The parodox of unbelieving rationalism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Born_in_Crewe, Dec 18, 2009.

  1. Born_in_Crewe

    Born_in_Crewe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has been a rise in recent years of prominent intellectual atheists who call themselves ''rationalists'', but the more I think about it, the more they seem to contradict themselves. They talk about being rational, but the way I see it somebody who is rational does not do something that is pointless for its own sake. Yet, although they have basically decided that life is a product of chance and there is no meaning to it, they do not release themselves from this state of being a meaningless organism, on a meaningless planet, in a meaningless universe. In effect, if they were truly rational, they would be driven to suicide. (And yet, most humans consider suicide irrational, and herein lies the paradox.)

    You could go further and argue that, if they deny God, and deny a spiritual world, they effectively deny their own existence, as there isn't a ''real me'' under such circumstances, as you and all people are just (to quote British theologian Michael Green) ''blobs of protoplasm''.
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Popular atheism is not rational because it is not rational to state that something, even God, doesn't exist any place in the entire universe or the multiverse.

    Neither does the "blobs of protoplasm" citation compute if we live in a "real," physical universe. Mere existence is sufficient justification to continue existing. Why must it have a meaning outside of itself? It is the concept of God that creates the need for meaning.

    True atheists are in a very small minority. Either God exists or natural selection has hard wired the concept into our brains. There is no objective test to determine which is true. Or both could be true. We believe in God because God has hard wired our brains to recognize himself, see Romans chap 1.
     
  3. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    Very good argument Crewe. If you ever listen to Dawkins or Hitchens speak or debate they truly don't come across as rational but instead I pity them and believe they come across as mentally unstable. Some of the latest polls taken in America have atheists as comprising only 1-2% of the population, but sadly they seem to carry a big stick and end up on the airwaves spewing their unbelief all over America.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some rationalists are crazy. Some Christian are crazy. The quality of the content of their thesis may still be logical.

    All arguments about first cause boil down to "God" or to "always was."
    Any conclusion that goes beyond "God or always was" is a matter of faith, not logic.

    Further, in the last century, Kurt Godel demonstrated that ALL logical systems are ultimately circular. No, I do not understand the math of the proof but but seems to be universally accepted.

    Third, logically, a thesis can be falsified or not falsified, but can not be claimed true as long as there is one chance out of billion, billion, billion . . . that it is not true. This is why a jury is instructed to determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty. The verdict is never "innocent."
     
  5. Born_in_Crewe

    Born_in_Crewe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill - what I think Michael Green was trying to say, was that if you deny the existence of some form of God, then effectively you are denying you have a spiritual side. I don't think he was saying we don't exist as physical beings, or as conscious beings, but that if there is no God we cannot be spiritual beings as the 'Big Bang' hardly allows for spiritual beings. Very interesting point about the concept of God, I sort of made a similar point in a real-life discussion once but you have explained it better.

    SolaSaint - thank you, Dawkins is probably just as high profile in the UK (being British after all) and he does come across as an unpleasant character who seems blinded by a deep antipathy towards anything to do with faith. He may be intelligent in some ways, but this does not mean he is always right.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In my opinion - "Christian" theistic evolutionists are a much bigger problem for the church than atheist evolutionists like Richard Dawkins.

    Atheist evolutionists come up with the not so-surprising statement that atheism's doctrines as found in evolutionism are at war with the Christian faith and the plain statements of the Bible. Most Bible-reading Bible-believing Christians would also agree with that. Even Darwin was eventually able to see that glaringly obvious fact.

    Theistic evolutionists cannot even get that far along the path of truth.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #6 BobRyan, Dec 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2009
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    > but that if there is no God we cannot be spiritual beings as the 'Big Bang' hardly allows for spiritual beings.

    Does "spiritual" mean something more than non-corporeal?
     
  8. Born_in_Crewe

    Born_in_Crewe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill, what I mean is, how do you get emotions from physical matter, chemicals, water etc.? A computer has intelligence but no real emotions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...