MADPRIEST’S THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

I have too many doubts to be an atheist.
I am just not capable of such faith.

There is no greater evangelist than science itself.

Comments

MADPRIEST’S THOUGHT FOR THE DAY — 14 Comments

  1. I’m with you on this MP. I’m tempted to be an atheist (most days of the week) but it requires too much faith. Well at least it requires more faith than I have.

    I remind myself that I believed in God when I was a child. I fancy that I had more wisdom back then. I certainly saw things more clearly then. So I stick with that.

  2. Faith not quite same thing as emotional comfort level. I’m reasonably comfortable being an atheist; I can’t see where faith would enter into my atheism, though I’ll always be happy to discuss it.

    By the way, eh, science, natural law, natural theology, eh; while the mainstay of belief for a long time, and for many, it’s a double-edged sword, Robert Frost’s poem “In White”, the disgusting sex lives of some lice and mite species and all that, after all.

  3. My thought came after watching an interview with Dr. Nick Higham in which he stated that a single cell organism has only once, in the history of our earth, merged with another single cell to form a multi-cell organism. The mathematics involved in this when added to the numbers of all the other perfect coincidences that allow us to exist is so mind-blowing that I do not have enough faith to be able you believe it is all a coincidence. I respect the incredible faith in what appears impossible that atheists, who know their science, are apparently capable of. I am limited to believing the more possible explanation that something intelligent is involved.

  4. Which god I believe in is irrelevant. It’s a matter of culture and personal choice, I expect. Anyway, I wouldn’t dream of trying to persuade anyone to believe in my god because I can’t prove this god’s existence. It would be like a scientist trying to persuade someone that the reason for perfection in our universe is the presence of multi-universes. Like god, that’s an interesting idea, but until proven those who promote it should be extremely reticent, as I am about my god. In fact, I doubt god’s existence quite often because, as I say above, I am not capable of the great acts of faith involved in believing something or not believing something for definite.

  5. Jonathan, your statement sort of reminds me of a quote I read from C.S. Lewis, who said:

    My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and “unjust”? What was I comparing this universe with when I called it “unjust”? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended upon saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple.

    Interesting way of looking at it. It’s almost like…suffering and evil more easily justify belief in God than it justifies nonbelief in God. A nonbeliever, it seems, doesn’t have a good basis for being outraged at injustice – which, as Lewis said, was the reason for objecting to God in the first place.

    I like the way philosopher Alvin Plantinga put it:

    Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if there was no God and we just evolved? I don’t see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, OBLIGED to live. A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort, and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness, and not just an illusion of some sort, then you have a powerful argument for the reality of God.

    Well, I thought it was an interesting way to look at it, anyway.

  6. I have heard it said that one of the proofs of the reality of Jesus and the resurrection is the existence of the church itself.

    That is to say, how many people would go around the world with the message of Jesus Christ – and more to the point, go to their deaths proclaiming the gospel, unless they knew this was real and worth paying that price?

    Of course, it could be argued that they were all just lunatics anyway. But that just doesn’t seem to really address the question all that well. “They’re all loonies,” seems like such a cop-out answer. Don’t ya think?

  7. I am with you completely, Tracie.

    But I must point out that my last two thoughts for the day have not been about proving the existence of God, which is somethingI am unable to do. They have been about the fact that my “you’ve got to be kidding me!” reaction kicks in a lot quicker than it does with science informed atheists.

    I’ll give you an example. As I said above somewhere, Dr. Nick Higham states that a single cell organism has only once, in the history of our earth, merged with another single cell to form a multi-cell organism. This means that the chances of their being multi-cell lifeforms elsewhere in the “known” universe is about as close to zero as you could possibly get. Yet Stephen Hawking continues to insist that there is much life out there. The amount of blind faith required to believe such a thing is far, far greater than what is required to believe that a “creator” (divine or otherwise) is responsible for all the coincidences and accidents that have happened and . or which just are, that allow the universe to exist and for their to be sentient life on earth.

  8. Gotta side w/ IT here, that Dr Higham’s argument is not persuasive.

    Anything like

    The mathematics involved in this when added to the numbers of all the other perfect coincidences that allow us to exist is so mind-blowing that I do not have enough faith to be able you believe it is all a coincidence.

    …sounds way too much like “Intelligent Design” which (IMO) is the opposite of true faith. If it’s not an irrational (inspirational!) leap then why bother? Reconciling (seeming) woo-woo coincidences is what plodding empiricism is for…