_A Shot of Faith To The Head_: Bad Title, Great Book: Conclusion
As Mitch Stokes reasoned in his book, there are three evidential reasons for why belief in God is rational:
The universe is rational, and we are rationally able to comprehend and communicate it’s rationality, which reflects a rational being, a perfect form that created the physical world to be rational.
The universe looks designed, and not only that—it also has no physical (non-supernatural) explanation for why it looks designed, which leads us to accepting a supernatural explanation for the designed universe.
Humanity comprehends and communicates absolute moral standards, concepts of good and evil that have no physical explanation or, more importantly, physical reason for an ought, which points us to a supernatural being that has instilled a sense of morality. Continue reading →
_A Shot of Faith To The Head_: Bad Title, Great Book: Part 3: “Evil and Suffering Show There’s No God”
“Many of the atheists’ grievances are moral ones, founded upon an acute sense of ethical superiority,” says Stokes. Sometimes it’s not about science at all, or at least not primarily. Sometimes it’s about the heart. Atheists have decided that the world is not to their liking, and that it is either God’s fault, or he’s not real to begin with.
_A Shot of Faith To The Head_: Bad Title, Great Book: Part 2: “Science Has Shown There is No God”
An official statement from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
“Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” Continue reading →
_A Shot of Faith To The Head_: Bad Title, Great Book: Intermission—Argumentation and Defense
But wait. Aren’t we ultimately saying, if we follow the line of reasoning from our previous post, that the Christian definition of faith is belief without evidence? Recall that everyone operates on faith of some sort. Also recall that not in every field does absence of evidence prove evidence of absence. Continue reading →
Mitch Stokes is bold. He begins his “shot” into our heads by challenging the notion that rational beliefs must be supported by evidence, a belief known as evidentialism. This might at first sound like a bad move, as if to say to tell Sherlock Holmes that you just have to believe you know who stole the diamond, and that’s ok. But retrace the steps of human reasoning. Go quiz the philosophers (and even the scientists) on this issue. We have always used reason as long as we have used writing, and earlier. What is evidence, though? And how does it factor into our reasoning? Is it just a matter of things that are there for us to find, things that obviously point the way toward true things, so long as we are rational? Simply put, Continue reading →