Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Hamilton Spectator of Hamilton, Ontario. It’s titled There’s plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and the newspaper doesn’t seem to have a comments feature.
Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Jeff. At the end of his letter we’re told that he “works in the software business. He spends his spare time engaging the Hamilton community through volunteer activities. His hobbies include reading, wood working, and rock climbing.” That’s nice, but it doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
It might be true that that which is asserted without proof can be rejected without proof, as Peter Schneider states at the end of his opinion article [Leave religious dogma in the dark it came from], but I’d like to contend that there’s plenty of evidence that God does exist, and not a shred to prove that He doesn’t. Any prominent/honest atheist, skeptic, scientist, would agree that there’s no credible evidence to disprove Gods existence.
We agree with Jeff, because the Burden of proof for a proposition is on those who advance the proposition. It’s not our task to prove the negative — regarding gods, leprechauns, or whatever. Then he says:
I’ll mention something about science and then introduce three pieces of evidence for God’s existence.
Okay, we’re ready. He tells us:
Science is wonderful, most amazing, and is unparalleled at describing how things are, but not how they ought to be. Science explains that if I hit my neighbour, blood from the ruptured capillaries near the skins surface escapes by leaking out, and with no place to go the blood gets trapped, forming a red purplish mark called a bruise. But science has nothing to say about whether or not I ought to hit my neighbour.
True — no one ever claims that science is a system of ethics. Jeff continues:
I turn to the work of Dr. William Lane Craig, professor at BU, who makes a cumulative case that the existence of God is more plausible than not. … He uses five arguments to build his case, for lack of space, I’ll introduce three of them.
We can save ourselves a lot of time because four years ago we posted about William Lane Craig and his five arguments — see Fox Offers “Five Reasons Why God Exists”. However, here’s what Jeff says about Craig’s “fine tuning” argument:
The odds of the properties of the universe aligning to allow for life are calculated at 1010123. [What?] That number is so astronomically high that if you wrote a ‘0’ on every proton and neutron in the universe, you would not be able to write it down. The evidence suggests that it’s unreasonable to believe that the constants which allow for life came by chance. Not by necessity? The constants which allow life are independent of the laws of nature, and independent of one another. This only leaves one possibility for the fine tuning of the universe, and it makes perfect sense, design.
Yeah, right. Jeff finishes his letter with this:
Our society and government have become so consumed by the wonders of science that we’ve made a discipline into a god, and this has to be one of the greatest blunders of our time. Questions of purpose and moral objectivity are not easy, and unfortunately religion can play a destructive role in the world. [Why?] But that these questions are difficult, and that humans can deform religion, has no bearing on the cumulative proof for a God who created all things. I’m convinced that if we follow the evidence with an open mind, and an open heart, all roads lead to one truth. A creator God.
So there you are, dear reader. Jeff has his evidence, and now you do too. Aren’t you glad?
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.