Posted on 02/09/2017 8:11:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Comedian and atheist Ricky Gervais recently squared off with comedian and Roman Catholic Stephen Colbert over religion during a recent taping of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." The exchange was brief and mostly unproductive in terms of articulating anything of value, but it did provide some insight into one of atheism's blind spots—teleology (the purpose of things). I encourage you to watch the video.
Not long into the discussion, Colbert presents Gervais with the philosophical question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Gervais immediately dismisses the question as making "no sense at all." Ricky Gervais then proceeds to change the question to "How is there something?" Going further, Gervais scoffs at the relevancy of even entertaining the notion of "why."
Obviously schooled in the Five Ways of Aquinas, Stephen Colbert allows Gervais to alter the original question and then astutely brings up the prime mover argument. After that point, the argument devolves into a series of mostly nonsensical and existentially based platitudes (minus Colbert briefly bringing up and then fumbling the concept of transcendent gratefulness).
But I want to focus on the dichotomy between "how" and "why" that Gervais introduced.
In 2010, Stephen Hawking published The Grand Design. In the book, the physicist concludes on page 180 that "spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." In other words, with his book's argument, Hawking grabs the "how" question by the neck and body slams it so deeply into the cosmic turf as to render the question dead. Or so he believed.
Roundly refuting Stephen Hawking, Oxford math professor Dr. John Lennox published God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? Dr. Lennox pointed out the obvious: that Stephen Hawking assumes the existence of the law of gravity in The Grand Design. Lennox muses, "Hawking appears, therefore, to be simultaneously asserting that the universe is created from nothing and from something [emphasis added]." Going back to the video and Stephen Colbert's initial query, the concept of nothing is problematic for atheists.
No matter how many epistemological pretzels they twist themselves into, atheists are reduced to pushing the concept of nothing further and further back. The incontrovertible truth is that something exists and something cannot come from nothing. Atheists are simply kicking the "nothing can" down the road as far as they are able. I'm assuming that they will continue to do so until King Jesus returns and stops that "nothing can" with His Word that He used to create everything.
Usually, when discussing the "how" question, the rejoinder is smugly tossed out that if nothing can't create something, then something had to create God. Sadly, I do not have the space to fully lay out a biblically orthodox doctrine of God. Pointing out, as does Aquinas in his version of the Cosmological Argument, that God is not a contingent being will have to suffice.
Ultimately, steering into the "how" question leaves atheists open to the response, "Yes, but what caused that thing that you are claiming was the first cause of everything else?" However, I understand why Ricky Gervais (and many other atheists) steer the conversation to the "how" and away from the "why."
As long as the discussion resides in the "how," atheists are able to cling to their life preserver called "science." As noted above, that life preserver is riddled with holes, but it provides spiritually drowning rebels something to grab. Sadly, the only thing faith in science provides is the delusion of safety as their sin continues to ensure that their ethical separation from their Creator deepens, ultimately ending in eternal destruction. Grasping at the "why" question doesn't even provide atheists the delusion of safety because their god of science is ill-equipped to even to begin answering the question.
According to the Bible, God created all things to bring Himself glory. When God called His creation good, He was referring to the functional readiness—the ability of creation to fulfill its intended function in the service of praising God and bringing Him glory. The rebellion of humans, more commonly known as sin, brought God's curse down on creation. Things and people no longer function the way they were intended. The reason that there is violence, oppression, and pain in this world is because creation's "why" has been perverted. Looking around at the world is all the evidence needed to reveal that something is wrong.
However, within that framework, the Christian worldview that's articulated in the Bible provides the answer. Among other ways, God reveals Himself in and through His law. Functioning as God intended in order to bring Him glory (the "why") has an ethical dimension. Humans are not to murder other humans because that's a sin that violates God's holy standard. Humans are not to dehumanize others through things like slavery and exploitation because doing so violates God's holy standard. Sadly, because of the sin that resides in our hearts, we are incapable of fully fulfilling God's intended purpose. But there's good news.
From before He wound the clock of time, God purposed to provide a way for His creation to be restored back to His intended function. That answer was revealed just over 2,000 years ago when God became man and Jesus was born. While suffering as we suffer and being tempted as we're tempted, Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience to God's holy standard and then willingly mounted the cross in order to suffer God's just wrath that our sin deserves. Resurrected from the dead three days later, Jesus conquered sin and death so that those who repent of their sins and place their faith in him will be adopted into the family of God and be given new life.
In a nutshell, the three previous paragraphs are the Christian worldview's answer to Stephen Colbert's "why?" As an atheist, Ricky Gervais is unable to answer that question; of course it "makes no sense at all" for him. For atheists, acknowledging the "why?" question as legitimate automatically introduces a purpose for creation. That, of course, is incompatible with their atheism. Except, without a "why" the creation has no end game, no purpose; humans are free to define their purpose however they see fit. Social Darwinism becomes the only legitimate ethical worldview and the strong can do whatever they want to the weak because the universe has no purpose and no meaning. Without a "why" and an answer, morals have no objective basis and Nietzsche's will to power rightfully rules all. Because he is made in the image of God, that is a step too far for Ricky Gervais, who innately knows that there is a "why" that guides the ethics of creation. His atheism just doesn't allow him to acknowledge it.
That’s the thing that’s always confused me about atheists. It’s not enough for them that they have the right to be non believers, a lot of them don’t seem to want those of us that are believers to have the same right to freedom of religious choice they have.
I would rather believe in GOD and be wrong, than to NOT believe and God and be wrong.
Well, the knowledge of God is, as they say, written on our hearts.
It must be painful to be reminded of one’s own dishonesty every day.
My Pastor says deep down and in the back of their minds they know. That’s what makes them so confrontational, they know we are right.
Pascal's Wager.
I agree completely, and the same goes for Roman Catholics.
The proper answer is “I don’t know” but neither side will entertain that answer.
Fantastic book that crushes atheist arguments: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486658033&sr=8-1&keywords=feser+last+superstition The book is not the easiest read, admittedly.
Science at its core is based on the very concept that there is a “god”.. that god would be the underlying algorithm that created and order the universe.
If you believe there can be Theory of Everything, something that you can write down as a formula, a logic mechanism, an equation an algorithm then you presuppose those things do exist.
A Theory of Everything formula therefore is the “god” all creation at least from a scientific perspective.
For an atheist trying to argue that it just happens ..for no “reason” is irrational... is the very definition of irrational
Reason = reason
Irrational= no reason
Atheism is and “irrational universe” argument
So how can atheism be scientific as Science is based on the Foundation they is a reason for everything
I think that is true of some, but not all atheists. I once considered myself and atheist and did not believe in God. However, I was not bothered by the fact that some people did believe in God. I even felt that religion and church were a good idea, and I thought all kids should be brought up in a church to learn right from wrong.
I think the ones who are confrontational are as you say-they're people who know the truth but they do not want to believe it ("men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil"). They are like the self-loathing homosexuals. Some homosexuals are comfortable with their lifestyle and are not bothered by the fact that many in the world find their lifestyle loathsome. The uncomfortable ones know they are engaging in something filthy, but they are addicted to it and loathe themselves for their weakness and lash out at what they perceive as disapproval. If the world is forced to approve of them, then they can approve of themselves.
I would rather believe in GOD and be wrong, than to NOT believe and God and be wrong.
I think this is true, except I'd say that they "fear" we are right as opposed to "know" we are right.
The same is true of leftists on many issues. The anger bubbles just beneath the surface when they bother to hide it at all. This used to strike me as odd. I myself am a walking bundle of strong opinions, a very few of which are on subjects I actually know a good deal about. On a much larger number of issues, I hold strong opinions while recognizing that I'm no expert, and I'm always glad to have a civil discussion and perhaps learn something. I simply lack the quick impulse to anger that is chronic on the left. If I'm wrong and you teach me something, I'm in your debt. If you are wrong and persist in your error even after correction, it's your loss, not mine.
A lot of things became much clearer once I realized that people on the left are very often arguing in bad faith, and quickly become furious with anyone who challenges the lie. At an operational level, conservatives in politics will generally tell you what they are trying to do. They may be wrong. They may be confused. They may be poor advocates. But whether they do it well or poorly, they will be honest about their purposes. Not so the left. Leftists are opportunistically honest when they believe it serves their purpose, but they lie without hesitation when it seems tactically advantageous. And they are angry with truth tellers as a result.
Not long into the discussion, Colbert presents Gervais with the philosophical question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?”
...
A smart FReeper, Physicist used to say that was the ultimate question on the old crevo threads.
The proper answer is “I don’t know” but neither side will entertain that answer.
...
It all really depends on the definition of God. Atheists will use one that that allows them to disbelieve, and the definition is usually provided by fundamentalists.
Pascal’s wager seems to apply to the guy that bets everything that the world will come to an end tomorrow, and the guy that bets everything that it won’t.
The latter can’t lose, and the former can’t win.
What shocks me is that Stephen Colbert isn’t the atheist, being the obnoxious liberal that he is.
Gervais is correct. It is pointless to ask ‘why’ of purposeless things. ‘Why’ seeks motivation and nature has no motives. Why conservatives would carry water for Stephen Colbert is a much better question.
Absent being able to produce God out of thin air, you are reduced to relying on existing documents. An atheist cannot argue the attributes of a God they don’t believe in. Their ONLY argument is that they see no evidence of a god.
You cannot prove something doesn’t exist.
Ricky Gervais is just a nasty little man. And as far as a debate between Gervais and Colbert? That’s a mindless exercise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.