Some atheists need to brush up on their theology and philosophy.
Here’s evidence that the atheist mind is capable of some level of theological thinking if only as a set of counterfactuals: This post by atheist Larry Moran touches on two themes that he repeatedly comes back to:
1) The belief that only deism is compatible with science.
2) The belief that evolution is incompatible with the concept of God.
Obviously such beliefs can only be worked out if one has in one’s head notions about the nature and purposes of Deity and its relation to the cosmos.
Deism: Science is about pattern description. Unless one projects very anthropomorphic qualities onto the Godhead, it is very difficult to see why the patterns of evolution are any more self sustaining than even the pattern of discontinuous leaps demanded by YEC creation theory. Thus under any circumstances deism is difficult to maintain, but, the thought goes, only departures from patterned normalcy are sure fire evidence of God's reality. In order to secure their respective positions both YEC and atheists may view God as a kind of powerful cosmic Godfather whose evident existence is largely manifested when He steps in here and there with acts of divine fiat defying the work-a-day pattern of a cosmos that otherwise proceeds with a quasi-autonomous normalcy. Hence the YEC position is sustained by a vehement belief in special creation 6000 years ago and the atheist position is sustained by a vehement belief in patterned normalcy. It is an irony that to secure their respective positions, YECs and atheists invoke similar concepts of Divinity and project this onto the Godhead.
Incompatibility of Evolution and Theism: Once again we have here an argument that, if it is to be worked out, must tap into theological assumptions about the nature of the Godhead and His relation to the cosmos. In particular God is often assumed to be a benevolent cosmic intervener who, in the absence of the culpability of Satan and man, would have a free run and would intervene rather than allow evolution and suffering in general. On this point many atheists and YECS would see eye-to-eye; as I have often maintained atheists and YECS have a lot of common ground in their concept of Deity
These two areas are very dangerous ground for atheists who, unless they have given some thought to the subjects of suffering, evil and theodicy, may not be theologically savvy. Atheists are on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they can spend time with theology, become conversant with it, and attack the concept of God by exposing inconsistencies. On the other hand, if they are unwilling to dignify theology with their time they can simply declare religion to be worthless and unintelligible. But then they will remain theological dunces, and philosophically minded believers will run rings round them. So which is it to be?
1) The belief that only deism is compatible with science.
2) The belief that evolution is incompatible with the concept of God.
Obviously such beliefs can only be worked out if one has in one’s head notions about the nature and purposes of Deity and its relation to the cosmos.
Deism: Science is about pattern description. Unless one projects very anthropomorphic qualities onto the Godhead, it is very difficult to see why the patterns of evolution are any more self sustaining than even the pattern of discontinuous leaps demanded by YEC creation theory. Thus under any circumstances deism is difficult to maintain, but, the thought goes, only departures from patterned normalcy are sure fire evidence of God's reality. In order to secure their respective positions both YEC and atheists may view God as a kind of powerful cosmic Godfather whose evident existence is largely manifested when He steps in here and there with acts of divine fiat defying the work-a-day pattern of a cosmos that otherwise proceeds with a quasi-autonomous normalcy. Hence the YEC position is sustained by a vehement belief in special creation 6000 years ago and the atheist position is sustained by a vehement belief in patterned normalcy. It is an irony that to secure their respective positions, YECs and atheists invoke similar concepts of Divinity and project this onto the Godhead.
Incompatibility of Evolution and Theism: Once again we have here an argument that, if it is to be worked out, must tap into theological assumptions about the nature of the Godhead and His relation to the cosmos. In particular God is often assumed to be a benevolent cosmic intervener who, in the absence of the culpability of Satan and man, would have a free run and would intervene rather than allow evolution and suffering in general. On this point many atheists and YECS would see eye-to-eye; as I have often maintained atheists and YECS have a lot of common ground in their concept of Deity
These two areas are very dangerous ground for atheists who, unless they have given some thought to the subjects of suffering, evil and theodicy, may not be theologically savvy. Atheists are on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they can spend time with theology, become conversant with it, and attack the concept of God by exposing inconsistencies. On the other hand, if they are unwilling to dignify theology with their time they can simply declare religion to be worthless and unintelligible. But then they will remain theological dunces, and philosophically minded believers will run rings round them. So which is it to be?
4 comments:
I have never said that evolution is incompatible with the concept of God.
Other atheists make that claim, not me.
...acknowledged .. that's why I said you touched on it; in this case via the quote:
...the theistic conception of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God is hardly compatible with the process of evolution.
Sorry to give the wrong impression.
hhmm.... but was I right in saying that you come back to it again and again?
These two areas are very dangerous ground for atheists who, unless they have given some thought to the subjects of suffering, evil and theodicy, may not be theologically savvy.
As an atheist I'm interested in hearing about evidence for the existence of God. In the absence of any convincing argument for the existence of God why should I care about suffering, evil, and theodicy?
Those are problems that some theists have to deal with once they accept the existence of God. They have nothing to do with the argument about whether God exists or not.
Speak for yourself Larry, but for many people the existence suffering and evil is the clinching evidence for atheism - a use of evidence that taps into implicit theological assumptions about the nature of God, assumptions that can be challenged by theodicy. Perhaps you have wisely withdrawn from this particular contention.
In your case the implicit theology is found in your belief that only deism is consistent with science, not to mention your belief in the absence of purpose. Also, your call for evidence will inevitably be accompanied by some, if prototype, conception of the object you are asking evidence for in order that you can sort out the relevant evidence from the irrelevant and thus arrive at an opinion.
There is also Bart Klink who you quote approvingly: “….the theistic conception of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God is hardly compatible with the process of evolution.” This quote brings to my mind a statement by David Attenborough who once said something to the effect that he found creator theism untenable in the light of a parasitic larva that develops inside the body a living caterpillar host (caution: I quote from memory)
The moral of the story is that if one is going to engage the God issue, there is no escape from theology whether you like it or not. (Ps 139:7-12). God, it seems demands that we at least think about him whether he exists or not!
I’m not in the business of telling people how wicked they must be because they don’t follow my opinion on what is clearly a tricky issue. As I have said many times before epistemic tractability is a function of ontology and consequently it's no surprise to me that this God business is tricky: far trickier, in fact, than the question of just what blend of drift and selection evolution employs. Hence I expect genuine and honest people to disagree on this matter.
Post a Comment