I was sad to see Senator Fielding on the ABC's Q&A panel together with Richard Dawkins. Senator Fielding does not have a good grasp on matters of fact outside his specific professional training, which clearly has little to do with science.
I was sad, too, to hear Professor Dawkins' cheap shot at the senator, as having the intellect of an earthworm. It is this kind of abusive arrogance which gives him -- and, by association, atheism -- a bad name. Dawkins writes eloquently and ignorantly about religious matters, which reveals, not that he is intellectually defective, but that he is lazy in assuming that a junior Sunday School understanding is sufficient to make him an expert. Not unlike Senator Fielding's position with science, really.
I have a growing concern that we Christians often tackle atheism inappropriately.
If I were a Muslim, I would definitely be troubled by Dawkins and his ilk. If I were a Jew, I would at least be uneasy. Neither religion has strong grounds to argue against atheism except on the grounds which atheism itself defines. It is hard to win an away game.
Of course, Dawkins has a point. Religious people can't provide proof of God's existence in the terms he demands. More accurately, science is incapable of determining whether or not God exists -- much like the question of the Higgs-Boson particle. This does not mean that God does not exit. It only means that God's existence is a question is outside the realm of science.
This is not, however, fatal to the question. There are many areas where science can contribute little. It can't tell us if Julius Caesar existed. At best, it may help sort through the evidence.
So why do Christians try to do battle in areas where Christian arguments tend to be weak, and atheist ones strong, yet ignore areas where the tables are turned?
It seems to me that we need to turn our focus back onto Jesus. Let's develop our arguments from a Christological base rather than a philosophical or a merely scientific base.
After all, there is a strong New Testament theme that Jesus makes the unknown, inaccessible God known.
John 1:18 tells us, No one has ever seen God; but God, the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
In the 12th chapter (verse 41ff) we see that, in respect of his vision of the exalted Lord in the temple, Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.
John perhaps rounds it off with his quotation from Jesus, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us (Heb 1:3): The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
Paul, too, writing to the Colossians (1:15) describes Christ as ...the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
There is therefore a clear New Testament assertion that God the Father himself is beyond our direct knowledge or observation, but that Jesus is the revealer of God.
This suggests to me that teleological, ontological and such arguments are something of a waste of time for those who would convince those who argue that no case can be made for God's existence.
While this doesn't mean that there is no place for philosophical points, they are more of a further hint at God's existence than primary ingredients of a case. If a person wants to "see" or "see evidence for" God, surely the place to start is Jesus.
The question, then, is, "How does Jesus reveal God?"
The answer is that Christians are convinced that the attitudes and actions of Jesus show us something about the attitudes and actions of God. If we would know God's attitude to the outcasts of society, look at how Jesus treated them. If we want to know God's attitude to ethnic outsiders, look at Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. If we want to know about God's judgment, we will find more when we see Jesus attacking hypocrisy, exploitation and fruitlessness than we will learn merely from reading about the Israelites and the Amalekites in the Pentateuch.
I do not often find comments I find useful to repeat in the writings of Rev Fred Nile, but I believe he hits the mark in a recent newsletter:
"If you want to know if there is a God, start with Jesus Christ, who will reveal the truth about Himself and His Heavenly Father."
I'll say, "Amen!" to that.
I don't think atheism should be judged on a remark made by Dawkins. I think Dawkins' understanding of religious matters is greater than the average Junior Sunday school attendee, and probably greater than most Christians in the world (as they are often found in struggling countries where there is christian 'aid', and also a lot christian churches insulate the votaries learning pathways), and Dawkins does not assume to be an expert in theology. Like I said before, I don't think you have to have a degree in theology, attend seminary or church based religious teaching (christian or other) to have a well considered opinion about religion. Also I think narrow to just be looking at Dawkins and assuming he is the blueprint for atheism. That said, I have a lot of respect for the scientific work he has done, and his stance for free thought.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that Jesus existed as described in the new testament is far from conclusive. So how can you start with seeing evidence for god in Jesus and not others with inconclusive evidence for existence like Buddha or Apollo ?
I can not think of another book that has confused as many people throughout history as the Bible. So much conflicting ideologies have been founded on it. Arguments can be made for so many different angles of belief by reading into the bible and interpreting it in different ways (as history has shown and as we also see today), and I can't think of anyone who can honestly say 'we have absolute measurable proof that is the correct one'. We can not justify that the bible is evidence for god with intellectual honesty.
Belief in god is not justified in evidence, but in faith.
There has been, and still are many faiths, christian ones, Hindu ones, Muslim ones etc. There is no verifiable reason to say that one person, race or country is more 'chosen or elected by god' than another person, race or country - the only 'reason' people have is faith itself. 'The chosen or elect of god' cannot be identified since god and "god's will" cannot be proven.
I suppose that not all faith is contrary to fact. However there is faith that is contrary to established fact - I think this is dangerous because when decisions and actions (personal or societal) are based on faith contrary to fact, the results can be illogical and not easily predictable (faith unbounded by empiricism can be in anything at all) - which is very dangerous.
In making personal choices about oneself and ones own relationship with the world around, I think it is very important to base as much as possible on what is verified, and established fact in order to have a predictable effect on both oneself and world around, or a well considered locus-of control based on well considered means towards well considered ends.
Now, for these reasons I believe that it is very important to argue for the case of god in a well considered philosophical and scientific way. (Side note, I think that ontological [Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God] arguments beg the question).
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned 'the realm of science'. Is it the realm of science that has already been discovered? Or does it include the 'realm' that science will 'ever' discover? I think we are answering a lot of questions today that we never thought we would answer, it is very likely that more and more gaps in science will close, and more gaps will be found, but more of them will close too. I'll take 'outside the realm of science' to mean a 'realm' that science cannot and will not ever be able to penetrate.
**It is very important to ask: Why god (now days at least) is described as something that exists outside the realm of science or in a place that science can or will not ever be able to reach? Is it that there is evidence to support this? or lack of evidence for god existing within the realm of science?
What is the basis for this presumption?
Gaps in science have been used to argue for god's existence.
What is often classified as proof of gods existence is just a pointer to mystery, not anything measurable or specific. Metaphysics [in use as : A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment] cannot be described, and the assumption that metaphysical 'realms' exist (and also assuming a certain nature of metaphysics that allows a god) is just based on re-bottled and re-labeled faith.
If god existed or did exist within 'the realm of science', one would think that there would be forms of measurable evidence to suggest this - we have not found any yet. And if god is a personal christian god, and intervened in the dealings of men here on earth in recent history, it is hard to justify why there is no measurable evidence found at all - perhaps one day there will be evidence found - but until has been, one cannot assume with good reason that there is a personal god. One can however have faith, and faith contrary to fact evidence can lead to dangerous outcomes.
Attempts have been made at establishing material and measurable evidences for gods existence, but they have been systematically been dis proven.
It is interesting to ask also:
What would god look/be like if it did exist within the realm of science?
What would the universe look/be like if god were part of it? Would it look/be like it does now, or somewhat different?
Here is an interesting discussion between Cardinal George Pell and (ex christian evangelist) Dan Barker: http://www.mq.edu.au/mqvideos/pell_barker.html
Kind regards