“We cast down imaginations and every high obstacle to the knowledge of God"
(2 Corinthians 10:5)
(2 Corinthians 10:5)
In a previous blog (February 19, 2013) I began to address
several key points from a recent debate between Christian apologist William
Lane Craig and atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg on the question of the
existence of God. I consider this event,
which can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
bhfkhq-CM84, to provide the starkest of contrasts between clear
articulation (on the part of Dr. Craig) and pointless meanderings (on the part
of Dr. Rosenberg). I am honestly loath
to say that I found nothing whatever that followed from latter that would give support
for his condescending arrogance expressed from his opening sentence directed at
Craig, all the way to his attack on an insightful questioner at the very conclusion. Rosenberg’s attitude neither advanced
his own atheistic position nor did it serve the cause of academic inquiry as a
whole.
It is to Rosenberg’s exchange with the questioner that I
wish to turn our attention today.
Beginning at the 2 hour- 36 minute segment of the debate an individual
from the audience, who clearly had read Rosenberg’s book, said to this effect, If it is indeed true, as you write, that
sentences have no meaning or truth value, including your own, then how is that
not incoherent… and why should we believe you? Rosenberg has just a moment before summarized his
closing remarks by emphasizing his commitment to “physicalism,” (materialism), which
holds that humans are nothing more than electro-chemical machines and therefore
that there is no such thing as the soul.
His response to the questioner was, “I
have to use the only tools we’ve got
to move information from one head to another…It isn’t conveying
statements. I’m rearranging neural
circuits.”
Several word clusters cry out for accountability on the part
of Rosenberg. These include, “only tools we’ve got,” and “information,” a word he used at least
three times. As for the former, the only
tools he’s got have no validity, as he already argued. He ain’t got no tools at all! By what rational powers does he keep the very
instruments that he denies for others? For
similar reasons, what meaning does the word “information” convey when he
separates the “bits” from “statements?” Rosenberg
has just publically involved himself in a contradiction in his act of chiding the
questioner. What’s worse, the bigger
contradiction still remains unaddressed, namely why we should believe that his stated
perceptions conform to reality at all.
Finally, just who, or what, are we to make of this “authority” figure making
sounds as “he” stands behind the “Rosenberg” lectern at the debate?
I make these assertions without malice. Beliefs (including the belief of physicalism)
have consequences. Personhood is a reality
that every human being experiences. The
philosophy, scientific materialism, is irreconcilable with the universal human
experience that includes free will and the purposeful living out of our lives. Theism, that is, belief in the reality of a
creation of all things, including us, by a personal God, leads to a world-view
that includes the host of attributes that set us apart (or should we say above) from physical matter alone. The materialistic world-view, by contrast,
leads utter to self-contradiction in the context of human understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment