkins, but I know this: Arguing over the existence of God is futile. It cannot be proven or disproved as can a mathematical formula. Men and women have provided historical testimony. You can choose to believe them or not. Meanwhile, science cannot prove how life spontaneously came into being.
3 comments:
I am an athiest, and I enjoyed your post. First, let me apologize for the bad behavior you endured. People, of all beliefs, can be jerks. Second, I hesitate to label myself athiest, because of those people.
I simply don't believe in a God. I don't really care what other people think. You have a right to your faith.
I will never understand all the fuss and ill-will people express over religion. I accept that I may be wrong and respect other people's views. It's too bad more people don't do the same. I've known wack jobs on both sides of the fence, and it's a disappointing aspect of human nature.
Don't take it personally. There are ignorant people everywhere.
Thanks for the kind words. I just think trashing people in general is unhealthy, and religious people do their share of trash talking as well. So allow me to reciprocate by apologizing for ill-mannered behavior of my fellow believers.
I agree with this article almost completely. I would only want to question Kant and D'Souza. Their belief in the transcendental realm of existence which is not subject to modern conventions of logic, reason, or physical laws like causality, etc... is not as straight-forward as they claim.
If there is another realm of existence, it would seem that the burden of proof would be on the believer (in this other realm) and not on those who deny it. Furthermore, Kant struggled with his faith, and was not satisfied with metaphysics up until that point (which was restricted to only theistic doctrine).
Although Kant was quite taken to Humes critic of Christianity, people since Hume and Kant like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have gone further than Hume (in my opinion) and no one has really answered or been able to shrug off their critics of Christianity with as much luck as Kant had with Hume.
If Christians don't see this as a problem, that's fine, but I would at least like to draw their attention to it.
Christian philosophers up until the time of Kant are relegated to the history of philosophy because they did not deal with their critics with as much poignancy as Kant, and Christian philosophers who have not been able to deal with modern crtics of Christianity have been relegated to special schools (e.g. Plantiga - Notre Dame). It's not that Christians deserve to be ridiculed, but they should know that their fundamental metaphysical positions are taken as laughing matters among many prominent philosophers, and other intellectuals.
The same is not true of atheistic metaphysical positions, most of which are that metaphysics was a thing of the past, lets get on with more important things (citing the Continental trend in philosophy).
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.