Prager University – God vs. Atheism, Which is More Rational?
The latest video offering from Prager University is well timed for the Passover/Easter season.
Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause–including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the “unmoved mover.”
Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you’ll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
0
0
Comments
What, he wants to be a “man of faith” for logical reasons?
That’s cheating.
Faith must be its own
rationalejustification, otherwise it’s a pretty measly sort of faith. God certainly deserves better. Or so I would think, were I a man of faith.What’s the cause of the Higgs-Boson? We dunno. What’s the effect of the Higgs-Boson? Hint: It’s called the God Particle. http://science.howstuffworks.com/higgs-boson1.htm
So is belief in God more rational than Atheism? Sure, if your atheism is completely groundless and not based in anything at all.
But yeah, turns out that “Everything has a cause (except for the Prime Mover)” isn’t a good basis to defend religion.
But then, the “God of the Gaps” argument is the simplest argument to make at any given moment, but it relies on people not re-evaluating once the gaps are filled. (Because it then collapses)
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that science can’t know if the universe is infinitely old, and then say that science knows how old it is. Either science can know something or it can’t. If science can’t know something, then the things it can’t know are not science.
All this is just a religious straw man. The major religions of today all pre-date science and have nothing to do with the scientific reasoning forwarded here. They are based on faith in ancient stories invented by ignorant minds interested in manipulating political power, not knowledge.
Besides, many atheists are less concerned about the existense of a creator or a banger (for which there is no evidence, only conjecture), but why would we have any reason to think it has any impact on our lives, let alone why we would want to worship it.
Fools are not rational. Only fools say there is no God. Atheists say there is no God; therefore atheists are fools.
If fools are not rational, and atheists are fools, then atheists are not rational.
Kepler would say if science can’t know something then it is because the thing has not yet been revealed.
Really Juda? You should probably try not living down to the expectations of the snide, condescending, clueless religious zealot.
But that would break your bubble, and we can’t have that.
Between Kepler’s faith and his contribution to new revelation in mathematics, and your base, sneering atheistic babble, you will understand if I defer to Kepler rather than entertain sound and fury signifying nothing.
“…stories invented by ignorant minds interested in manipulating political power, not knowledge.”
How is that any different from Climate Science?
The problem with atheists is that most of them simply redirect their spiritual energy/needs to another cause – like Global Warming or Socialism or (most often) themselves.
Better a God in heaven than a God-King on earth, I say.
It isn’t any different than climate science. What does that have to do with atheism?
You can believe in god in your pocket, just keep you hands out of mine.
Only if you promise to do the same with your gods, whatever they are. And don’t pretend you don’t have them.
“Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb.”
According to which atheists? Given the circumstances, this atheist believes that belief in God is entirely rational and logical, and certainly not dumb. I personally know of no atheists who believe what is attributed to them here.
“Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science.”
‘They’ do not say this. ‘They’ say they have no idea how the universe was created.
“This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause–including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the “unmoved mover.”
Peter Kreeft is a Christian apologist. His opinion is just that, an opinion, based on his belief in God. What Prager does here is quote a man chosen specifically because he believes just as Prager does, and then he presents it as proof or evidence. I guess. But he’s a philosophy professor! Look up ‘argument from authority’. It’s a logical fallacy. Empirical truth doesn’t care what one’s degree or job is. Empirical truth requires empirical evidence, which is why scientists and many atheists admit they don’t know what created the universe. Who’s more honest about it?
“Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God.”
Kreeft is not ‘showing’ anything. He is expressing his opinion on a currently unknowable question – the creation of the universe. That “logic, science, and reason support God” doesn’t become true because someone believes it does. Empirical evidence. Got any? Of course not. Prager finds his beliefs supported by Kreeft’s beliefs because they are identical, which is all it takes for Prager to elevate Kreeft’s religious beliefs to fact or truth.
“Atheism, as you’ll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.”
Right. So he believes. Made easier by citing the beliefs of only those atheists who blindly believe there is no God as opposed to those atheists who chose to not have faith in an entity they see no evidence for. Cherry picking.
1. Prager’s arguments are almost entirely strawmen.
2. Atheists are no more monolithic than religious people and you cannot attribute all these strawman assertions about what all atheists believe anymore than you can claim all religious people believe the same.
3. Many religionists piss their pants over atheists, threatened, I guess, by a set of people who live well, obey laws and social norms, pay taxes, have families, are happy, and all the other things religious folks do and have, but manage it without faith or belief in God.
4. Many religionists equate the tiny minority of activist, in your face, nasty atheists they see in media with all atheists. It would be like assuming all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist folks.
Fallacist’s fallacy – Nothing I’ve said disproves God or disproves that God created the universe, nor did I intend for it to do so. It does expose Prager’s arguments as a mass of logical fallacies and false assumptions that do nothing to further his argument.
This atheist is willing to consider any scientific, empirical evidence for the existence to God, and will say no more than I simply don’t know if there’s a God of if God created the universe. However, do not waste my time telling me what you believe. Tell me what you know. Atheists and religious folks agree – people believe all sorts of crazy stuff.
“But Henry, you’re an agnostic not an atheist!” I don’t give a shit how folks label me. Religious folks have about a dozen definitions each for agnostic and atheist. All I know is that I was not indoctrinated into religious belief as a child, as about 99% of religious believers were, and so far I have never experienced anything that could only be explained by the existence of God. Given your circumstances, belief in God may be logical and reasonable. But given my circumstances, atheism is just as logical and reasonable. I am willing to change, given cause. Are believers?
Question: Since God is apparently disinterested in providing empirical evidence for his own existence, why do some believers so fervently try to do so?
That’s a new one on me: “It doesn’t take faith to believe in God”.