These days, people say "Season's Greetings," which, when you think about it, means nothing. It's like walking up to somebody and saying "Appropriate Remark" in a loud, cheerful voice.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

God or Atheism: Which is More Rational?

The great Peter Kreeft of Boston College explains it all brilliantly:

*subhead*Great.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Haha, "explains it all brilliantly"? First, why is this not titled "First Cause vs. No First Cause"? Way bigger problem: why has no member of "the flock" (not sure why you folks chose/choose to walk right into that one, btw) pointed out the stupendous gulf between "I choose to assume the necessity of a chain reaction sort of first cause" and "there exists an anthropomorphic creator-type figure"? The first assumption really isn't all that safe; modern physics keeps calling such simplistic answers into serious question. The second bit is just baldly solipsistic. Amid a strong field, the low point of this video might be the silly juxtaposition of "prominent Stanford physicist has the gall to admit that scientists now insist on actual evidence" and "but Isaac Newton believed in God." Yeah, Newton lived hundreds of years ago, at a time when science was often just another word for alchemy; it would be several decades after he put a name to gravity before anyone realized phlogiston was kind of a stupid concept, among other things. It's quaint that you people still make the further ridiculous leap from "there exists an anthropomorphic creator-type figure" to "my particular Bronze Age faith, which I almost certainly arrived at simply because of the family I was born into, is obviously true, while humanity's innumerable other iterations are clearly false." Here's a free tip, if you don't want membership in, and the relevance of, your religion to continue to decline, you should spend WAY more time thinking up an argument that can pass the guffaw test.(I'll take the under on this being taken down within two hours. It might bum out a few readers so much that they won't be in a mood to purchase some more Mystic Monk Coffee. Question: Are all religious ascetics actually giants who live at the foot of a mountain range and sip their AM brew with creepy hood deployed?) My apologies; you're reading this only because of my my mother's frustrating insistence on continually referring me to your site.

Jason Fairfield said...

"why has no member of "the flock" (not sure why you folks chose/choose to walk right into that one, btw) pointed out the stupendous gulf between "I choose to assume the necessity of a chain reaction sort of first cause" and "there exists an anthropomorphic creator-type figure"

Christians, at the most basic understanding (not considering other questions re: the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc.), don't have God as an anthromorphic figure, but rather as simply a being that is "existence itself." For which all existence flows.

The simple fact is that in this universe there is no being or object whose existence is not contingent on some other being's or object's existence and this chain continues. There has to be a source of existence and it is not unreasonable that source is a Creator that is existence itself, and from that all other truths, both from reason and revelation, of Christianity flow.

Pattymelt said...

Right on, Jason. God is not an "anthropomorphic creator-type figure". God is being itself, although He became "a being" when he chose to be incarnated in the womb of the Virgin Mary. What Love is this? Too scary for some to wish to contemplate.

Pattymelt said...

Right on, Jason. God is not an "anthropomorphic creator-type figure". God is being itself, although He became "a being" when he chose to be incarnated in the womb of the Virgin Mary. What Love is this? Too scary for some to wish to contemplate.

Andy said...

I would like to also note that I was not born into this "bronze age faith" (which of course is not even Bronze age). I was actually born into a family modestly hostile to it. Additionally, discounting 18th century metaphysics because scientists were wrong about phlogiston is rather specious reasoning as certainly 200 years from today scientist will look back and giggle about some scientific theories we currently hold, yet I'm sure you would agree that your metaphysical positions were invalidated as a result.

Deacon Rick said...

Anonymous, you should listen to your mother more often.

Bob Drury said...

If my judgment that God exists is based upon the judgment of scientists that the big bang occurred, then my belief in God is secondary to my belief in scientists. It is not based on logic, but on authority.

Jon Haines said...

Thanks for posting Matt. I think it was a good attempt or good start but really think Kreeft could have said made many things much clearer! Please take a look here: http://www.battleforthecoreoftheworld.com/2013/05/an-unfortunate-presentation-of-aquinas.html

Post a Comment