Over the past couple of weeks an especially determined atheist has been writing me, offering me $1000 if I can make God appear to Him in such a way that he can see and touch Him. The atheist just finished reading my book What's So Great About Christianity and it disturbed him, because it challenged his assumptions. Still, he demands unquestionable empirical confirmation. If I can only make God show his face, my correspondent sarcastically suggests, he would be happy to join the ranks of the believers.
In some ancient religions, where gods were considered to be made of the same material substance as other matter, this would be a reasonable (or at least a meaningful) challenge. But all the great religions, and certainly the Abrahamic ones, regard God as an immaterial spirit. If the atheist is willing to consider the possibility that such a God exists--as all open-minded atheists must do--then the question becomes: how can we know of the existence of immaterial things?
Scientists believe in immaterial things. How about gravity? I should write back my betting friend, offering him $1000 if he can make gravity appear to me in such a way that I can see and touch it. But of course he would indignantly reply that gravity is a force, and the existence of forces cannot be verified through direct sensory experience. Rather, their existence must be inferred through their effects. We know that something is making objects plummet to the earth. We know that something is causing the light from the sun in certain cases to bend. That something we call gravity.
Or consider dark matter and dark energy. I haven't seen them, and I bet you haven't either. In fact, no one has. The reason they are called "dark" is because they don't emit light. So how can we reasonably believe in such invisible, immaterial things? The existence of dark matter is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. The existence of dark energy is inferred from the accelerated rate at which galaxies are flying away from each other. Scientists reason that something is holding galaxies together, and something else is causing them (and space itself) to fly apart. These somethings we call dark matter and dark energy. Interestingly scientists believe that dark matter and dark energy make up more than 90 percent of all the matter in the universe.
Applying the same mode of reasoning, I would argue that some immaterial force caused the universe to come into existence. Here is the proof: a) All material things that have a beginning must have a cause, b) We know from the Big Bang theory that the universe (not just matter but space and time itself) had a beginning, c) Therefore the universe has a cause.
Now that cause can be natural or supernatural, but we can rule out a natural cause since the universe encompasses all of nature. It is simply ridiculous to say that nature, which once did not exist, somehow caused itself to come into existence. Some people like to talk about "multiple universes" or even an infinity of universes but they have to admit that they are just making those up: there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that any universe exists except our own. Much of this kind of talk seems to be a desperate way of trying to get around the idea of God. It's faith-based atheism.
It's must more reasonable--and, invoking Occam's razor, much more intellectually parsimonious--to believe that the universe came into existence because of a non-natural or (as theists would say) supernatural cause. That cause we call God.
Reader Comments ( Page 33 of 33)
481. bump :)
dani at 11:24PM on Jan 31st 2008
482. Mike Valiente
Blah blah blah
regurgitating
You didn't prove me wrong, everything I posted was accurate. I was being facetious when I made the 12 or 14 year old comment, apparently you don't recognize humor. Not surprising. Twenty two is hardly wise or a great length of time to do soul searching. All you did was prove that your original post was misleading. Thank you.
His words don't prove anything other than the fact that he had to make his story more interesting to sell books.
dani at 12:09AM on Feb 1st 2008
483. What's pathetic is the way you get your panties in a wad when someone calls you out on your BS.
dani at 12:12AM on Feb 1st 2008
484. Dani, apparently my post demonstrated two things:
First, you were wrong.
Second, you can't admit it when you're wrong.
The original point I made when using Mcgrath as an example was that people would still become Christians if they were only exposed to religion after the age of fifteen, and after having been educated in science and logic. At the age of twenty-two, Mcgrath was seven years beyond the fifteen year limit, had an honors degree in chemistry from Oxford, and was two years from a phd in molecular biophysics from Oxford. So, obviously, my original point stands.
Your cowardly attempt to change the issue to one of the idiotically vague "great length of time to do soul searching" requirement only serves to further strengthen my initial point.
Mike Valente at 12:26AM on Feb 1st 2008
485. Mike V
"Gradually, he made the move from atheism to Christianity, and he did so on rational grounds. He then went on to earn a second phd from Oxford, in theology, and is a professor at Oxford today. So here we have an example of a man who moved, by way of reason, from hatred of religion, and from a strong scientific background (much stronger, I think it's fair to say, than anyone who has ever posted on this blog), to Christian faith; and he did this as an adult."
Again, he was 22 when he "gradually made the move from atheism to christianity."
It's laughable.
You were misleading and you know it.
I will gladly admit when I'm wrong. I wasn't wrong about anything in my post. I was not trying to mislead, I only stated facts.
dani at 12:48AM on Feb 1st 2008
486. Mike V
I am not sure why you are so angry and desperate to make a point. You
would probably get more accomplished here by just being honest and
having civil discussions with the other posters. People with
different beliefs can have a civil discussion. It happens all the
time. But you can't start out by misleading others to make a point.
dani at 1:02AM on Feb 1st 2008
487. One has to wonder - do you simply lack an understanding of science or are you being disingenuous (as one might be forgiven for thinking on the basis of your writings)? Gravity cannot be seen, it is true. Neither can one see the electricity coursing through the wires of your home but stick your finger in the socket and you'll become a believer in at least one invisible force. Unless one subscribes to the belief that little demons live in the plug waiting in ambush to zap the unwary. Gravity, like all accepted parts of science is a process with effects which can be observed, and tested. Moreover, continued acceptance requires requires that the behavior of such forces can be accurately predicted in future experiments and observation and its behavior must be explainable in light of the entire range of science. Science does not stand still but demands continued proof in light of ever evolving technology and basic understanding. Consider that the next time you dust off Aquinas or some other equally antique philosopher to make some point.
If you wish others to view your beliefs as sincere and 'moral' (if that is your goal) then please do us the courtesy of sharing your beliefs without resorting to falsehoods and illogical statements which harms rather than promotes your vision.
Steve at 6:16PM on Feb 1st 2008