One insufferable attribute of the faithful is the ability, nay, the indulgence of equivocating faith to explain all manner of things. Hume said it best: “ONE considerable advantage that arises from Philosophy, consists in the sovereign antidote which it affords to superstition and false religion. All other remedies against that pestilent distemper are vain, or at least uncertain.” From: On Suicide. The problem with the “New Faith” as a reaction to the “New Atheism” is in its approach and ignorance of philosophy in general. Where’s the integrity?
A common sentiment is that an atheist sullies the wonder and beauty of the created universe, and therefore is unappreciative toward the creator. The sheepish and ignorant attacks on The Theory of Evolution are naked and unasked for. Unwarranted in that, for an attack on Evolution is an attack on God’s providence. Evolution is a collection of facts that observe the unmovable laws of nature that God has created. It is Blasphemy to assert that the laws of nature are not so, for God created the laws of nature and The Theory of Evolution is within the power of such a God. With such force do they denounce God’s provenance and admonish his power to endow man with the means to evaluate nature as he created it. The slight bend in a tree to unravel the shadows and bask in the sun is a miracle of God’s doing, for in that reaction to stimuli is the touch of the creator’s rules. And so is the intellect that observes things as they occur and elucidates not a plan for the chosen, but a design that is discoverable to a consciousness that bends to the will of nature as it was created. The attack on evolution is borne from ignorance and a thoughtless reaction to save the church's infallible presence. And in that instance of instability they have exposed themselves for the sophistry and illusion they propagate, faith if you will.
Dr. William Lane Craig, in his resurrection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, has foisted up on Atheists a Burden of non-proof. ----He states: Something comes into existence without a cause' is said by him to be impossible for physical things, yet not so for God! Also he recommends that atheists require more faith to believe that something comes from nothing.----- He questions the naturalist in an effort to mock and ridicule unjustifiable beliefs within as realm of grounded philosophy. This is common rhetoric from apologists who belittle their own beliefs to make science and philosophy mutually exclusive and on par with religion. So, where does he get the audacity to project vague and erroneous beliefs on to the atheist? What philosophical justification makes him so sure that atheists are just as irrational as Christians? Allow me to demonstrate with a few direct quotes from his book.
“Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.” [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]
'My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it is true, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 48.]
I do not feel compelled to answer such solipsistic drivel. Nor am I to believe he is open to honest discussion and argument. For I discredit his ability to understand epistemology on a level that requires any form of justification. An argument may lead to someone relaying the antithesis to his epistemic justification, and only I would be the worser for suffering through it. His credentials to attack evolution with heat death or atheism with argument are nil. If one is to believe that your opponent is empowered with subjective truth, why then, would anyone, argue the tenets of bridge building?
There are good arguments against Craig’s accusations, strong ones at that. However, what is the point of arguing nonsense to an antirealist moron? What can be gained by telling him that he misunderstands the concept of infinity and nothingness, or how he argues for a deist god rather than the Christian god? What can be gained by writing blogs about stupidity?
TS: Steven Clauer --StevenClauer@gmail.com