CLICK FOR TODAY'S CARTOONS

Sunday, January 27, 2008

How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist

As one who finds key evidence to be lacking for the three aspects of Darwinism, and also finds some of the key tenets of man-made global warming to be laughable, it is always annoying to note the dismissive attitudes of the true believers. Skeptics of Darwinism find they cannot get perfectly good papers published, and if they are in academia, they often have difficulty gaining tenure. I’m sure that, as the materialists take over the world, reports will soon surface that college professors are being denied tenure because they believe in God, or because they believe that the culture of their country is at least as worthwhile as the cultures of the immigrants who risked everything to escape their own country’s culture to come here.

One of my favorite websites is that of the American Thinker. Once again I have posted below an excerpt from one of their authors. The excerpt is a small portion of a long article; to read it all, just click on the link provided.

How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist
By Alan Roebuck, January 26, 2008, American Thinker (Excerpt)

“Not all atheists are supercilious, of course. Many are content to live and let live, and some even grant that religion (which, in America, basically means Christianity) does some good. But atheism as an organized, evangelizing movement has been on the offensive lately. Witness the "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, with their aggressive stance against God and their bestselling books attempting to debunk religion. So, assuming you are a theist, what do you say to the atheist who asks, "You don't (chuckle) actually believe in God, do you (snicker)?"

The natural response would be to start giving evidence for God: the origin of the universe in the Big Bang requires a cause that is beyond matter, energy, space and time, the design of life requires an intelligence to account for the information that it contains, the many accounts of miracles and the supernatural cannot all be fabrications, and so on. Entire libraries have been written on the evidence and arguments for God.

But before you start showing them the evidence, consider: Most aggressive atheists say "I would be willing to believe in God if there were any evidence that He exists, but no such evidence exists, so I don't believe." No matter what evidence you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it. To him, it is not the case that your evidence for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior evidence against God. No, in the atheist's mind your evidence does not even count as evidence. And therefore your reasoning has no effect on his thinking, other than to confirm to him that you are irrational.

What's going on here? Does the atheist have superior insight that allows him to see the errors that invalidate the arguments for God that seem valid to us theists? Or is it the atheist who is missing something?

I would argue that it's the latter. Consider: the theist believes in the real existence of everything that the atheist believes in: matter, energy, space, time. The theist believes that the physical world really exists, just as the atheist does. And the theist believes that the scientific description of nature is fundamentally correct, as far as it goes.

But the atheist refuses to expand his mental universe by also believing in the transcendent things that the theist believes in: God, souls, angels and demons, for example. The atheist restricts himself to a sort of tunnel vision.”

And this is where atheism becomes vulnerable. The atheist does not disbelieve in God because he has neutrally examined all the evidence, and drawn the proper conclusion that there is no God. On the contrary, the atheist radically misconstrues the plentiful evidence for God, and he does this because of his false worldview, which tells him that only the physical really exists. Before he has examined the evidence, the atheist thinks he knows that nothing non-physical actually exists, and this assumption governs how he responds to the evidence.

About that word "worldview:" It means a comprehensive system of thought that describes the nature of reality, answers the big questions of life, and provides man with a code of conduct. Most Western atheists have a worldview that the philosophers call "naturalism," the basic elements of which include atheism, empiricism (the doctrine that all knowledge is obtained inductively, based on our sense perceptions), and materialism (the doctrine that only matter and its properties exist).” American Thinker


Editorial Note:
This article also provides a good explanation of why Darwinists can not consider the body of evidence from modern microbiology now building that undercuts the idea that successive random changes lead to new species. Such evidence conflicts with their world view.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3 Comments:

At 11:30 AM, Anonymous Bud said...

One does not have to be an atheist or even an agnostic to believe in Darwinism. It is the the generally accepted scientific theory used to explain the origins of life on earth.

You say that you find key evidence lacking for its acceptance, but do you have any scientific background that qualifies you to make such a judgement? I might believe that open heart surgery does no good, but since I lack a medical degree, my opinion on that subject is essentially worthless.

It's not surprising that skeptics on Darwinism have trouble getting papers published, or that they don't easily get tenure. The peer review process would eliminate any paper that seemed, to the reviewers, to be unscientific. Similarly, few reputable institutions of higher learning would confer tenure on someone who denied a generally accepted tenet of science. An anti Darwin biologist would have as much chance of getting tenure as a geographer who was a member of the Flat Earth Society.

You're backing the wrong horse here, Russ.

 
At 3:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Samuel Skinner
1 All living things resemble their parents.
2 Not all offspring survive.
3 Some of the differences between individuals affect their odds of survivng and reproducing

Therefore the individuals with the most favored traits will proliferate and those with the least favored will die out.

It is a little crude, but its the basic thought process to get evolution.

PS- all scientists have to be materialists; they study the real world- the immaterial is, by definiton, irrelevant (it doesn't interact with us or do anything we can observe).

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous steve said...

I believe in God, but there is no proof that he exists. For those that believe, there does not need to be proof. Trying to mix scientific arguement in the discussion does neither "side" any good.

a few hundred years ago people believed the earth was flat. people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. It was common "knowledge". The inability to prove that was not true did not make it any truer.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home