"The Highest expects us to solve our own problems." (p. 225)
Or there is no "Highest" period?
Either way, we have to address our problems and this is the practical basis of cooperation between theists and secularists. A political party might contest an election on a program of merely praying for divine intervention on every issue but not many voters will support them.
When your roof leaks, you ask:
What caused it?
Am I insured?
Who can I sue?
- but not:
Did this happen because my fathers or I have sinned?
Is this because of what I did in a previous life?
Well, some people nowadays do ask that second question but then they address the practical problem of fixing the roof. Does this make us "practical atheists," i.e., people who explain and address practical issues non-theistically?
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I do believe God, the Highest, does exist. And philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas have argued that reason alone can at least demonstrate the possibility of God existing. Logically speaking, I see no reason to take atheists seriously if they can't prove God does not exist. It would be more logical for atheists to simply say they are not sure God exists, instead of denying that He does. A convinced atheist can ONLY have faith a God does not exist.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No one is obliged to prove a negative. The onus of proof is entirely on the person making a positive statement. I do not believe that there is a China tea service in orbit 50 miles beyond Pluto but I am under no obligation to prove this. Of course, if someone tells me that a tea service is visible through his telescope, then I will look...
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. I believe good arguments has been made, using reason alone, for at least thinking a God exists. And I still say that if atheists can't argue similarly, that weakens THEIR case.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is a basic principle that no one is obliged to prove a negative. If I am accused of a crime, then my accuser must prove his case. If he fails, then I am presumed innocent. I do not have to prove my innocence.
Good arguments for at least thinking that a God exists? A matter of opinion and a very weak statement of your conclusion: "...at least thinking..."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then it seems to me NOTHING can be said in defense of atheism.
I'm sorry, but I take the arguments of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, etc., seriously. As I do not those of atheists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you don't seem to understand that no one has to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that I am not guilty.
If we have no reason to believe a proposition, then we continue not to believe it.
That point must be understood before we start to assess any alleged proofs. Someone who claims to be offering a proof should never fall back on challenging the doubter to disprove the proposition.
Now if (not forgetting that important point) we start to look at alleged proofs, then I say that Aquinas' 5 proofs including the First Cause are hopeless. And the Greeks do not argue for anything like the same monotheism as Aquinas.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I do understand the difficulty of proving a negative. I simply don't find ATHEISM logically reasonable.
I never claimed Plato and Aristotle understood monotheism the same way as St. Thomas did. I should have made clearer that all three at least TRIED to demonstrate the reasonableness (I'm putting it as minimally as possible) of a God existing. Something I do not see with those who believe in atheism.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment