I caught myself rabbit-holing through Ray Comfort videos and debates. It was an innocent indulgence - YouTube had recommended a video "Atheist Experience vs Bananaman" ... (btw - "Atheist Experience" is a show out of Austin, TX )
ANYWAY - I saw a debate on the street/pier (Huntington Beach?) where a friendly atheist recorded his discussion with Ray - who was proselytizing on a soap box. I've seen videos of Kirk Cameron (his partner with whom they host wayofthemaster.com and it's respective YouTube channel) doing similar things.
In the course of the debates and videos I watched, I couldn't help but sense almost a desperation. I've noted this before to myself, but hadn't revisited for a while. Each argument or "proof" or "evidence" presented simply seemed like desperate attempts to substantiate a preconceived belief.
For the most part, what I've seen (DISCLAIMER: I haven't read or surveyed EVERYTHING on the topic (comparatively little, I suppose), simply a sampling of what current media and pundits have to offer ... to date), but most arguments seem to fall into the following basic forms:
1) XXX is really complicated and I don't understand it, so it must be done by God.
2) You don't have the answers to XXX, so I'm right because I HAVE an answer: God
3) How do you explain [insert old, but tenuously "historical" event ]? Has to be true ...
We'll save the listing of the straw men attacks on Naturalism for another time.
Each of the arguments I've seen are flawed in either their facts or logic. Most frequent if the "Argument from Ignorance" in one flavor or another. But all of the "REASON" arguments are pretty easily deconstructed to their flaw(s). I can't speak to some of the "historical references", but most of the presentments don't pass the litmus test with screaming ASSUMPTION in bold, red letters.
When I first started looking into this (and I've seen many a kook, so I try not to hold them responsible for the entirety of presenting sound arguments), I was enamored (even hopeful) about the idea that there WAS evidence, or reason (not A reason, but a logical progression) that could take a non-believer to a believer. Everyone was walking around with this comfort and confidence that the "evidence was sufficient to draw a conclusion". Using the analogy of "building a case", you add piece and piece and piece and piece until you take that FINAL step of faith - based on reasonable reliability and logical sense.
But as I've been breaking down each of these arguments, "faith" doesn't appear to be the last step ... presumably of many based on sound judgement and evaluation of the evidence. When all of those arguments disappear/crumble, then all that's left IS the faith.
Without being rude, it seems that it's really all about "believe it and then you'll see it". While I'm not INHERENTLY against this notion ... it's categorically opposite the rallying cry of the new Apologists - Lee Strobel, Dinesh D'Souza, Josh McDowell, Ray Comfort. They continuously say you don't need to check your brains at the door, but by USING your brains and the evidence available, you can find God.
I'm not saying it ISN'T possible, but I've yet to see an argument to substantiate that claim. Everything I've seen so far seems to eventually translate to "I believe X and I can rationalize that THIS many ways ... if you don't look too closely".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)