Stop worrying. It's alright. I'm not creating to debate nor do I intend to argue with anyone about their faith.
Lately I've been enjoying myself by watching these debates among scholars and professionals. In particular, the debates between devout members of different faiths and the columnist and author Christopher Hitchens.
These debates have fascinated me because I've been trying to wrap my head around how a debate takes form when it concerns a topic that can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt on one side or another. Essentially, anybody can watch these debates and, using preexisting conclusions of their own, get a very different opinion on it than someone who thinks the other way.
Personally I am an atheist. When I watch, I am naturally scrutinizing the faith arguments much more. All the same, the rhetoric on both sides is far from perfect. I could type out paragraphs for why I think the way I do, but these videos (there are LOTS on YouTube) have given me a lot of enjoyment in the past few weeks. I'll post a link to one and, if you have an hour or two to spare, you can hopefully enjoy it as much as I did. This is not an attempt to spark ANY potentially offensive arguments. What I want to analyze is the arguments and justification put forth by both sides. Honestly, I would love nothing more than for anyone here who's religious (you are few and far between, I know) to watch and critique the side that I naturally gravitate towards. Enough babbling, here's the video.
In any case, please take the time to watch this video or others like it and post your thoughts on the stances taken by both sides.
My Conclusions
Critiquing the religous side, I find it interesting to see how the replacement of supernatural explanations with natural ones is handled. Essentially, both sides are looking at scientific evidence and concluding different things. I am predisposed to side with the atheist, because while many of these scientific facts are amazing, they do not necessarily point towards a design of any sort. I also find the argument of how improbable our existence is to be an interesting one. Yes, it is a very remote chance that with all of the matter in the universe and all of the very narrow specifications needed to support life, our existence is, to say the least, unlikely. The critiquing atheist in me says "and yet, here we are." It's not the strongest claim to make after the fact, on a life supporting planet, but it is still an interesting point. I don't hold any debaters arguing for faith to the negatives of all religion. I find that a religious life is a very different experience depending on which organization you belong to, which country you live in, and who you happen to talk to.
Critiquing the atheist side, or in Hitchen's case, the antitheist side, I think he's a bit too harsh on the bad things done in the name of God. He's conceded in other debates that a person would be just as power hungry or maniacal whether or not they were religious, and it makes me really think to try and draw the line where that can end. These totalitarian religious figures, absent religion, may have been unable to find a reason to do the things they did or convince their subordinates to do the same if they were not able to claim that it was God's will.
Lately I've been enjoying myself by watching these debates among scholars and professionals. In particular, the debates between devout members of different faiths and the columnist and author Christopher Hitchens.
These debates have fascinated me because I've been trying to wrap my head around how a debate takes form when it concerns a topic that can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt on one side or another. Essentially, anybody can watch these debates and, using preexisting conclusions of their own, get a very different opinion on it than someone who thinks the other way.
Personally I am an atheist. When I watch, I am naturally scrutinizing the faith arguments much more. All the same, the rhetoric on both sides is far from perfect. I could type out paragraphs for why I think the way I do, but these videos (there are LOTS on YouTube) have given me a lot of enjoyment in the past few weeks. I'll post a link to one and, if you have an hour or two to spare, you can hopefully enjoy it as much as I did. This is not an attempt to spark ANY potentially offensive arguments. What I want to analyze is the arguments and justification put forth by both sides. Honestly, I would love nothing more than for anyone here who's religious (you are few and far between, I know) to watch and critique the side that I naturally gravitate towards. Enough babbling, here's the video.
In any case, please take the time to watch this video or others like it and post your thoughts on the stances taken by both sides.
My Conclusions
Critiquing the religous side, I find it interesting to see how the replacement of supernatural explanations with natural ones is handled. Essentially, both sides are looking at scientific evidence and concluding different things. I am predisposed to side with the atheist, because while many of these scientific facts are amazing, they do not necessarily point towards a design of any sort. I also find the argument of how improbable our existence is to be an interesting one. Yes, it is a very remote chance that with all of the matter in the universe and all of the very narrow specifications needed to support life, our existence is, to say the least, unlikely. The critiquing atheist in me says "and yet, here we are." It's not the strongest claim to make after the fact, on a life supporting planet, but it is still an interesting point. I don't hold any debaters arguing for faith to the negatives of all religion. I find that a religious life is a very different experience depending on which organization you belong to, which country you live in, and who you happen to talk to.
Critiquing the atheist side, or in Hitchen's case, the antitheist side, I think he's a bit too harsh on the bad things done in the name of God. He's conceded in other debates that a person would be just as power hungry or maniacal whether or not they were religious, and it makes me really think to try and draw the line where that can end. These totalitarian religious figures, absent religion, may have been unable to find a reason to do the things they did or convince their subordinates to do the same if they were not able to claim that it was God's will.
