God’s Not Dead, Chapter 1 – Un-Mahered (pt9)
A student once told me he had heard this question in a philosophy class: If God is all-powerful, could He make a rock so big He couldn’t move it? He told me that when he couldn’t come up with the answer, he eventually backslid. My thought was, If one riddle shook your faith, then you didn’t have far to slide.
This is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. The author continues and states that the question above violates the law of non-contradiction (which I’m not entirely sure that it does but whatever) and then he goes on to provide an answer for the question. This is a fallacy of some sort. You can’t say a question is misinformed and then also answer it.
Continuing on to the purpose for this subsection’s title, the author jeers at Bill Maher for using straw men to ridicule religion on his 1 hour a week television show. Yes, that’s a bit of sarcasm.
Maher doesn’t have the time to completely set up every story he wants to address on the week’s show and straw men are the easiest and quickest way to get the information out to the audience.
Maher often takes the worst parts of anything associated with religion (suicide bombers, priests who abuse children, and especially anyone who refuses to accept evolution as fact) and paints them all in the worst possible light.
Umm, yes, I did just that same thing in my last post but it was necessary and purposeful. What does the author mean “paints them all in the worst possible light” when we’re talking about “suicide bombers” and “priests who abuse children”. What other light is there!? Also, remember I did just that same thing (pointing out the worst parts of religion not abusing children) and the author has done plenty of it himself. We are currently on page 13 of the book and I don’t know how many times the author has mentioned or alluded to communist Russia, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Hitler, the Nazis, etc.
While many bad things have been done in the name of religion, and even in the name of Jesus Christ, an honest inquiry can quickly separate truth from error, fact from fiction.
So, I hope you understand what the author is stating here. Anything done by an atheist is bad and should be pointed out but anything done “in the name of religion” was misunderstood.
Atheist fanatics are just as unreasonable as their religious counterparts. Just as you don’t dismiss politics because there are bad politicians or commerce because there are bad businesses, you certainly must know how to separate the precious from the worthless when it comes to God and faith.
A couple of things about this blurb. First, I agree about the fanatics. Second, the bad religious people aren’t the reason most atheists are nonbelievers. We haven’t been sufficiently convinced by evidence to accept the existence of deity. Third, did the author just refute his own points about how bad atheism is? I think so.
‘Just as you don’t dismiss religion because there are bad believers, you certainly must know how to separate the precious from the worthless when it comes to atheism and disbelief’.
With a little effort, you can have a faith that is “un-mahered,” one that is free from defects or stains. This kind of faith begins with a rock-solid knowledge that God is indeed real.
Presupposition is not a rational foundation for a belief. Belief should come as a result of evidence, not in the lack of it. Again I’ll state what we all know and don’t argue with unless religion is the specific topic at hand; the base response to a claim is disbelief or the withholding of belief until the claim is supported by evidence. The presupposition stance is the antithesis of justified belief; this does not infer that all presuppositions are false, only that the reason for the belief is flawed.