Your Brother Daniel
For more great blogs as this
one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
Richard Dawkins: Nothing can Prove the Existence of God
The renowned atheist and mathematician,
Bertrand Russell, had once been asked:
·
Bertrand, what would you say to God if you encounter him after you
die and he asks, “Bertrand, why didn’t you believe?”
Russell confidently responded, “There just
wasn’t enough evidence,” as if to say:
·
I am a rational person and rational people require evidence. The
fault, therefore, wasn’t with me but with you!
Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous
atheist today, has taken it one step further, claiming that no evidence is possible to support
belief in God! In an interview with hosted by Peter Boghossian, Dawkins was
asked:
·
What would it take for you to believe in God? (youtube)
Dawkins dismissed the possibility that any evidence is possible – that even if
Christ returned, Dawkins would have no way of knowing whether this was an
hallucination or not.
However, if Dawkins were to use this logic
consistently, he also would deprive himself of any evidence for the existence of
the universe. It might only be a dream or hallucination.
Nevertheless, Dawkins seems haunted by the
idea that his dismissal of all possible evidence doesn’t line up with the logic
of science. After all, if a theory can be falsified by the evidence, it should
also be amenable to evidential proof. Perhaps he senses that he is playing
fast-and-loose with the concept of evidence and of science.
Perhaps he has stacked-this-deck with only
the cards that will prove his point – that the natural explanation is the only
possible one. But where did the natural come from? Doesn’t this question
require a super-natural explanation? And is there any proof that causation is
natural? While we all believe in the laws of science, perhaps these laws are
best explained transcendentally, emanating from the mind of God?
No comments:
Post a Comment