I am not sure I understand the criticism of the Em...

2011-09-28T00:08:11.395-05:00

I am not sure I understand the criticism of the Empirical Response section against atheism. Atheism is simply the position of unbelief in the existence of god(s). I have a feeling that most (if not all) of the unanswered questions in this category involve questions about the origins of this world, and gaps in our scientific knowledge in the way things work. I have many unanswered questions myself, and some of these have scientific explanations of which I am ignorant, and some of them are probably not fully answered by science. As a former Christian, I had questions even the Bible did not answer (though most sincere Christians hold that I was never genuine, even if sincere, because I lacked the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, for whose existence I know of no evidence). For example, the Bible never adequately explains, to my knowledge, why we stand on two legs, why we have two eyes, why we sleep, why we dream, the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of our respiratory systems, and many other things, which Evolutionary science can provide reasonable answers for (this is assuming that a Christian view is strictly Creationist, which I realize not all Christian viewpoints are). I strongly believed in Christianity at one time, because it seemed to be the best explanation for the world for me at that particular time. What bothers me now is that I accepted its teachings so readily without investigation and proof, or at least reasonable interpretation. I accepted many of the Christian presuppositions without sufficient examination, and these formed the foundation for my resulting world view. Once you have accepted the many unproven presuppositions of Christianity, a logical Christian world view can be constructed and defended, to a certain extent. This is why I believe interaction with religious faiths such as Christianity requires examination of the core tenets of religious faith, and not so much addressing the religion at the higher level you discuss here. In order for the building to be safe, at the very least the foundation and the base structure must be sound.

As for the moral response, I think if we substitute the Hebrew tribal name of the deity, Yahweh, everywhere the word "God" occurs, or even better, the name of a mythological figure such as Zeus, a potential problem with the argument itself can be presented. I could write, "The 'Zeusian' worldview knows that there is a standard of truth because a greater being (Zeus) holds that truth." My immediate reaction to that follows along the lines of, "Prove it!".

Lastly, you quote, "When you remove a greater being, you remove any and all authority which leaves no common morality. What is good for you is good and what is good for me is good." That on its face is not true. "Any and all authority" has not been removed, because human government remains, and even in a state of anarchy, humans tend towards leadership and some primitive tribal-like form of government. The whole argument that human morality derives from a particular deity seems very unconvincing to a religious follower of a different deity that believes the first deity does not exist or is evil in nature. The religious follower could make the same argument against Christians based on his or her own religion. Before this point can even be argued, both the validity and superiority of the Christian faith have to be asserted and defended. We both reject, not only the mythical Zeus, but deities commonly held by other religions, as sources for human morality. It almost begs the question all by itself of, "Why does this particular deity merit special status in my belief system?"

It is possible that a god of some kind exists. I d...

2011-09-27T23:39:52.008-05:00

It is possible that a god of some kind exists. I do not personally believe in the existence of a god. However, I used to be five-point Calvinist Southern Baptist at one time, until recently (about 10 months ago). Personally, I do not think that "god" is the best answer, though I think it is probably the easiest answer for a mind that wishes to be theistic in orientation.

I admit the so-called "natural order" of the world (put in quotes because it is not always as well-ordered as some assert) is somewhat troublesome for a purely atheistic worldview, but I think this is only a problem of missing information, not a fatal shortcoming of a world view. The Rational Response section could very well be answered by Deism, which is decidedly non-Christian in perspective. That a specifically Christian theism is the best answer for the question of origins is not a given, in my opinion.

In the Cultural Response section, we also seem to have a human inclination towards hero worship. This could have evolved into ancient systems of polytheism, and as our imaginations (and expectations of deity) became more advanced, monotheism (with its ultimate attributes for deity) could have been the result. I admit that is simply speculation. But it seems more reasonable than the idea that a god of some kind must exist because we want it to (and we would not praise the same logic in a child who wished for Santa Claus' existence, and I am not trying to be insulting by putting it that way, just that it seems to be a reasonable way to express my point). Even as adults, we have learned the lesson that desires and reality do not always intersect.
(cont.)

Comments on WesFaulk.com: Does God Exist?

I am not sure I understand the criticism of the Em...

It is possible that a god of some kind exists. I d...