- Jun 20, 2013
- 56
- 25
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
In my opinion, I find it difficult to hold onto the ideology of classical atheism after reading the following passages by two very deep thinkers:
Douglas Wilson on Atheism
"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."
C.S. Lewis on Atheism
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., Materialism and Astronomy – are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
Summary
These two passages, taken together, seem to imply that if classical atheism is true, then the following are true: That the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of humans are nothing more than accidental fizzing chemical reactions completely devoid of any underlying meaning. That humans themselves are completely devoid of any underlying meaning.
Nevertheless, when I open my eyes and look around, the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of humans seem to be pregnant with meaning. That humans themselves seem to be pregnant with meaning.
So in order to disprove classical atheism, all one has to do is open one's eyes and look around.
Any thoughts on this?
Douglas Wilson on Atheism
"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."
C.S. Lewis on Atheism
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., Materialism and Astronomy – are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
Summary
These two passages, taken together, seem to imply that if classical atheism is true, then the following are true: That the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of humans are nothing more than accidental fizzing chemical reactions completely devoid of any underlying meaning. That humans themselves are completely devoid of any underlying meaning.
Nevertheless, when I open my eyes and look around, the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of humans seem to be pregnant with meaning. That humans themselves seem to be pregnant with meaning.
So in order to disprove classical atheism, all one has to do is open one's eyes and look around.
Any thoughts on this?