I haven’t put this on Fisking Central, as the living section of the Kansas ‘Wichita Eagle’ is a little off the board in media terms. But, as it shows quite clearly how not to argue your case I can’t resist giving it a bit of a quick fisk.
The section in question is a response by Reverend Billy Graham to this letter:
DEAR REV. GRAHAM: I read a book attacking religion recently written by an atheist, and it convinced me to believe in atheism as the only logical way to live. God doesn't exist, and the sooner we admit it, the better off we'll be. I respect your sincerity, but sincerity isn't enough. --A.G.
What’s the betting that the book is Dawkins’s ‘God Delusion’?
(I'm pretty sure that A.G isn't our very own God-botherer-botherer Anthony Grayling.)
Now, were I in Rev. Graham’s shoes, I’d point out that the-book-convinced-me is a pretty poor argument to make (a line of attack closed to the Rev. for reasons explained below). It’d be interested to know which specific argument(s) managed to convince him. I’d also point out that, in an uncertain universe, the logical position to take is one of reasonable scepticism about any claim to absolute truth. It’s also debatable whether we’d be better off without religion completely – as history has shown, people often look for some sort of ideological framework on which to base their lives, and simply getting rid of religion would more than likely see something else replace it.
Anyway, onto the actual reply:
DEAR A.G.: I'm interested that you say you have decided to "believe in atheism" -- because that's what atheism is: a belief or faith. In other words, you can't prove scientifically that God doesn't exist; you can only accept it by faith.
I love the idea trying to denigrate your opponent’s position by comparing it to your own. “You’re just as bad as us!”.
Faith is the belief in the absolute certainty of something, regardless of the evidence for or against. Many theists like to paint atheists in these colours, but I’ve yet to meet anyone (and I know a lot of unbelievers) who hold this position. Most atheists would say that the evidence for God is seriously lacking, and therefore it makes no sense to believe in Him (or any other such supernatural being). The individual in question here seems to be basing his position on the empirical arguments in the book involved. Regardless of whether these arguments are right or wrong, it’s a rational position – not a matter of faith.
Just because you don't find any evidence for the existence of God doesn't prove that He doesn't exist.
Quite. But, the same could be said about Allah, or Shiva, or goblins, fairies, giants or planets made entirely out of Marmite.
After all, there may be a great deal of evidence for God's existence that you are simply ignoring, or have misjudged or misunderstood.
In other words: You’re stupid.
You may even be driven to disbelieve in God because you want to run your own life, and you know you can't live any way you want to if God really exists.
In other words: You’re selfish. Or evil.
This is why I challenge you to look at Jesus Christ. The Bible makes a startling claim about Jesus -- one that will change your life if you find it is true. The Bible says Jesus was God, who came down from heaven and took upon Himself human flesh (which is what we celebrate at Christmas). The Bible says, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (John 1:18).
Do you want to know if God exists -- and not only that He exists, but that He cares about you and wants you to be with Him in heaven? Then look honestly at Jesus as He is presented in the pages of the New Testament. Your life will never be the same.
This last part is really just a variation of the ‘No True Scotsman fallacy’. It’s also a pretty familiar fall-back argument by those who have run out of reasoned arguments – stripped bare it goes something like this:
A: “Reading the Bible properly will lead you to the truth of God.”
B: “But I’ve read the Bible, and still don’t believe in God.”
A: “Ah – then you obviously didn’t read it properly.”
So in summary: If you’re looking for decent arguments about God, the living section of the ‘Wichita Eagle’ isn’t the place to go.
4 Comments:
That was easy, Matt. I mean, a dialog between A.G. and Rev. Graham, especially after that doggone giveaway "it convinced me to believe in atheism" is child play.
Now, being an incorrigible atheist myself, I tend to be wary of any attempt to use logic/science/... to show a religious person the error of his/her ways.
That's all mostly headology (see Pratchett), it seems to me. Either a person needs the belief in the Higher Power or the person does not require such.
To make your life more difficult, notice that many physicists (of the great ones) start to doubt their own atheism after reaching a certain age and level of knowledge. Makes one wonder? Not really.
Snoopy,
Well, I did say it was a lazy fisk, right there in the title. But Rev. Graham's reply was just too tempting not to take apart.
As for AG - I tend to agree with you that belief in a transcendent God is a little beyond the reach of mere logic. Religious claims about the world can certainly be subject to questioning and testing, but the actual one-to-one connection between the believer and God is on a slightly different level. (Though, even there, I think that David Hume's stance on miracles should apply. Which is more likely: That you've established a relationship with a divine being, beyond the reach of most people, or that you're mistaken/delusional.)
Most scientists seem to end up as fairly agnostic about things. An understandable consequence of having the full complexity of the universe exposed to you, I'd imagine.
Still, none of this takes away my right to fisk bad arguments by Reverend's in the 'Wichita Eagle.' Think of the consequences if no-one did it!
Actually I was trying to provoke you to delve into the case of physicists.
It's quite a bit more difficult and, methinks, cannot be explained by mere (sic!) complexity of the universe.
Sometime the simplicity of some things is more tantalising than complexity.
If you define, quite loosely, physics as philosophy of natural world - and it is the most dynamic and rigorous branch of phylosophy, you may see it bordering loosely with religions. For a scientist crossing this border is a real hazard, and many fell to it.
Why?
Gee, I am a provocateur.
Hmmm, I'm not sure my B in GCSE-level Science is enough for me to delve into the strange and wacky world of physics and physicists.
While a number of extremely clever people have talked about physics in near religious terms, more often than not they seem to be doing so in a highly metaphorical sense. The complexity (or, depending on how you look at it, the simplicity) of the universe is certainly an awe-inspiring thing to behold, and mere materalistic language probably struggles to fully convey it. Whenever I've encountered truly religious scientists (like the head of the Human genome project, for example) their religious beliefs have been based on less than scientific grounds.
However, as I said at the beginning - it's not an area I know too much about. And, though I don't share them, I do have some respect for the deist-type beliefs that stem from contemplation of the cosmos.
Have an opinion? Click here.