Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
okay I want to talk about this article in the New York Times called is atheism
irrational this was sent to me by believers who watch this show
this was sent to me by atheist to watch this show by agnostics
my dad sent me this article tons of people sent me this article
and I can only come to one conclusion after reading the article
is atheism irrational which is that the article itself
was irrational and I'll explain this is a %uh the first in a series of
interviews in the New York Times about religion
and this was an interview with Alvin
planting girl who is an emeritus professor philosophy
at the University of Notre Dame is also a former president of the Society of
Christian philosophers
and the American Philosophical Association so he was being asked about
the number I love up philosophers
and others in academia who are identify as atheistic
okay and he said that there are a large number in saying that
atheism may not be the most rational thing to believe he said there are a
large number maybe a couple of dozen
pretty good he is stick arguments going on to say
nine is conclusive but each already any raid
all of them together are about as strong as philosophical
arguments ordinarily get so he was asked to support that and say will give us an
example of one of the really strong
EST arguments that that lend themselves to believe
and he said well here's one fine-tuning
scientists tell us that there are many properties of our universe that
if they were even slightly different from what they are
life or at least our kind of life would not be possible
the universe eames to be fine-tuned for life
for example if the force at the Big Big *** had been different by one part
intend to the sixtieth power
life a bar sort would not have been possible same goes for the ratio of
gravitational force et cetera
this is much more vastly given to you
this is bass three more likely given to he is 'em
then atheism I found this to be in a
a absolutely absurd response this completely
misunderstands the concept evolution how does he know
that we are living in the millions attempt
at a universe and that the previous 999999
didn't work for creating intelligent life for any kind of life so that
there was no one there to marvel at how the fine-tuning
lends itself to a belief in God I
just simply did not understand that explanation is a compelling reason to
believe in a got
it's also just obnoxious because he's kinda capitalizing on everything
scientists and at people who seek knowledge have done
or thousands of years he's taking bit information
they've gathered that their knowledge bear
I numbers and saying oh well all the stuff you've done is just proved bad
this thing I this other thing might exist that I happen to believe it
he also goes on to argue that the more most important ground have believed is
probably not
philosophical argument but religious experience he says many people
a very different cultures have thought themselves
in experiential touch with the being worthy
up worship essentially saying that they've had an experience
that they had to identify as being an experience that
touched or communicated with the God and that because the people spans such
different ranges
have cultures how can it be that they are all wrong given their varied
backgrounds and to that I say hold on a second
anecdotal evidence and people's claims
a religious experiences as the most important ground for a belief in God
seems very weak to me not only are out our eyewitness accounts events known to
not be accurate
we have story after story across a range of cultures mind you
up people's experiences with aliens whether they had contact with aliens
saw UFO's that they believed to be from other planets were abducted by aliens
all those stories range across race
country and culture yet we don't consider those the most compelling
reason to believe that aliens visited humans
and this argument seems indistinguishable from that that is made
here by Alvin Plantinga
right a bailey in paying right that's one way to look at it the other way is
I where was I going with this
I had it David I had a good one and I just completely lost alright we'll come
back to Lewis losing his train of thought it doesn't happen too often so
wasn't I thought the article was we can to be clear I am agnostic I'm open to
the ATL
I got a headless yeah I if these people had never even been told
that there was this thing paul got or about religion or about some divine
creator
what it has done a natural assumption on their dad never would have even been
implanted in their brain and I don't think they ever would have come to that
conclusion
I afters said experience I want to be clear that I'm open to the idea
up there being a higher power you don't have to call it god it could just be
some kinda structure more powerful than we are. or or that we don't understand
I've just seen no evidence over yet and until I do I have no reason to believe
that it exists I am NOT saying that there is definitely no such thing as a
god
or higher power or bigger technological power
I'm open to that idea give me the evidence and then I will explore that I
am only basing my view
on the evidence we have and the observations that I can make
and and a that that is where I am in
and I was not swayed in any way by the content of this article
let's take a break send us your thoughts on this story and on any other story go
to David Pakman dot com slash membership to sign up for our bonus show and other
great perks
we will be back I have an excellent book recommendation it's been a little while
since they made one of those
and we have an excellent excellent interview for you today