I have had the opportunity to listen to Bill Craig recently who uses four arguments for the existence of God:
1) The moral argument
2) The argument from design
3) The historicity/authenticity of Jesus and the bible
4) Personal experience of transformation
Argument 1 I do not like because I have yet to hear/see any good evidence for why morality cannot be subject to natural selection.
Argument 2 I like, but is perhaps a bit of a "God of the gaps" argument for me. I do my best to read popular physics books and the articles on quantum mechanics etc in the news and views section of Nature, however to be honest my grasp of the subject is not good enough to form an opinion. I would like to think that phenomena such as quantum entanglement could provide an answer to the problem of life after death etc., however must admit that this is more wistful thinking than anything else. I am happy to trust people like John Polkinghorne on this one.
Argument 3 I am also not convinced by. Just because these so many thousands of manuscripts exist does not mean that the original story itself is more authentic, only that after a certain point (normally quoted as a couple hundred years after Jesus lived) lots of copies were made. To be fair I think we are so far removed from the events in the gospels that we cannot really prove things either way and thus have no choice but to view the bible as a text revealing the traditions, stories and mythology that lies behind our current Christian culture.
Argument 4 I find persuasive. Indeed I spent a couple weeks convinced that I had become an atheist whilst studying for my PhD until I realised the sheer power of the person of Jesus and the implications that following his tradition might have on my life. I am given a lot of stick in my lab for being a Christian, however like to point out that "even" if the central beliefs of Christianity were to be proven as false in the end, the ideal of Jesus, and a life lived by his teachings, would be a life I would want to choose. Thus for me choosing to experience the presence of God in a grand cathedral, by the bed of a sick loved one, or when feeling lost and alone is a persuasive argument indeed. This is how I experience the transcending, transformative power of the gospel of Christ, and is the reason why I am a Christian.
Thursday 16 August 2007
Wednesday 1 August 2007
Why I don't think Dawkins is too bad...
In an article published in the Times in May entitled "How dare you call me a fundamentalist" Richard Dawkins answers some of the criticism that has come his way since publishing his rather dubious book "The God Delusion". The article can be found here however I was rather struck by the following excerpt:
...and I see his point. For once Dawkins has not actually lumped all believers into the same category and acknowledged that there is a vast difference between the belief of Rowan Williams and Pat Robertson.
Although atheists tend to sound a bit too bitter for the good of their own argument, I think Dawkins has generally been quite useful for religious belief. Much like Dawkins I am horrified by much of what goes on in the name of religion, and want to distance myself as far from some Christians as Dawkins does. In fact in many cases I find myself agreeing far more with Dawkins than I do with some others who call themselves Christians. These people do need to be confronted, and as robustly as possible, or else they risk pulling all religious belief into disrepute. In this respect I find Dawkins saying many of the things that I would really like to say, but that my well-behaved Christian politic just won't let me. I'm not saying that Dawkins isn't a twit - he strikes me as rather bitter and self-obsessed - however sometimes he does make some useful points!
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
...and I see his point. For once Dawkins has not actually lumped all believers into the same category and acknowledged that there is a vast difference between the belief of Rowan Williams and Pat Robertson.
Although atheists tend to sound a bit too bitter for the good of their own argument, I think Dawkins has generally been quite useful for religious belief. Much like Dawkins I am horrified by much of what goes on in the name of religion, and want to distance myself as far from some Christians as Dawkins does. In fact in many cases I find myself agreeing far more with Dawkins than I do with some others who call themselves Christians. These people do need to be confronted, and as robustly as possible, or else they risk pulling all religious belief into disrepute. In this respect I find Dawkins saying many of the things that I would really like to say, but that my well-behaved Christian politic just won't let me. I'm not saying that Dawkins isn't a twit - he strikes me as rather bitter and self-obsessed - however sometimes he does make some useful points!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)