The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Such a premise is flawed internally because it wrongly assumes that the Infinite is equally incapable of penetrating the veil—a position that reduces the term “Infinite” to absurdity. An Infinite Being that is unable to express Itself is less finite than mortals who forever are expressing themselves. And an Infinite Being that is both capable of self-expression and aware of the perplexity and needs of mortal man, yet fails to break through the veil, is less moral than mortal man. As one writer expressed it: What man would stay in shrouded silence if he were the Infinite and knew that a word from him would resolve a thousand human complexes, integrate shattered personalities, mend broken lives, bring coveted light to baffled minds, and healing peace to disturbed hearts? (Samuel, 1950, p. 14, emp. added). To be either correct or defensible, Spencer’s proposition must work both ways. Finite man must be unable to penetrate the veil to the Infinite, but at the same time the Infinite likewise must be unable to penetrate the veil to the finite. By definition, however, the Infinite would possess the capability of breaking through any such veil. Further, there is an important question that begs to be asked: Will the agnostic admit that it is at least possible for someone else to know something he does not? If he is unwilling to admit this point, is he not then attributing to himself (even if inadvertently) one of the defining characteristics that theists attribute to God—omniscience? In commenting on this very point, Nelson M. Smith wrote: Obviously, no agnostic can speak for anyone but himself and perhaps not then. What effort has he made to know God? Has he exhausted every effort to know God? Maybe he has not been as honest with himself and with the evidence as he ought to be? Maybe he is unconsciously hiding behind a screen of “can’t know” to avoid responsibility as a being made in God’s image of facing his Maker? (1975, 92[6]:6). -19
Smith’s point is well taken. Is it not possible that the agnostic is avoiding—purposely—the evidence for the existence of God? Rather than being unable to know, perhaps the agnostic is unwilling to know. Sir Hector Hetherington, Principal Emeritus of Glasgow University, addressed this concept when he said: There are issues on which it is impossible to be neutral. These issues strike right down to the roots of man’s existence. And while it is right that we should examine the evidence, and make sure that we have all the evidence, it is equally right that we ourselves should be accessible to the evidence (as quoted in Samuel, 1950, p. 29, emp. added). The agnostic is perfectly capable of making himself “accessible to the evidence.” The question is—will he? Or will he choose instead to hide “behind a screen of ‘can’t know’ ”? SKEPTICISM The skeptic is the person who doubts there is a God. The standard dictionary definition is quite revealing when it describes a skeptic as one who holds to “the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain and who has doubts concerning basic religious principles.” Notice that the skeptic does not claim knowledge of God’s existence is unattainable (as in agnosticism), but only “uncertain.” However, the skeptic does not stop at mere “uncertainty.” In fact, skepticism “...confidently challenges not merely religious or metaphysical knowledge but all knowledge claims that venture beyond immediate experience”(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1997b, 26:569, emp. added). The key words here are “immediate experience.” Translated into common parlance, this simply means that the skeptic is not prepared to accept anything that cannot be verified empirically (viz., via the scientific method). Corliss Lamont, famous twentieth-century skeptic and humanist, wrote: -20
Page 2 and 3: APOLOGETICS PRESS
Page 4: CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8: For example, when Joshua—who had
Page 9 and 10: the truth, but they will not. The s
Page 11 and 12: obliged to acknowledge that it was
Page 14 and 15: 2 THE MANY FACES OF UNBELIEF Throug
Page 16 and 17: Impossible task, that—since one w
Page 18 and 19: Neither of these tasks is simple (n
Page 20 and 21: foundation, not in divine guidance,
Page 22 and 23: are monkeys” (see Leonard Huxley,
Page 26 and 27: The development, over the past four
Page 28 and 29: Thus, in the end the skeptic does n
Page 30 and 31: le plethora of men and women who ma
Page 32 and 33: include “Hell” and “Some Mist
Page 34 and 35: In fact, in the late 1970s, while I
Page 36 and 37: future state of rewards and punishm
Page 38 and 39: tion to function on its own; some b
Page 40 and 41: Deism...refers to what can be calle
Page 42 and 43: a God strong enough to create the w
Page 44 and 45: ecomes indistinguishable from evil.
Page 46 and 47: Ryerson who allegedly was able to
Page 48 and 49: ...Every action, under certain circ
Page 50 and 51: tes 12:7). The writer of the book o
Page 52 and 53: the Lord struck him, because he did
Page 54 and 55: ook, Apologetics in the New Age: A
Page 56 and 57: at ease. Yes, it is! Therefore, in
Page 58 and 59: What should be the response of Chri
Page 60 and 61: principle of causality. In its pict
Page 62: a better world, but is limited by t
Page 65 and 66: every citizen enjoys. Or contemplat
Page 67 and 68: since that time that it has very gr
Page 69 and 70: cuse. Man’s failure to see this g
Page 71 and 72: With reference to men the use is pr
Page 73 and 74: in philosophy and science. Life has
Page 75 and 76:
Indeed, it may “not be irrelevant
Page 77 and 78:
The shock received by the inexperie
Page 79 and 80:
there have been those from politics
Page 81 and 82:
from the only God ye seek not?,”
Page 83 and 84:
This is the first age, I think, in
Page 85 and 86:
tle John brought the book of Revela
Page 87 and 88:
self, but the fact that “[i]t is
Page 89 and 90:
As this section on immorality as a
Page 91 and 92:
Democratic Way of Life, a formal st
Page 93 and 94:
But science is no synonym for spiri
Page 95 and 96:
ate student asked: “Hundreds of t
Page 97 and 98:
ather bluntly: “In contrast to th
Page 99 and 100:
a joy to tell him that he does not
Page 101 and 102:
is Steven Weinberg, author of Dream
Page 103 and 104:
At Noel’s funeral, the minister b
Page 105 and 106:
Again, time and space would fail me
Page 107 and 108:
sin? No, they were no worse sinners
Page 109 and 110:
Just as suffering is real, so are t
Page 111 and 112:
The corruptions, or shortcomings, o
Page 113 and 114:
UNJUST ACTS COMMITTED BY BELIEVERS
Page 115 and 116:
million-dollar reward to anyone car
Page 117 and 118:
ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 119 and 120:
tain actions are sanctioned by God
Page 121 and 122:
of unbelief. I suppose that some wo
Page 124 and 125:
4 CONCLUSION Every person familiar
Page 126 and 127:
This latter observation needs a lit
Page 128 and 129:
REFERENCES Abelson, Phillip (1964),
Page 130 and 131:
Durant, Will (1980), “We Are in t
Page 132 and 133:
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1896), Darwin
Page 134 and 135:
Raymo, Chet (1998), Skeptics and Tr
Page 136:
Watkin, Edward I. (1936), Theism, A
show all

The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?