In Reply to: Re: criticisms of aetheism posted by susie on January 22, 2007 at 00:19:56:
Hi Susie...I haven't had much time recently and I haven't read up too much to cover the subject...so I figure my response is inadequate...for what it's worth, here I go:
You know some biblical reference to atheism like the one in Psalms & the possibility to deduce God via creation in Romans...I won't go into those references here.
I have bought - reduced - some time ago a neat German edition of : The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions Copyright 2000
Under the category Children of God you have quite a good outlining of TF, mentioning also the abuse of children...I think that deserves much to be mentioned here...even if a bit out of context!
Anyway, I consider the dictionary a real jewel in my library...I don't know, if the English version difers from the German in any way...whatever
Obviously that dictionary refers also to atheism:
modern atheist claim, that there are hardly any or little evidences for the existence of God, theism is disproven by the existence of evil in the world, the existence of God is insignificant, cause not determinable now...further the existence of God collides with the autonomy of men...plus it's unscientific.
I have a neat theological dictionary of K.Rahner &
H.Vorgrimler (catholic)...which also got translated into English:
It poses the question, whether it's reasonable to follow the positivistic, pragmatic, criticistic
train of thought to the extreme as to claim, that
human knowledge is limited to the mere sphere of personal experience (my comment: & thus having millions of opinions & truths & "everybody is right & wrong" at the same time...all is relative was the saying in my teen days)
They talk about the natural possibility of metaphysics...as I said before, that exteme atheists should protest against the term psychologist, cause actually it's only a materialologist so to speak.
The authors further expound, that atheism also lives/thrives of the false, wrong concepts of theism...so to speak uses the weak spots.
They further agree, that an atheism, an anti-theism against false images/concepts is also possible & therefore not necessarily bad.
A lot of people turn against theism apparently because of the Theodizee-problem...
They also ackknowledge a guilt of the churches, a lack of good examples, personalities to go by...
Another "point of inflammation" I see in the theological discussion of omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresents vs. freedom of choice (also the origin of sin) or the amount of determination.
I should study up some more in that regard some translated, pretty worthy contributions of
representatives of the analytical Philosophy of Religion (I have contained in a German book) as: R.G.Swinburne, W.L Rowe, A.Platinga,
Nelson Pike,E.Stump Norman Kretzmann, A. Kenny,
G.N.Schlesinger, R.M.Adams, D.Lewis, W.P.Alston,
P.L.Quinn...
A lot of their contribuitions are build upon earlier thoughts from Boethius onward to many during scholastical times...whereby Jesuits, Dominicans and others had quite opposing opinions.
Those questions I find pretty relevant, cause although I am with Augustine, that at times the mind is at enmity with faith & its subjects (Luther said, the mind is a harlot), I also think Peter Abealard had a point, that faith could/ should also be explained/explainable.
My stance is: first you're born into this world, without "understanding much"...that's also the reason, I am not much in favour of child-baptism...then when you're born again -by a simple act of faith - you only start to understand
I see there an analogy & 1.Cor.13 warns me not to expect to much of understanding while still being here...
So in conclusion: I understand, that I don't understand....happy understanding to all
P.S. still I insist, that atheism is much more so unscientific: how on earth someone can "believe" in "creatio ex nihilio" in a scientific manner, I don't know...cause scientific it isn't, as such phenomenon is not observed here, that I know...
energy & matter are just translated one into the other & doesn't get lost...anyone who could generate energy out of nothing would be a genius & soon a billionaire.
That big bang theory doesn't explain a thing, cause it doesn't explain the time zero-phase..creation out of nothing.Plus, I contend the universe is limited, as some scientists believe to have evidence for too...then, if the earthly physics also are valid for "outer space" (some physicists are prone to some lame escapism when cornered in that regard as to say: oh, how do we know, that "our" physics apply also somewhere else...well, then I say: forget big bang too), then evolution is not possible, cause without ordering force there is no development to higher "pheres" possible according to the second law of Thermodynamics.
It fits though nicely with "my religion": stars shall fall, heaven & earth passes away...the heavens rolled up....plus according to revelation it gets quite hot in the days of the end...where have all the scientists been..10-30 years ago?...few were warning of a global warming...so much for relying only on scientists.