This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

A new argument for theism?!

I have never come across this argument before, it's probably not new, but I don't know how to correctly answer it. It is an argument against the coherence of the agnostic/atheist worldview (or as it was called, following the atheistic worldview to its logical conclusion).

It has a few points:

  • The entire philosophy (non-theistic philosophy) is founded on belief that our mental processes are as much a product of blind, irrational and material forces as everything else and therefore no more assured of revealing the truth than any other chemical process.
  • Basically it is questioning reason without God since the naturalistic explanation of our mind makes it seem that we can't trust our mind since it sprang out of random events and, seeing as it operates via chemical processes, why should it be trusted over anything else. It argues that without God all logic, reason, and validity is incoherent because they are all created by our faulty minds.

    The follow-up to the irrationality of atheistic/agnostic philosophy is this problem:

  • So the problem of agnosticism or atheism is as follows: First, how should you conceive of reality--that is, which hypothesis are you testing? Second: What is the method of verification--the method of reaching judgment about reality?
  • Basically saying, how can atheists or agnostics conceive of reality without a trustworthy way of gaining intelligence and no matter what method of verification we use it can be considered faulty due to lack of validity because of our faulty minds.

  • Thirdly, it asks why is there order and intelligibility in our universe, why are there scientific laws of nature. If our universe came from a random event tThe Big Bang) without any intelligence behind it why do we find so much order in the universe?
  • This goes along with an argument that science should only be able to occur in the theistic worldview because without an intelligent creator we should not have anything to rationalize, and everything should be random, irrational and blind.

  • These points are generally combined with how theism does not have this problem because intelligibility naturally spings from God, We can trust our minds in the theistic worldview because they were created by God, also stating that this is not incompatible with evolution, We have order in the universe thanks to God (eg: agents act in an expected way, apples grow from apple trees, oranges never spring forth, you don't try to put out fire with gasoline), science can occur due to God creating the universe and that is why we see so much intelligibility in the universe and why we can rationalize it via science. Also stating that without order and meaning to the universe there would be no reason for science to occur because what would be the point of understanding the universe via science.
  • Also, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not a theist. I'm a secular humanist.

    TAGGED: ATHEISM, DEBATE POINTS, RELIGION


    MORE BY Adam Cormier

    MORE

    Comments

    Comment RSS Feed

    Please sign in or register to comment