We were instructed to write a letter to an atheist, (real or imaginary) that was, "dear to us". We were not to fight for the Christian faith but only to give some reasons for the existence of God. This is what I wrote.
Dear Friend,
Our many long and in depth conversations have persuaded me that it would be best to write out some thoughts on our discussions. To start I’d like you to ponder some arguments that have been around for quite a while.
The first I have is that which is called the moral argument. It goes simply like this, all peoples, throughout the ages, from every continent have all agreed that there are, in fact, moral obligations one has to others without oneself. I.e. murder, for in every culture there is a time and place where one man killing another is wrong. Now you must think there are many cultures which seem to think quite the acceptable pass time but we must look closely and see that there are rules to govern even the most violent of tribes, most often killing one’s enemy is just fine, trying to kill me is wrong indeed.
Another way of looking at it is this, we believe ourselves more civilized because we have left the days of anarchy and murder behind and we now have written laws saying a man ought not slay another for just any reason he fancies. The question, and meat of the argument, is why? Why ought I not go along the street popping off anyone who gave me a cross look? Why ought I conform to “civil” standards? The reason we of the theist mindset give, is that we ought not because a greater power outside of ourselves has told us that we ought not. This alone will not prove a God of any sort exists, but it gives a stone to stand on for now.
A second argument that I believe goes hand in hand with the moral is that of progression or gradation. This argument presents the idea of things as they are perceived, as being better or worse than another. I.e. the light is bright, brighter, or brightest. What this implies is that there is something to which all things correspond and aspire to. It is reasonable to think there must exist something that is brighter than all things bright. This applied to morals there must be something upon which all of our morals aspire to. If a thing is right we must have an ultimate standard that allows us to conceive of right as opposed to wrong.
Finally an argument of a different kind, suppose while exploring in the woods one day you come upon a golden object. This object is in the shape of a circle with a band connected to two sides of it. On top of the gold inlaid is a circle of perfectly clear glass. Beneath the glass are a set of writings you recognize as numbers and two tiny pointed sticks which circle around the apparatus underneath the glass. Having found this in the woods, I tell you that over extremely long expanses of time the gold melted in such and such a pattern. More years passed until numbers formed on the inside and to protect its’ numbers from being eaten by predators formed on itself a protective layer of glass. Eventually through many successive generations the gears inside were changed in such a way that the long sticks developed and began turning in a clockwise motion.
You of course, at this point already know what I am referring to, but let me assure you, your body is a much more complex machine than any pocket watch could ever dream of being. The fact that your brain can see the words on this page, recognize them as symbols, translate those symbols into thoughts and ideas and understand everything makes you a million times more complex than anything humanity has ever created, and yet you are willing to believe that finding us in the woods means we must have happened accidentally through numerous years and successive processes without any kind of direction or plan, seems to me, the much bigger leap. If you see a watch in the woods you think, without hesitation or logical scramble, that watch has a maker. Let me say, and I’m not in too bad of company with this, that your body alone is enough proof that there was in fact a hand in your making. You have a code within you that is infinitely more complex that describes and makes possible all functions of your life.
This argument often gets put down but I believe it makes perfect logical sense. The kind of complexity we have within us points toward an intelligent mind. If you are Richard Dawkins that means you believe in aliens planting us here as a science experiment, which actually does not answer the argument at all as that only means that a much more complex species must have had a beginning somewhere. The only thing that really makes sense is something without a beginning with extreme intelligence.
Atheist scientists first claimed that matter itself was eternal (though it has not thought process and therefore no intelligence and so still cannot fit in the first place) but we now know matter can be destroyed (and turned into energy). So of course energy was turned to. However energy still does not fit our criteria as it has no intelligence or will and it can have a beginning and is therefore not eternal.
So, to date and to my knowledge, mankind has not thought of anything that better fits the descriptions necessary for our existence other than an all powerful, eternal, intelligent being. Though to be honest my friend I must say this, while all these arguments do make me lean towards there being an ultimate being, I must with all humility say it is, perhaps, impossible to without any doubt or speculation prove the existence of God, and I think He meant it that way. There are good reasons to believe but it must and always comes down to that. One must believe. As a theist I have not, “left my brains at the door”. There is faith but there is also reason and one must have both for God.
Sincerely,
Caleb Russel
No comments:
Post a Comment