I am getting hate mail on the series presenting Hans Kung's arguments for believing in God, none of them attacks Kung's arguments, none of them presents counter-arguments, they whine like an 8-year-old stamping their feet and angrily declaring "that's not fair!" If one breaks out of that mode into something approaching an adult level of argument I may post it, even if it violates my New Years resolution. It's a big "if" but I'll post it if it breaks out of the typical popular understanding of atheism which Kung brilliantly characterized as, "an intellectual pose, snobbish caprice or thoughtless superficiality." None so far has.
In rational argument the better argument wins the argument, it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be absolutely air-tight - as absolutely no human argument ever has been and likely never will be. So much of atheism and its more cowardly cousin, agnosticism rests on the pretense that such air-tightness is required when it never is. It is certainly never required of arguments for atheism and against belief.
I would caution any atheist that their argument should, at the very least, account for how their materialistic, scientistic, atheistic argument is consistent with the faith in reason and even the validity of our minds that is at the center of Kung's arguments, atheists don't get that miracle in contradiction to the logical consequences of the ground of their atheism for free - especially when some of today's major atheists like Dennett, Dawkins, the Churchlands, Coyne etc. are in the business of debunking our very minds. That aspect of the logical consequences of materialism isn't something atheists get to two step around when it is the very heart of the attack on their atheism.
No comments:
Post a Comment