Recently I have realized that I do a lot of thinking in a void, that is, without much input from other people, especially atheists and those of other religions. So today I went on a search for various debates on youtube, especially ones including Richard Dawkins. Some I came across tried to make Dawkins look incapable, some were in favor of atheists, some were just recordings. What follows are some short thoughts brought about by these videos:
Abraham and Eden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjx7hZbqmjQ&feature=related
Occams razor and Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=related
The flood, animal distribution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdrSkQqNj6M&feature=related
Testimony vs. arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVCXM-KBRoo
(1) Testimony vs. arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVCXM-KBRoo
The video features two or three men discussing the hypocrisy Christian apologists use logical arguments when talking with atheists, but personally came to faith through more emotional religious experiences, also saying that many Christians come to faith emotionally and then read apologetics books to validate such faith.
a) Both of these observations I agree with at least in part. It seems odd to me that we apologists do not at least mention the way we were converted. Personally, I was interested and motivated by the lives of Christians around me, I saw that their behavior could not be driven by a simple delusion or fake enthusiasm. In a sense this is emotional, but it is related to my interpretation of the ontological argument as well. Furthermore, I was actually brought to faith through arguments. You can search for 'TSM' on the labels column for the main argument. I also had a great drive and search for meaning that kind of peeled back the layers on my assumptions about the universe, and I came to realize, through analysis, the all-encompassing fundamental before-everything nature of God. "In the beginning God..." start with him.
b) Personal arguments of religious experience do have some validity, however. If you have really experienced God touching you in some way that is tangible, it is literal empirical evidence. Often it is claimed that God is unobservable to us, but perhaps he is not. Two ways come to mind. Miracles happen, I have witnessed three, one of which was quite clear. Second, God can be present personally. In a way this cannot be replicated (and thus not scientific), I can't ask God to touch you on demand, but if you seek him he has promised to show up. It may not be immediate, but he will sometime.
c) In regards to reading apologetics after conversion to back up ones faith, is this not like science? If you have a hypothesis, you test it out. If you have a observed scientific law, you still test it over and over again in schools, and sometimes you even question it. Recently some researchers are wondering whether they have observed particles breaking the universal speed limit of light.
(2) The flood and animal distribution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdrSkQqNj6M&feature=related
Here Dawkins is claiming that the current distribution of animals across the earth support evolution rather than what we would expect coming from the flood, given the isolated nature of Australia and the Arctic He observes that animals all across the world are somewhat different, but have striking similarities. Also, they are evenly spread out.
I do not claim to be an expert on the subject by any means, but I have two thoughts:
a) From the evolutionary model, would we not expect a greater diversity of animals from Australia to the rest of the world? If they evolved independently by random chance, why on earth are they so similar? I would say that the similarities more support a younger earth and a contained number of species.
b) It is true that perhaps the evolutionary model suggests a more even distribution than the story of the flood. But let us take the propagation of humans, for instance. It is claimed that we began somewhere around Egypt or Iran or Turkey (hmm...right where they think Mt. Ararat is). But in the 5000 years of recorded history, we have spread immensely. We get too populated and so the more adventurous of us go looking for more open land and bountiful opportunity. Could not other animals do the same? It only takes 3 years to traverse the silk road across Asia, and creationists estimate they had around 6000 to 8000 to do it. I'll take that.
c) How did animals get onto Australia? I'm thinking Pangaea. I know a lot of Christians will run me up the rail for this because the Pangaea seems like a non-Christian concept. But does anything in the bible seem to dissuade us from the Pangaea? And personally, I saw how the continents fit together even before the concept was introduced to me. Besides, the pangaea almost supports the flood. What else is of such a magnitude to force such a split? It had never rained before, and enough water came out from under the earth to cover it, that's pretty big. There is a man ten generations after Noah who's name is Peleg, which means "when the earth was divided". This may indicate Pangaea breakup or it might be indicating Babel, I don't know which.
Anyway, animals could have spread to Australia before the breakup.
(3) Occams razor and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw&feature=related
This is a video that tries to make it look like a college professor, Lennox, 'beat' Dawkins in a debate. I will first talk about a piece of content that I liked, and then comment on the debate aspect.
By the way, I don't like the way they presented this debate. Personally I don't care about winning, I just want to learn. I think we've won when we come to a mutual understanding, either ending in disagreements about evidence that needs more research, convincing one person, or some other sort of stalemate.
a) The video does all the work for me on my favorite point: if you ask 'who created God?', then let us ask 'who created the universe?'. For if you believe that the universe has eternally existed, that time, space, and matter are fundamental assumptions, what is the difference between that and God? You may argue that we cannot observe God, but I look to God as the one upholding the existence of the very universe you so revere. We agree on the laws of nature, on science, you simply claim that the things which science describes are self-evident, whereas we look to one who designed and upholds them. A common counter argument to this regards Occams razor, which is a philosophical principle. The principle states that if we are confronted
with two explanations, we should chose the simpler one. So which is
simpler, God or evolution? The creationist model may look like adding God to the atheistic model (which would make the theist model more complex and therefore inferior), but I like to pose it as the uncountable individual particles, cubic meters of space, and seconds of time that make up the universe versus the one infinitely good and powerful God who designed it all based on a purpose.
b) i) They begin discussion with the mechanical function of evolution and whether
God made it, move into the razor, and then the Christian seems to change the subject a
little rudely to Jesus. I'm not sure if he was really using a proper argument or whether he just went and hid behind a ton of Christianese language. If he had a real argument I think he was saying that the way the world
is, perhaps our need for justice, is evidence that God designed it, not
random chance. But if he did have an argument, he didn't make it clear. ii) Dawkins was pretty clearly shown to contradict his own book. Unless the christian was lying (which I would doubt with such a concrete question), Dawkins claimed in his book "The God Delusion" that most historians disagree that Jesus even existed. In the debate, Dawkins seems to admit a couple times that Jesus may have existed. In fact, he even says once "maybe I alluded to the possibility that some historians think Jesus never exist[ed]. I take that back. Jesus existed [?]ly." I don't want to make fun of Dawkins, because the Christian professor also rudely changed the subject. All I take from this is a personal warning. I'm not a genius, and I can certainly make mistakes too. If I go into a debate, I'd prefer to make a disclaimer that I may take a while to think and have long pauses, actually take those pauses when I'm confused, and never have to bite my words or dishonor anyone with whom I talk.
(4) Abraham and Eden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjx7hZbqmjQ&feature=related
Dawkins talks with a Christian mostly with the question "Why did God have to sacrifice Jesus, couldn't he have just forgiven us outright?", and I do not think this Christian does a very good job at debating.
a) Dawkins points out the ugly story of how Abraham sacrifices Issac and how God sacrificed Jesus. Why does it have to be so terrible? Why can't God just forgive us? The Christian first points to the good life of Jesus and how that's not ugly, talks about Adam sin needing a parallel in Jesus, and then points to Gods love in giving us Jesus. None of these I think are proper answers, at least explained the way the Christian did. Here's my answer: God just can't forgive us of our sins because then he would be saying in effect "I really don't care if you sin". You forgive people because they actually haven't hurt you, or rather, they haven't shaken you to the core, you still have something to hold on to. In the case of Christians, we can forgive because no matter what God loves us. If God forgives sin outright without sacrifice, he's saying "That didn't really affect me" but it DOES, because God not only wants a relationship with us, he wants our good, that is, he wants to turn us into awesome people. That awesomeness is a perfect standard, and he can't just ignore it and let us sin. So he has to both save us, but also punish our sin through Jesus.
b) One minor point Dawkins repeats is that of original sin. How did taking the fruit reverberate down through generations? The Christian does not answer this very well either. He references Romans 5, which parallels Adam and Jesus, the first the bringer of sin and death, the second the bringer of life. Now, I don't think my view on original sin is very common, so I won't say it's very certain, it's just some ideas. Let's parallel Jesus and Adam again: Jesus made the opportunity for us to be saved, we become saved by deciding to take what he is offering. In the same way, Adam, by sinning, showed the rest of humanity to come that evil existed, that is was an option. We do evil by accepting that invitation. In this way, original sin is not something latent in DNA, it's just the fact that when Adam sinned, death (which results from living without consideration of God and the way he made the universe) came into the world. To make it more stark, God cursed the ground because of Adam to demonstrate that sin brings death. Now we live in a world that is broken, and therefore it offers us opportunity and example to sin. Adam was the bringer of this in the sense that he was the first, that he introduced it, and that he is the father of us all. In ancient times (and in other parts of the world now) ancestry was very important, so if Adam our ancestor sinned, we in the ancient culture are seen to take on his actions much stronger that our current culture trains us to think.
