Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:50:46 PM
I have no objection to those who wish to be atheist. I have no objection to any beliefs. However, I do have an objection to those who claim to have "proof" that G-d does not exist. Or, rather, to those who establish the standard of proof for G-d's existence.
The basic argument of atheists is three fold. First,t hat various holy books are unsupported by historical evidence. Second, that G-d does not respond in a mechanistic way to various procedures. Third, that G-d's existence is upported only by "unreliable" testimony.
The first can be dismissed easily. The fact that holy books amy be iunaccurate does not prove or disprove G-d's existence. The existence of the wildly inaccurate
Abe Lincoln, Freedom Fighter, or even more amusing
Fantasy Mission Force, does not prove Lincoln did not exist. The existence of G-d does not depend on the inerrancy of various scriptures.
The other two are mroe amusing, as I could use the same evidence to prove I don't exist. Let us say I published my phone number ont he blog. Some people could call, woudl egt my wife, and then say "Tell him X called". If it is a name I know, I might take the call, and they would then attest in the comments I exist. On the other hand, if the name is unfamiliar, I might not take the call. Thus the caller would have no evidence I exist, and could say "He doesn't respond when
I call, so he does not exist."
That, in a nutshell is the evidentiary standard many hold for G-d.
First, G-d is a volitional being, and does not respond to every prayer, or even every act, int he same way. Just as I do not respond the same to everyone who makes ht esame reques tof me, neither does G-d. So, just because prayer does nto achieve scientifically determinable effects, and does not ahve "repeatable" results is not proof of anything. Think of it this way. If you set up a test asking me "What is your name" one million times, you may find my name telling behavior is not "repeatable", as I will probably respond differently at request number 1000 than I do at request number one. Volitional beings do not respond in repeatable ways. And G-d is a volitional being. So to demand he respond like a emchanistic natural process is absurd.
Finally, and most annoyingly, the skeptics who claim G-d has been proven to not exist dismiss all first hand evidence as "delusional" or "dishonest". They refuse to accept empirical evidence. I suppose they will counter than they need evidence that is "verified", but even when a religious experience is verified by more than one individual, they dismiss it as "mass hysteria". In short, they have decided that any evidence of G-d's validity is inherently unreliable, which, for obvious reasons, always proves there is no evidence G-d exists. One need only look at the readiness with which they explain away near death experiences to see the dishonesty of this method. By accepting any explanation of this experience other than a supernatural one, they obviously can "prove" the supernatural one is false, because they have defined it as such.
And that is my objection to those who preach about the "proof" of atheism. Not only do they not have such "proof", but they are arguing quite dishonestly for those who claim to be "rational". I accept that my faith is based entirely on, well, faith. I see things int he world that point me in the direction of faith, but I have no concrete proof. Why can't they be just as honest and admit they are simply acting on faith as well, instead of rigging the game to get their desired results while deceiving the gullible into thinking they have some "proof" of their claims?
POSTSCRIPT
I do not claim near death experiences, the appearance of various religious appartions, or any other first hand experiences are proof or not of something supernatural. All I claim is that dismissing them out of hand as delusional or deceptions is to stack the deck to reach a preordained conclusion. I will grant that they might be delusions, some amy be lies. However, if we were to apply the same dismissive standards to all second hand reports of rare events, we would have very little in which we could believe.