SHOULD ONE’S RELIGION DISQUALIFY THEIR VOICE?
For more great blogs as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at:
Should the Christian William Craig be disqualified from debate or discussion because of his religious commitments/presuppositions? Well, should the atheist Christopher Hitchens be disqualified because of his commitments to naturalism? And should anyone be disqualified because of their commitments or presuppositions? Of course, not!
Related to this question, does Hitchens’ assertion that science is built on doubt, but the Christian’s mind is already made up, disqualify him from science? However, we ALL approach science with doubts about its workings. That’s why we do science!
Besides, we ALL approach science with our paradigms, presuppositions, and tentative hypotheses. In fact, it is often correctly stated that science is built upon the shoulders – their “findings - of the prior generations. No one approaches science with an empty mind, and no one should leave it without new questions demanding answers.
PROOFS OF GOD – ARE THEY INADEQUATE?
This is the contention of many atheists, including the late Christopher Hitchens. However, whatever “inadequacy” there might be in the proofs for God must be weighed against the adequacy of proofs against God. Ironically, most atheists concede that there are no substantial proofs against the existence of God.
Besides, the “inadequacy” of the proofs for God must also be weighed against proofs for the existence of the alternative worldview – naturalism. Does anything happen naturally and without design? In other words, is there any evidence that the causal laws of science naturally occur or are naturally sustained?
WHY ARE THERE ATHEISTS?
Most atheists will readily admit that there is no evidence against the existence of God. Why then do they deny God’s existence? For the same reason they also deny the existence of the Good-Tooth-Fairy, Bigfoot, and the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster – that there is simply no positive evidence for these!
But are these beings ontologically equivalent to a Being who can possibly account for the first cause, the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, life, and the laws of science – things that naturalism is hard-pressed to account for?
ATHEIST RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
What is the atheist response to the argument from design? One response is evolution. If things can evolve naturally, ID becomes unnecessary. However, there is no proof that ID might not have guided scientific “natural” processes.
Another response to design is non-design. The late Christopher Hitchens argued that we are confronted with more “non-design” and wastefulness than design. He cites the fact that 99% of biological species have gone extinct.
However, “non-design” – and it’s hard to prove that something is without a design - fails to directly address the evidence of design. For example, if I come home to my totally unkempt apartment to find that the kitchen has been perfectly cleaned and ordered, I shouldn’t say:
• I don’t have to account for the order of my kitchen because the three other rooms remain in total disorder.
Instead, I should still seek an explanation for my ordered kitchen.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE
The late atheist Christopher Hitchens had argued that extraordinary claims - namely the existence of God - require extraordinary evidence.
While this might be true, it must be weighed against another extraordinary claim - that everything sprung into existence uncaused out of nothing.
This observation leaves us with the unavoidable question - Which makes more sense: ID or naturalism?
DO CHRISTIANS LACK THE NECESSARY CONCERN ABOUT THIS WORLD?
The late atheist, Christopher Hitchens, claimed that the Christian eagerness for Christ’s return and His everlasting Kingdom undermine a proper concern for the things of this world.
There are several ways to answer his challenge:
1. The Bible commands our concern for this world in multiple instances.
2. The historical impact of Christianity has demonstrated its concern for this world by building of hospitals, schools, for loving others, and caring for the needy.
3. The contention that Christian interest in the next life takes away for the concern about this life depends upon a false premise – that concern for A takes away from concern for B.
Let me try to illustrate the fallacy of the third point. It is like saying that the more I love my wife, the less I will love my children. Instead, it would seem like the more we love our wives, the more this love will rub off on our children. Likewise, the more we love Christ and are confident of His love for us, the more this love will extend to others. And this has been the historical experience of Christianity.
