I received a facebook message from an atheist friend of mine about my thoughts on Russell's teapot and in general with his belief that religion demands evidence of the empirical sort while atheists wait. The following is my (admittingly) long winded response:
"I have heard of it before, yes. I think it's a fun jab at religion but nothing any religious person would ever stumble over. First, making up some trite example that fits how some atheist views religion should not be equated to religious belief unless merely for entertainment/ silly mockery. It's equating something too trivial to something too important so while it is easy to discount the teapot without altering how humanity views the world, to try to use such an argument about something as vital as the existence of the supernatural is ridiculous. The supernatural is just that, supernatural. So it requires man to think beyond his tools and scientific idols. So naturally it is quite easy to scientifically make fun of but that makes it no less real. I would like to bring up the theories of dark energy and black holes. We don't have any idea about what either truly are or if either really exist. And certainly for science now, the idea of testing either seems ridiculous. And yet, using the teapot metaphor, majority of the brightest scientists in the world would be laughed out of any convention they went into. What's the difference? The scientists want these things and see no real way to disprove them. The theories work well with scientists because it helps explain the accelerating expansion of the universe while also holding onto creation stories that do not involve a god. This too is ridiculous. Scientists are ignoring the scientific method because they don't want the supernatural to exist. So instead they speak of extra dimensions, dark energy that can not be observed, and how the accelerating expansion of the universe is in fact still in line with a theory of a cyclical universe...it seems supernatural to me. They have their religion and they have the articles that require faith hoping that one day maybe the truth will reveal itself because they certainly don't give me the impression that they are any better than priests using logic. But I may be ignorant in their complete theories, I admit I find majority of it silly and so I find it hard to read with my eyes rolling so much. But I should pursue it shouldn't I? It is a religion that may be correct. Just as I feel any atheist should be completely open to the existence of a god (notice I'm not giving personality to the god, I mention it openly to any theist religion to embrace).
Priests and scientists are both trying to answer the questions of our origins. In the scientific method, isn't the first step to develop a question and then to strive to answer it? Well humanity has come up with the question "Why are we here?" and we have striven to answer this question since the dawn of civilization (just think, all primitive civilizations that I know of came up with a religion). Acceptance of the supernatural is the default/simplest path to answering the question of our creation. Our ancestors have shown us this. As for the Occam's Razor, it should be stated that since both science and religion rely on that which can not be proven, the simplest theory that sufficiently answers the question should be picked (this is a religion in my opinion). It should be mentioned that such a concept is a "rule of thumb" and by no means is a "irrefutable principle of logic" (wiki) and as such, doesn't actually matter in such discussions because we are all so bias about the results we want that the atheist as well as the theist could be comforted by the fact they are not "necessarily" wrong though they "probably" are wrong. So is the teapot metaphor interesting and entertaining? Sure. Is it useful to explain why religion is inferior to science? No, it makes fun of both parties because it demands we be able to prove something that we can not.
Sorry this was so long, I fear I may have ended up ranting. Hopefully though the ranting was logical(ish). This metaphor just irritates me because it is used by atheists but from what I can see, their theories fall under the same examination. It's just that most people (despite their beliefs) like to mock others for their beliefs without properly examining how silly their own are to an outsider (ex: a christian mocking a mormon for thinking Joseph Smith heard God in New York). But we all, including atheists, believe in things that we can not hope to prove. That does not mean what we believe is false, it merely means we must escape the slavery of the scientific method to pursue the truth. Such things are required, I believe, when asking about the supernatural. And so those are my thoughts, to summarize: Just because a man may be blind and deaf to the world around him doesn't mean there is no color or music, but he may be deemed a fool by his peers for dreaming such. I believe there are absolute truths in the world and while I may not be able to prove them to you, how would you prove to the blind and deaf man what music and colors are? You and I are the blind men and we have men of sight and hearing among us. They communicate to us such things exist and in the absolute sense they do, but other than faith, how would we ever believe in that which is true?
Thank you for being willing to endure such a long reply. I haven't wished to offend you throughout my monologue (and I don't think I have but if I have, it was not purposefully), I merely wished to show you what I believe to be logical reasoning towards pursuing a religion that includes a god (for indeed I consider atheism a religion) or at least why they are at least as credible as religions without a god."
After reviewing this, I wonder at how I've come up with this and indeed I doubt I could have without the Lord. I hope my knowledge of the Big Bang theory and the such wasn't too constricting towards sounding rational...I should look into these things more, especially if I feel called to be an apologetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment