Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God by Scott Hahn & Benjamin Wiker

Author:Scott Hahn & Benjamin Wiker
Language: eng
Format: mobi, epub, pdf
Tags: Atheism, Religion, Christianity
ISBN: 9781931018487
Publisher: Emmaus Road Publishing
Published: 2008-05-08T04:00:00+00:00

4

CAN GOD'S EXISTENCE

BE DEMONSTRATED?

Science itself points to God.

So far we have concentrated on the negative task of showing how Dawkins' attempts to disprove the existence of God and prove the existence of a God-less universe are, upon inspection, faulty. We have not offered a proof of God's existence ourselves. Is there such a proof? Is there such a proof to which even Dawkins himself would have to assent?

The answer is yes and no. In that order. Yes, there is a proof, and no, it would not be likely to convince Dawkins himself, and the reason is that Mr. Dawkins is not rational enough. He follows reason up to a point, but it is a far too narrow point, one defined by his reductionism. Reductionism is a constriction of both reason and reality, one that paradoxically keeps the reductionist from giving an accurate account even of himself and closes off the possibility of understanding a demonstration of God's existence.

We can capture this paradox in a maxim that is worth keeping in mind when we talk about demonstrations of God's existence: Any demonstration of God's existence or non-existence must be of such a kind as to allow both for the existence of the demonstrator and for the possibility of demonstration.

For example, suppose a reductionist claims that miracles cannot occur because the universe is governed by the iron laws of nature. Since nature is entirely self-contained and determined, and the laws of nature are unbreakable, then miracles are impossible. Indeed, since nature is entirely self-contained and determined, there is no need of God. Therefore, the reductionist announces, not only are miracles impossible but God does not exist (or if He does, He is of no consequence, since His existence doesn't concern or affect us).

We lay aside the more subtle but real difficulties with the assumptions of this common reductionist position (such as the notion that there are things, “laws,” that cause other things to happen, a point to which we'll return below), and take it as it is commonly set forth. On its own terms, this quite common “proof” violates the maxim, and so it proves nothing at all. If the reductionist were right, then he could not possibly know that he is right. He himself would be entirely determined by material causes both in his offering of this particular proof and in the various elaborate mechanical and energetic exchanges going on in his brain that make him think that his proof is convincing. He actually may be right, but of course, he cannot know. “Truth” and “being convinced” are not measures of reality; they are only his particular brain states as determined by the laws of nature. Demonstration therefore becomes impossible because every demonstration itself only plays out what the demonstrator has been determined to believe by the laws of physics.

This common “proof” violates the maxim on another level. Regardless of what he might say, no human demonstrator lives as an entirely determined being. He makes decisions about what to eat or

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.