I'm watching this sermon/speech from iTunes and it's made me realize how I hate people being convinced by bad arguments. I don't want people to come to Christianity because of bad arguments - I'd rather meet a thinking atheist than an unaware dumb Christian.
Some bad arguments here are: 1) if Darwinism is true there is no love/beauty, 2) no purpose, and 3) no truth.
1) Love and beauty are defined so broadly that they would still exist but perhaps their definition must be tweeked. I think very few people's definition of love and beauty would be affected.
2) We don't reject beliefs because of their implications. This is actually a good argument against non-evolutionists: "they cannot argue against the facts but reject the idea because they don't like the ramifications."
3) I don't even understand the argument - why would there be no truth? Why is only relative truth left?
Another suggestions non-evolutionists propogate is to say that there is no accountability because we are only machines/bunches of chemicals. This may be true for simpler machines but we have evolved with self-realization (well, my roommates haven't, but still). We have volition and these machines can choose so there is accountability. Darwinism doesn't negate free will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
First of all Nath... you're a snob, albeit an unsophisticated snob, a sophisticated slob would never talk about their bowel problems on their blog... but I do think you're a delightful snob. Ok, this just sounds like snobbery to me, "I hate people being convinced by bad arguments - I don't want people to come to Christianity because of bad arguments. I'd rather meet a thinking atheist than an unaware dumb Christian." If there's anything like an eternity of total darkness, or separation from the creator, or whatever you think hell will be, that will be in some way or another torment or misery we should be thankful of any soul that doesn't have to experience it, no matter how ill equipped they are to make or understand scientific, or philosophical arguements.
I agree that beauty and love are words that paint with a broad brush, but could there be such a thing as a transcendent definition for beauty or love. That is to say one that is one that is not contingent to a thing observed? Is there a thing "beauty" that transcendents my looking at some thing and saying, "that's beautiful?" Is there a relatively solid center to both beauty and love? That is to say, both love and beauty can to some degree be in the eye, or heart, of the beholder, but there is some degree to which people would universally say, "that's love" or "that's beauty?"
I'm not sure how you define "purpose" outside of some sort of plan. But then I haven't thought deeply about that question, maybe you can shed some light.
Truth is the same sort of discussion as love and beauty isn't it? Apart from a transcendent source of truth we could say, "here are some things that are 'true' because I've observed them to happen that way, or be that way most of the time." But you couldn't really call it "truth" if it doesn't transcend contingency.
Isn't the argument for truth, beauty, and love rooted in what transcends our natural state? My observation of a thing as "true or lovely or beautiful" doesn't make it true or lovely or beautiful. I recognize it as such because it's that way whether I see it or not.
Make an argument for truth, beauty, and love on Darwinism.
Well, perhaps I'm far afield... ooh boy... I shouldn't have had that milkshake... gotta go.
JJR
When I looked at my blog and saw that someone posted comments on all 3 of my posts, I knew it couldn't be someone that I told it about. It had to be John - I love it.
Obviously I don’t want to be snobby, but there is a part of me that thinks a little snobbery would help the cause…it sure helps the “new atheism” movement.
When I made the comment about the atheist and Christian, I didn't mean/say I'd rather people be atheist than Christian. My point was to attack the anti-intellectual nature of the church and how following reason should be exalted no matter where it is found. I do not believe the primary way of converting people should be personal experience but rather reason. Bad arguments are used as safety net that aren't convincing to nonbelievers but people take comfort in when they are already in the church. Obviously hell is bad so we should not encourage atheism, but by encouraging people to follow reason I believe Christianity would grow and the church’s reputation would be helped. I believe a thinking atheist is easier to convert than a religious person who is unaware that he is ignorant. It’s this pernicious form of anti-intellectual religion that is the reason so many religions exist, and Christians shouldn’t be excused from this attack of ignorance because by luck they ended up in the right religion. (Luck from our reference frame, not God’s)
My point on beauty/love was that I don’t think that when people call something beautiful they are saying that something is closely related to the form of beauty but rather that it conforms to their view of beauty. However, you bring up an interesting point.
I think the perceived necessary relationship between Darwinism and atheism should not exist. So with theistic evolution there is no attack on truth, beauty and love since they do have a higher cause or a higher authority to communicate these concepts. However, I believe even with atheistic evolution beauty and truth can exist (I don’t really understand love so I’ll leave that alone). I also think truth should be separated from beauty and love in this discussion.
It seems you are discussing whether there is a form of beauty (hello Plato), specifically in atheistic evolution. I tend to be in the camp that God does not define what is beautiful but rather is bound by the form of beauty that exists. In other words, God cannot define beauty differently than it is (same with morality). Thus, I would question that the existence of the form of beauty requires God. As a side note, this is why I don’t find the morality argument for God convincing (not that universal “that’s weird” morality argument but that God solves the question of having objective morality). However, I am eager to abandon this idea so I’m interested in what others think. Maybe God is the form of beauty??
Maybe I’m wrong in treating truth separately, but it’s intuitive to me that saying truth exists does not change with atheism. I define truth as “the way things are.” This is inherently external to me but doesn’t require a God. Note this is separate from how we know what truth is.
This could be an intuitive judgment call, but I guess my main points are I question whether the concept of God solves the question of whether beauty and truth exist and I’m ok with the idea that beauty and truth exist and we evolved to understand these concepts.
For the purpose thing, the argument from atheists is that there doesn't need to be a purpose outside ourselves – which I agree with.
Sorry it’s so long – interested in the response.
UN
Nath,
I really agree with combatting the anti-intellectual culture of the church. Really... couldn't agree more.
I also agree that a bit of snobbery isn't a bad idea, especially if it pushes us to actually think about what we believe, and why we believe it. Having said that, however, I thought it was very interesting taking a class on the resurrection with William Lane Craig, who's relatively intellectual, and having him say, "Nearly no one in the history of the church has come to Christ based upon apologetic arguments for the resurrection." That is to say, though apologetics isn't a new idea, most people haven't become Christian because of a good argument. This of course from a guy who makes his living making arguments.
I'm hoping in the next day to give more thought to a real response. It's just 11:00 PM on Saturday.
Hope you're well Nath,
JJR
That's interesting to hear from William Lane Craig. It's disappointing to me that people aren't convinced by arguments. I love the idea of going on a "religious quest" like Craig Hazen talks about or really investigating it like Lee Strobel.
I do like the idea of just asking questions instead of giving answers/arguments like you have said before.
Post a Comment