On Sun, 24 Mar 1996 19:18:47 -0600 you wrote:
>SJ>Perhaps some of our resident agnostic/atheists could take up
>Craig's challenge on the Reflector? :-)
>CW>I too would like to see atheism defended affirmatively from a
>philosophical standpoint. Almost all debates I have seen or read
>seem to end with the atheist claiming victory simply because the
>theist hasn't "conclusively" proved his case. Let an atheist share
>the burden of proof, and let's rumble!
SJ>I urge Reflectorites (both atheists and theists) who haven't seen
>the video "Atheism vs Christianity" to try to do so. Indeed, they
>might read some of William Lane Craig's writings, eg. "Reasonable
>Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", Crossway Books..., 1994)
CW>I also highly recommend "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi
>Zacharias (Word, 1994). Ravi does the best job I have seen of
>addressing the emotional (as well as the intellectual) barrenness of
>atheism.
Seconded. Here is a quote from the above to get the ball rolling:
"Of course there are some like Martin, and for that matter Huxley, who
like to hide behind a softer version of atheism (just as Russell did
in his debate) because they know the philosophical decimation they
would experience in trying to defend the absolute negative There is no
God. Their soft position that there is not sufficient evidence for
theism commits three logical blunders.
First, to move to atheism by default is hardly an academically
credible switch to make when there are myriad other options. Second,
to say that there is insufficient evidence for theism and therefore I
am an atheist implies a logically satisfactory defense of atheism that
they do not have. After all, why else would they hold to it if it is
logically indefensible, when their very reason for denying theism is
that it is logically indefensible? Third, it is purely an admission
that atheism cannot be defended, even though they have tried, hence
the softer version of agnosticism. Let us look at the words
themselves.
The word atheism comes from the Greek, which has two words conjoined.
The alpha is the negative, and theos means "God." The atheistic
position, whether you like it or not, posits the negation of God.
Having quickly recognized the inherent contradiction of affirming
God's non-existence, which absolutely would at the same time
presuppose infinite knowledge on the part of the one doing the
denying, a philosophically convenient switch was made to agnosticism.
But agnostic has an even more embarrassing connotation. The alpha
means the negative, and ginosko is from the Greek 'to know." An
agnostic is one who doesn't know. It sounds quite congenial and
sophisticated at the same time, but the Latin uncomplimentary
equivalent is "ignoramus." That is why the agnostic does not feel
lauded in this category either but dresses up the concept,
manufacturing a certain aura not inherent in the word while smuggling
in atheism for all functional purposes. So I say to you, the charge
is not against the apologists; that is to dislocate the problem. The
hat pin is in the heart of the atheistic position, which could not
live with itself. Let me add that an honest agnostic should be open to
the evidence."
(Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word Publishing:
Dallas TX, 1994, p187)
Is there an atheist in the house? :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------