Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dennis Prager on reasons for believing in God


In response to “Philosophy professor: Science demonstrates atheism, but … your brain didn’t evolve so as to understand it: Six reasons why rational thinkers choose to believe in God:

2. If God Does Not Exist Then There Is No Objective Definition of Good and Evil. Everyone’s Subjective Feelings Of Good and Evil All Have the Same Level of Authority.

Why is it evil to murder infants? Why is Peter Singer wrong? I find no fault with Singer’s logic.

More. Single page.

Indeed, Rosenberg, the philosophy prof linked above, makes clear that he believes that there is no God and everything is permitted. But he also thinks we won’t be as happy if we behave immorally.

One wonders why we wouldn’t be just as happy with immorality. Given that we find it so natural, we clearly evolved to behave that way. Cats evolved to torment and kill smaller animals, and they don’t feel unhappy about it at all. So …

If you think there is something wrong with Rosenberg’s approach, how did you get the idea? Your brain just happened to evolve that way, as he suggests? If you think there must be more to your suspicions than a primeval tendency to attribute agency where there is none, watch Prager’s whole series.

BA77: Thanks again, link on Kreeft's arguments added to vault. KF kairosfocus
News, I just responded to the other thread here. I suggest that if someone wants to develop a reasonably grounded worldview s/he may want to look at here on in context. KF kairosfocus
In a 2010 debate entitled “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” skeptic Michael Shermer offers four things that allow people to feel more happy, fulfilled, and purposeful in life, regardless of whether or not God exists ( http://www.apologetics315.com/2010/11/does-universe-have-purpose-audio-debate.html) 1. Deep love and family commitment 2. Meaningful work and career 3. Social and political involvement 4. A sense of transcendency However, Shermer completely misses the point. If there is no God, then there is no ultimate, objective meaning, value, and purpose in life. Sure, you can create subjective meaning and purpose if you so desire. You can live for any personal, subjective cause or reason that makes you happy. You can even do nice things regardless of whether or not God exists. But Shermer offers no account or explanation as to why if there is no God any of these things are objectively good, or why any of these things are objectively meaningful, valuable or purposeful, or why we should pursue these ends as opposed to others that may make us more fulfilled and happy. Barb
Here are a few more reasons that Dr. Peter Kreeft also gives for believing in God, besides the 6 listed in his videos: 20 Arguments For God’s Existence - Dr. Peter Kreeft 1. The Argument from Change 2. The Argument from Efficient Causality 3. The Argument from Time and Contingency 4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection 5. The Design Argument 6. The Kalam Argument 7. The Argument from Contingency 8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole 9. The Argument from Miracles 10. The Argument from Consciousness 11. The Argument from Truth 12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God 13. The Ontological Argument 14. The Moral Argument 15. The Argument from Conscience 16. The Argument from Desire 17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience 18. The Argument from Religious Experience 19. The Common Consent Argument 20. Pascal's Wager http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ bornagain77
corrected link? If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Prager University - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVYpBwXWLk Rosenberg's honesty as an atheist is refreshing. As these two videos highlight the absurdity: Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/60437420 Indeed I hold it is impossible for an atheist to live consistently within his worldview: The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: The conscious brain that is able to come up with neo-Darwinism as a universal explanation simultaneously makes neo-Darwinism, as a universal explanation, exceedingly unlikely.,,, ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 bornagain77
So true. With no real standards for good and evil, that means that good and evil only exists in our minds. It is only a figment of our imagination. So why get all agitated about "evil"? Both good and evil are natural products of evolution so how can one be better than another? Time will tell which provides better survivability. I guess then we'll know whether good really is good or if good is really evil - given we assign this arbitrary definition to good: "what is necessary to survive." Singer, Buddha, Hitler, Jesus, Stalin, Ghandi, et al. Take your pick! One is as good as another in the amoral world of atheism. tjguy

Leave a Reply