How to Respond to the Arguments of Militant Believers to Turn Them into Humble Atheists
2 “Religion has nothing against science”
The Church, trying to defend the faith, is forced to tirelessly fight with new knowledge, but it has already lost this fight many times.
Catholics, for example, refused to recognize the Earth as a ball revolving around the Sun for two hundred years; only in 1828 did they lift the ban on the spread of the heliocentric theory (they officially agreed with it only in 1992, apologizing for the persecution of Galileo Galileo: satellite imagery, alas , break even the most powerful shield of unwavering faith).
Protestants are still butting heads with the theory of evolution, and Catholics and Orthodox Christians, although they quickly built their own theory of “divine evolution,” are still trying to push into schools the idea that rabbits and plesiosaurs were created by God at the same second . And it was no coincidence that the singer of Catholicism Clive Staples Lewis, the author of the famous “Chronicles of Narnia,” for example, inserted into his children’s book a story about how, during the end of the world, huge lizards rise from the depths - only to immediately collapse into lava and save their bones in the thickness of the earth by the time a new world is created in this place. Any minor mistake in the Bible becomes the subject of a fierce struggle. For example, an unexpected scandal was caused by the message that the newest species on Earth is not a human at all. For example, most modern species of fruit flies are much younger inhabitants of our planet than homo sapiens. But since the Bible says that Adam and Eve were created last, then we must fight. We need to prove that these damn flies are older than trilobites!
3 “The essence of faith is faith, there is no need to try to understand it”
Faith is always based on feeling, and the rule that you need to believe “not with your head, but with your heart” appeared for a reason. “I believe because it is absurd” is a very reliable move when they grab you by the tail and ask why the hell your wonderful religion consists of continuous inconsistencies and factual errors. In response to statements in this spirit, it would be appropriate to note that if God created man, then he gave him a wonderful tool for understanding the Universe - reason and logic. It is with their help that we build airplanes, treat teeth and produce electricity, but when thinking about God, for some reason we must throw both of them aside. Cockroaches also have intuition, but only humans have intelligence in its entirety. And when we voluntarily give it up because it “hurts our faith,” we undoubtedly upset the Creator, since we disrespect his greatest gift to humanity.
4 “You shouldn’t take the Bible literally, it’s an allegory”
Let’s use the method of reductionism: we won’t rummage through all the million errors against reality in the Holy Scriptures, but let’s focus on one - the statement that the Sun arose later than the Earth (and later than grass, by the way) and it revolves around our planet. This fact is mentioned several times in the Bible.
And God created two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; and God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light on the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness... And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Genesis 1:16-19 [7, p. 5]
And the sun returned ten steps along the steps on which it had descended. Isaiah 38:8 [7, p. 708]
Stay, sun, over Gibeon, and moon, over the valley of Analon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood... Joshua 10:12-13
And now a little logical exercise. Why did God lie to us? He, according to the priests, dictated the Bible so that people would know his will, but why then did he consider it necessary to mislead them?
Modern priests have two answers to this: one is simpler, the other is more cunning.
Explanation A. The entire Bible is an allegory and should not be taken directly. Yes, but according to Christian teaching, there is no more important goal in a person’s life than serving God, and the only instructions for this activity are precisely that same Holy Scripture. And how can we now make out which of what is written is a vague allegory, and which is a specific requirement that does not allow interpretation? Yes, if such confusing instructions were written for electric shavers, then their creators would be dragged through the courts by electrocuted users, but here we are talking about the soul! About salvation! What kind of stupid cat and mouse, couldn’t you have expressed yourself a little more clearly?
Explanation B. These words were spoken to people who were at a certain development in science and society. God did not want to interfere with their intellectual development by dropping clues from the sky about the structure of the Universe, so he spoke to them in words and images of that time. Times change, and God’s requirements for people also change*.
Login to the site
Escapist August 2
Since many people responded to my past articles about the dubiousness of atheism as an ideology, and the controversy grew into hundreds of comments, I decided to systematize the standard arguments that atheists give against religion, and give some counter-theses from the point of view of the opposite position. These arguments will not be unique, for the most part they have appeared in other critical articles on this channel. However, it is important to record them.
We will start with the most general and simple arguments - ad hominem, that is, transitions to personalities. What’s funny, first of all, is that many of the polemicizing atheists first of all tried to reduce the opponent’s position to the position of a believer and thereby somehow belittle it. This only confirms the fact that some atheists cannot resist insulting a believer and ridiculing his views, whatever they may be.
I am a supporter of a moderate position in the spirit of “let a hundred flowers bloom” - any concepts have a right to exist as long as they do not interfere with each other and do not penetrate into other people’s lives in an involuntary way. But such ridicule is quite disturbing - it shows that atheists, who boast of their “sobriety” and common sense, are often unable to accept a radically different position, much less want to understand believers and understand the origins and reasons for their faith (which, I repeat, can be very different - from a personal crisis to a serious conviction in the existence of God). I'm not saying that the opposite situation doesn't exist, and I'm not saying that all atheists are like that. But the call is definitely alarming.
Accusations of demagoguery are no less ridiculous - especially when they come from some subjects whose only argument is “religion is evil because I said so.” When this is accompanied by incredible arrogance and snobbery, it becomes really sad. Accusations of fanaticism also fall into the category of ridiculous ad hominem arguments.
Among the atheists themselves, there are simply a great many fanatics, and every time, despite a constructive illustration of the opponent’s position, they try to lead the discussion to the conclusion that everyone who disagrees with them is fanatic. Sometimes it even comes to insults - believe me, the sight of an atheist spitting bile almost out of the blue will not leave anyone indifferent. Don't believe it when atheists tell you that there are no fanatics among them - they are everywhere.
Next, many of the arguments related to money. According to the impression of many, the church does nothing but fool people with money, squeezes every last drop out of them and leaves them under the bridge - some commentators considered such vulgarity to be some very fresh and fashionable argument against faith and religion. I do not comment here on the decisions and actions of the Russian Orthodox Church for a simple reason - this organization acts mostly for political reasons (for the sake of successful expansion and similar preferences), and it is difficult for me to say what its appearance would be like if it were a separate spiritual formation.
But back to the “dumbing down” argument. Apparently, many of the atheists who use this argument believe that priests receive huge amounts of money out of thin air, tax-free, and because of this they live a free and luxurious life. There really are examples of such priests, which is sad - but does this mean that all churchmen are like this? Of course not - there are enough honest people among them who do not try to profit from other people’s misfortunes and the need for confession.
Quite often, atheists forget about the simple fact that many parishes live on money from the sale of candles, books and other tax-free products - these include kitchen workers, cleaners, cellars and a whole staff of other employees. Yes, often their work is not so obvious (and rarely does anyone ask the question of why there is cleanliness and order in the temple - especially atheists who do not go to these temples), but temples are supported not only by priests.
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/escapist/argumenty-ateizma-chast-pervaia-5d406b2d0ce57b21d7bd294e
False arguments of opponents of Christianity
V.Yu. Pitanov
Modern Orthodox apologetics is not an academic discipline; it has purely practical goals. Just as medicine studies diseases not out of idle curiosity, but out of the desire to find a means of healing a specific disease, so Orthodox apologetics sets itself the task of helping a specific person understand the ideological questions that arise before him when he finds himself face to face with systems alien to Christianity : other religions, sects, secular ideology, atheism.
The realities of the modern world are such that in many people the very fact of the existence of Christianity causes a violent reaction of rejection, expressed in various forms, one of which is the development of sectarianism. In this case, sectarianism acts as an attempt to “correct” Christianity by creating another “true” church. In this regard, one of the practical tasks facing modern Orthodox apologists is an attempt to reach the consciousness of opponents of Christianity and increase the degree of their self-criticism. In addition, Christian apologists seek to encourage their opponents to judge Christianity based on historical facts, and not on ideological cliches and speculations that are actively used in the fight against Christianity. "Brethren! do not be children in mind: in evil be babes, but in mind be mature" (1 Cor. 14:20), "test everything, hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21) - Orthodox Christians remember these words of the Apostle Paul, which allows them be critical of what they encounter in the Orthodox Church.
The attitude of sectarians and other opponents of Christianity towards their own organizations, unfortunately, is not distinguished by such a critical attitude: one can find many critical articles by Orthodox Christians devoted to the internal life of the Orthodox Church, but the author of the article, despite very extensive experience in studying sectarianism, has never had to read critical articles written by sectarians about their sects. Likewise, many secular ideologists who are opposed to Christianity are not very critical of the sources that shape their worldview. This attitude of uncriticality and superficiality, due to the teachings of the organization or one's own laziness, coupled with the desire to blindly accept anti-Christian ideology for reasons of convenience rather than fidelity, without actually any attempt to trace its origins, the motives of the founders and the argumentation of the ideology they propose, brings its own harmful fruits, leading to very specific argumentation in content and form, which forces negatively disposed towards Christianity use in polemics with Christians.
As the experience of the author of the article shows, polemics with sectarians and other opponents of Orthodoxy and Christianity in general is a very difficult task, requiring not only knowledge in the field of apologetics, but also skills in communicating with people who have a powerful negative attitude against Christianity, as well as considerable patience and self-control . Therefore, in our article we will review the most common false arguments used by sectarians and other ideological enemies of Orthodoxy in polemics. We will also think a little about how to make dialogue with sectarians more effective. In its content and topic, the article is polemical and does not pretend to be the ultimate truth, its goal is to find answers to the questions posed, so the author will be glad to any critical analysis of the material presented in this work.
The word “logic” comes from the Greek “logos” - “concept”, “reason”, “reasoning”. Logic is the science of thinking; it studies patterns in connections and the development of thoughts. Logic studies the forms of thoughts and forms of development of knowledge, special techniques and methods of cognition, as well as special laws of thinking. Any argument used in a debate to defend one's position and prove its truth is false if it violates the laws of logic. Thus, knowledge of the laws of logic and the application of this knowledge strengthens the argumentation used in any controversy, making arguments based on the competent application of logical laws more reasonable and acceptable to opponents. There is no point in presenting the basic laws of logic in this article, since anyone can easily find this kind of information. We will try to indicate the most common logical errors of sectarians and other opponents of Christianity when conducting polemics with Orthodox apologists. Naturally, such mistakes are made not only by opponents of Orthodoxy, they are often made by representatives of the Orthodox Church itself. Orthodox Christians should not forget about this, as well as the fact that they should be critical not only of the arguments of their opponents, but also of their own. But in fairness, it is worth noting that the reason for the logical errors of the Orthodox is most often a lack of education, while in sectarianism, violation of logical laws is a style of thinking, which can be seen by referring to the works of the founders of various sects.
Perhaps the most common logical mistake is the transition from the topic of discussion to the personality of the opponent. However, the personal merits or demerits of the opponent do not confirm or refute his argumentation, of course, if moral issues are not considered, since a thief talking about morality and calling for the fight against theft looks funny. The author has heard lectures from atheists about the Holy Scriptures, and, despite the atheistic worldview of the lecturers, they presented the material for the most part objectively. However, unfortunately, the opposite often occurs, when a person strives not to present the facts, but rather to express his opinion about them. In this case, through analysis of the opponent’s argumentation, it should be shown that he is wrong, while labeling him as bias, ignorance, etc. should be excluded.
The author of the article constantly hears accusations against him from sectarians of biased assessment of various “non-traditional religious movements” only because he initially has a “prejudiced” attitude towards them, being a Christian, while the argument put forward in critical works for some reason goes to the second plan and the polemic turns into yet another complaint about the “intolerance” of Christians. The substantive part of the critical works devoted to sects is simply ignored, as if no serious arguments were put forward, and this is not done on the basis of an analysis of the argumentation (as one of the opponents and active critics of the author of the article said: “I don’t read your works, don’t write anything smart anyway”).
The next common mistake made by opponents of Christianity when polemicizing with Christians can be conditionally called “garden scarecrow” - this is stirring up emotions in polemics by presenting the opponent in a caricature. This effect is mainly achieved through the use of emotionally loaded terminology. For example, the favorite attack of the article’s opponents against him is to label him an “inquisitor.” But with further polemics, it often turns out that polemicists of this kind do not even know which Roman Catholic order was involved in the Inquisition, what its activities were, what goals it pursued and what methods it used in its practice. The level of knowledge about the Inquisition corresponds to the content of cheap propaganda of atheist societies in the first years of post-revolutionary Russia, where facts were replaced with emotional exclamations.
Often polemicizing with Christians, opponents begin to use derogatory names for clergy, for example: “well, what can you take from these Christians, look at their butts, you can see by their thickness how much they fast.” At the same time, opponents are not at all concerned about the real reasons for the obesity of individual priests or the presence of priests whose weight is all right. They say nothing about fat people among atheists or among their own brethren in the sect.
We no longer comment on the derogatory epithet “priest,” the use of which only speaks of a person’s desire to humiliate his opponent, who respects priests, and to show his contempt for him. Although in fairness it should be said that Christians should not use arguments of the same kind in polemics, which are sometimes used in dialogue with atheists: “is it true that there are monkeys among your ancestors?” Indeed there is, if you believe in Darwin's theory, but this does not mean that every atheist considers his great-grandfather a monkey. In any case, emotional language and an attempt to caricature the opponent do not make the position of his opponents more solid. Those who resort to this form of polemic thereby demonstrate the weakness of their position. From a logical point of view, such an argument is false. In polemics, you need to adhere to the facts, be ready to indicate the sources of their borrowing, and initially strive to understand your opponent, and not morally destroy him.
The next logical fallacy often found among Christian opponents is attempting to generalize based on incomplete information. For example: “I met a priest, he drives a Mercedes, dines in restaurants and vacations abroad, apparently he does a good job of cutting hair for his flock.” But the most interesting thing is the general conclusion: “all priests are thieves, careerists and deceivers who only need material well-being.” At the same time, the opponent is not worried about the fact that not all priests drive Mercedes, vacation abroad and dine in restaurants. There are others, but among the apostles was Judas. To give one example, people who use this argument choose not to see that most priests live more than modestly, and rural priests often live in poverty or extreme poverty. If, for example, a foreigner, arriving in Russia, sees a prostitute or even several prostitutes, will this be sufficient grounds to declare that in Russia all women are prostitutes? Are there atheists and sectarians among the mentally ill? Yes, there is, but is this the basis for the statement that all sectarians and atheists should be sent to a hospital for the mentally ill? Logic says no.
So an overly broad generalization based on a small selection of facts is incorrect. This should not be forgotten by anyone who, in the heat of controversy, tries to make broad generalizations only on the basis of a few facts known to him. Many Christian apologists should remember this same rule, since high-quality and honest work with information will serve to strengthen the authority of Christian apologetics, while the desire to pass off what is supposed to be real based on just a few examples will not lead to anything good. In apologetics, one needs to look for patterns in the development of specific sects, and not “fried” facts.
Also among opponents of Christians there is a logical error called a false analogy. Its essence lies in creating false analogies between the Church and structures that bear little resemblance to Her. One of the analogies favorite by critics of the Orthodox Church is an attempt to identify the Church with the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee. If this analogy were true, opponents of the Church would debate with Its representatives not in the media, but somewhere in a camp, prison or mental hospital, as was the case with opponents of the CPSU Central Committee. Another example is the false analogy between the apologists of Orthodoxy and the Inquisition. After all, following it, any person who speaks out in defense of his views can be declared a supporter of the Inquisition. Why, for example, is an atheist who creates a society of atheists to defend his views not an inquisitor (after all, the methods used against Christians after the revolution were by no means persuasive), but an attempt by Christians to substantiate their position is declared an inquisitorial one?
The search for analogies between religions by supporters of the idea of equality of all religions is also an example of a false analogy. For example, is it possible, based on the fact that many Christians practice continuous recitation of the Jesus Prayer, and Hare Krishnas recite the Hare Krishna mantra, to conclude that they worship the same God? This is possible only if you forget about all the differences that exist between Christianity and Krishnaism, but then it is quite possible to consider, say, the Bible and some pornographic magazine to be equally valuable, because, like the Bible, it is also printed on paper and typed up on a computer , maybe even in the same printing house. Do you see how many similarities there are? One problem is that the content is different. But this is a “trifle” that you don’t need to focus on. Attempts to “prove” the unity and equality of all religions are periodically made by many sectarians, but, as a study of the arguments put forward in defense of this point of view shows, this position is always based on deception.
The analogies drawn in the process of such “proof” are in fact false, and the presence of significant differences is not taken into account. In any case, when using the principle of analogy, we must not forget that analogy exists only where there is a fundamental similarity in essence, and not a similarity in form. If this rule is not observed, then the analogy is false and will prove not the truth of Christian opponents, but their willingness to use dirty tricks.
Often opponents of Christians play with Christian terms, giving them a negative meaning; for this they use a very ugly technique: the terms of Christian theology are taken out of the context of the Christian worldview, moved into a worldview system alien to Christianity, where they acquire a negative meaning, and then are presented to the public. As for Christian terminology, such terms as “dogma” and “faith” are especially unlucky. Within the Christian worldview, the term “dogma” has a positive meaning. Jesus Christ revealed the fullness of the Truth, and the goal of Christians is its comprehension and preservation. Within the framework of the Christian worldview, Truth does not develop, it is already present in its entirety, and a Christian must strive to embody it in his daily life; dogmas exist in order to protect what was given by Christ from distortion. But if this term is transferred to a different ideological basis, which affirms spiritual evolutionism, then dogma turns from a means of preserving the gift of Christ into fetters that do not allow something new. The same problem exists with the term “faith.” Critics of Christianity have reinterpreted this term, defining it as an uncritical perception of information, while in Orthodoxy faith is, rather, the state of a Christian, his life in God, and not intellectual knowledge, moreover, perceived uncritically. It is precisely Christianity that calls for a critical attitude towards your faith and your life: “Test everything, hold on to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). In any case, during polemics it is necessary to take into account that the same term within the framework of different ideological systems can have completely different meanings, and any polemic without taking this circumstance into account is useless.
Often opponents of Christianity make a logical fallacy known as the “false argument to science.” The essence of this error is that in areas the consideration of which goes beyond the boundaries of scientific knowledge, reference is made to science as a generally recognized authority; in addition, a simpler option may occur: distortion of scientific data for the sake of one’s own theories. For example, atheists like to contrast religion with science. In this case, science acts as a judge of religion. But is such a contrast legitimate? Isn't it artificial? Why not use science as a judge over art? The problem is not whether science is good or bad compared to religion, or how scientific or unscientific religion is, but that their subjects of study are different, as is their methodology. The Bible is not a physics textbook, but it is unreasonable to make the Bible out of a physics textbook. How unreasonable it is to argue about who is better: boys or girls; both are needed if humanity does not want to die out. Likewise, the contradictions between Christianity and science are far-fetched, artificially created between people who simply speculate on science, trying to find in it arguments for their often dubious ideologies.
Just recently, communism was also “scientific”, and where is it now? What to do with its scientific character? Sectarians, especially occultists, also speculate on science. Let's give one example. Occultists often use such a concept as an aura, while trying to confirm their fantasies on this subject with the authority of science, but here is the opinion of scientists themselves on this matter:
“The Kirlian effect is photographing an object in a high-frequency field. From below, a high-frequency generator with a voltage of up to 200 thousand Volts with a frequency of 75 to 200 thousand Hz is connected to the object (it can be a plant leaf, a palm, any plate). A photographic film is placed on the object, and a plate is placed on top, to which the second contact of the generator is connected. Microsparks jump between the object and the coating, which pass through the photographic film and illuminate it pointwise. These traces after developing the film are the Kirlian effect. The distribution of sparks depends on the state of the object (say, whether a leaf is affected by a disease or not) and, in principle, can be used for diagnostics, but has nothing to do with the “glow of the biofield”, the aura. When some magazine publishes a photograph of a palm made by the Kirlian method, and passes it off as an aura - the glow of a psychic’s palm, visible to the naked eye, then this is a common fabrication aimed at misleading the inexperienced reader...”
The above false arguments by no means exhaust the topic; rather, they identify it and reveal the seriousness and urgency of the problem. After all, false argumentation is a deception that is resorted to in polemics, and the father of lies, according to the Christian worldview, is Satan (John 8:44). But there is hardly a single sectarian or atheist who wants to be branded a liar.
What, in light of all of the above, can be recommended to Orthodox apologists? First of all, study logic so as not to repeat the mistakes of your opponents; without knowledge of logic, you are unlikely to be able to learn to distinguish false arguments from true ones. Ignorance does not bring a person closer to God; an ignorant Christian apologist is dangerous, first of all, for Christianity itself, since it discredits it. Be critical of yourself and encourage your opponents to be critical. When justifying this criticality, focus on the desire to understand the issue objectively and as impartially as possible, and drive out the spirit of argument from the discussion. The purpose of polemics is to gain knowledge of the truth. Keep in mind that people mostly make logical errors unconsciously, without noticing them. In this case, point out their mistake, explain what it is, name sources where a person can get more detailed information on the issue under discussion. At the same time, be friendly. The more competently you work with information, with its assessment and interpretation, the more seriously you will be taken, so strive to improve the level of your apologetic research. Do not disdain the experience of secular scientists, study it. Do not forget that the apology of Christianity is the duty of every Christian: “Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; [be] always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15), "...he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" (Jas. 5:20). Christ “... came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matthew 9:13). The very fact of belonging to Christianity does not make a person sinless: if the Apostle Paul considered himself the first among sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), then it makes all the more sense for ordinary Christians to remember that without God we are nothing.
Notes:
For example, see Temptations of Our Day. In defense of church unity. M., Danilovsky evangelist. 2003. The selection of arguments is carried out mainly on the basis of the author’s personal polemical experience. Ivlev Yu.V. Logics. M., Prospect. 2005. P.5. For example, see: Ivlev Yu.V. Logics. M., Prospect. 2005. For example, see: Pitanov V.Yu. Esotericism as a path to racism. Weston E. Argumentation: Ten Lessons for Beginning Authors. M., Flint, Science. 2005. P.39. Right there. P.15, 82. On the Inquisition, see Deacon Andrey Kuraev. Non-American missionary. Saratov. Ed. Saratov Diocese. 2005. Weston E. Argumentation: Ten Lessons for Beginning Authors. M., Flint, Science. 2005. P.78. 10. Ibid. P.30. 11. See the frank stories of a wanderer to his spiritual father. Sergiev Posad. Ed. Sretensky Monastery. 2004. 12. See Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Bhagavad Gita as it is. M., Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. 1992. 13. See Pitanov V.Yu. Krishnaism as a tradition of worshiping deception and death. 14. See Pitanov V.Yu. The myth of the “brotherhood of religions” as a method of combating traditional religions; Baha'ism in the light of the doctrine of the unity of religions; Mantra yoga, meditation and Orthodox prayer: a question of compatibility. 15. See Pitanov V.Yu. Selected questions of Orthodox apologetics / “Church dogmatism” and dogmas of the Church. 16. See Pitanov V.Yu. Myths and reality of the occult theory of the spiritual evolution of religions. 17. See Pitanov V.Yu. Judgment of conscience: Agni yoga versus Christianity / Is the Christian faith blind? 18. Ivlev Yu.V. Logics. M., Prospect. 2005. P.223. 19. See Pitanov V.Yu. Christianity and science – enemies or collaborators?; Science and pseudoscience: overcoming false authority. 20. Lebedev V.P. The eternity of the myth about extrasensory perception / The problem of the value status of science at the turn of the 21st century. SPb., RKhGI. 1999. P.250. 21. For example, see Booth W.K., Colomb G.D., Williams D.M. Study: Sixteen Lessons for Beginning Authors. M., Flint, Science. 2004; Volkov Yu.G., Dmitriev A.V., Spassky S.A. How to become a scientist: a practical guide. M., SSU. 2005.
Argument from degree of perfection
This is one of the arguments from Thomas Aquinas's book “Five Proofs of the Existence of God”, it is still controversial. Here is Aquinas's opinion of him, translated from Latin:
“The fourth proof comes from the degree of detection in things. For there, to a greater or lesser extent, goodness, truth, nobility are revealed. But the terms “more” or “less” are used to describe different things with different approaches, thereby something compared to something else is “better”, “true” and “noble”. Thus, as metaphysics asserts, that which is the greatest truth is the greatest being. Moreover, that which is the greatest of its kind is also the cause of all things that happen around it, that is, for example, fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all the heat around it. Therefore, there is something that is the cause of the existence of all things. We call it God."
Counter argument:
The most common criticism of this argument is that we should not believe in the existence of an object to a greater extent just because we believe in it to a lesser extent. Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist, says that just because we have encountered an "odorous" object should not lead us to believe that we have encountered something with "incomparable advantage."
Anti-scientific atheism as a type of obscurantism
Modern philosophy considers atheism to be a religious worldview. Atheists firmly believe that there is no God, that science has supposedly proven this (in fact, this is, of course, not the case).
Even the ideologists of communism directly wrote that atheism is a religion.
Arguments for the existence of God:
Isaac Newton (1643-1727), English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, founder of the Classical theory of physics:
“The wonderful structure of the cosmos and the harmony in it can only be explained by the fact that the cosmos was created according to the plan of an omniscient and omnipotent Being. This is my first and last word."
Newton was asked: who will miraculously gather the bodies of the dead who have scattered into dust to form new bodies. The scientist silently took a handful of iron dust, mixed this dust with earthen dust and asked: “Who will choose iron filings from this mixture?” With general bewilderment, the scientist took a large magnet and began to move it over the mixture. Movement was detected in it, a rustling sound was heard, and iron filings began to stick to the magnet. Newton looked seriously at those present and said: “The one who imparted such power to a soulless stone, really cannot do more through our souls, when they need to put on their former, but renewed bodies?”
A.L. Cauchy (1789 - 1857), French mathematician:
“I am a Christian, which means that I believe in the divinity of Christ, as Tycho de Brahe, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Pascal believed... as almost all mathematicians of the past believed.”
Uglov Fedor Grigorievich. Soviet and Russian surgeon, writer and public figure, doctor of medical sciences, professor. Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Bulletin of Surgery named after I.I. Grekov”. Academician of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences.
Academician and humble parishioner of St. John's Monastery. An outstanding doctor, listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the oldest practicing surgeon in the world, and a patriotic enthusiast. A unique centenarian who lived actively for almost 104 years, and the author of many books. All these words are about Fedor Uglov.
What is the secret of active longevity? In one of his interviews, Fyodor Grigorievich said about himself: “I am a deeply religious person and was raised in a religious family. I am convinced that without faith there cannot be high morality and a spiritually healthy people.”
F. Wilhelm Herpel (1738-1822), astronomer, discoverer of the planet Uranus:
“The further science advances, the more numerous and convincing the evidence becomes that there is a creative and omnipotent wisdom.”
F.F.Martius (1794 - 1868), German botanist:
“Nowadays you often hear that natural scientists profess materialism, that they do not want to know about the spiritual basis of things. And yet: who else but a natural scientist should clearly recognize that this underlying basis exists?”
A. Volta (1745-1827), Italian electrophysicist and inventor:
“I decided to subject the fundamental truths of faith to a thorough analysis and thus extract evidence that religion is also acceptable to natural reason.”
G. Mädler (1794 - 1874), German astronomer, creator of the first map of the Moon:
“A serious natural scientist cannot deny that God exists. One who has looked so deeply into the workshop of God, who has been able to admire God's wisdom to such an extent, cannot help but kneel before this supreme Spirit.”
A.M. Ampere (1775-1836), French physicist and mathematician, discovered the fundamental law of electrodynamics:
“The most convincing proof of the existence of God is the harmony of means by which order is maintained in the universe; thanks to this order, living beings find in their bodies everything necessary for the development and reproduction of their physical and spiritual abilities.”
S. Liel (1797 - 1875), English geologist, founder of modern geology:
“In whatever direction we explore, everywhere we find proof of the existence of creative Intelligence, Providence, Wisdom and Omnipotence.”
Karl Fr.Gauss (1777 - 1855), German mathematician, astronomer, physicist:
“When our last hour comes, with what inexpressible joy we will direct our gaze to Him, whose presence we could only guess in this world.”
Liebing (1803), German chemist:
“The greatness and infinite wisdom of the Creator can only be comprehended by those who have learned to read in the great book called nature.”
Sabatier (1854-1941), French chemist Nobel Prize winner:
“Natural sciences and religion are opposed to each other only by people who are poorly educated in either one or the other.”
I.F. Berzelius (1779 - 1843), Swedish chemist:
“All organic nature bears witness to the existence of a wise purpose and is the product of a higher intelligence...Man is therefore called to consider his highest faculty—the faculty of thought—in accordance with the Being to whom he owes his existence.”
G. Shersted (1777 - 1851), Danish physicist: “Every thorough study of nature ends with the recognition of the existence of God.”
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), founder of the theory of relativity:
“Every serious natural scientist must be in some way a religious person. Otherwise, he is not able to imagine that the incredibly subtle interdependencies that he observes were not invented by him. In the infinite universe the activity of an infinitely perfect Mind is revealed. The common idea of me as an atheist is a big misconception. If this idea is drawn from my scientific works, I can say that my scientific works are not understood.”
John Eccles (Nobel Prize winner, internationally renowned neuroscientist, author of several acclaimed books on mind-body issues and over 500 scientific articles):
“...I am forced to think that there is something like a supernatural origin of my unique, self-conscious spirit and my unique soul... The idea of a supernatural creation helps me avoid the apparently ridiculous conclusion about the genetic origin of my unique self.”
Zhdanov Vladimir Georgievich, graduated from a physics and mathematics school with a gold medal, 2 higher educations (physical and psychological faculties), candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, worked as a senior lecturer in the department of general physics at the Novosibirsk Pedagogical Institute, held the position of professor and head of the department of practical psychology and psychoanalysis , Russian public figure, chairman of the “Union for the Struggle for National Sobriety”, scientific consultant of popular science videos for Channel 1 against bad habits “Common Cause” (filmed by Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov), after their showing there was a 21% drop in alcohol sales):
“I believe that sobering up is the foundation for the spiritual, physical and economic revival of the country. Most of the population today drinks; these people are outside the Church, although they are baptized. You can’t drag a drunk person into a temple; he has another “temple” - a bottle shop. And when people sober up, and the soul is Christian by nature, then many, having sobered up, go to church.
In my classes, to the best of my ability, I try to help people sober up and send them to church. And many come to faith and to the Church. And some of our comrades-in-arms became priests and monks.
Unfortunately, you can often hear the opinion: a drinking person will come to church and become sober. However, I know there are many people who confess, take communion, but, unfortunately, continue to drink. There are such people even among the clergy.
I myself, being previously an unbeliever, came to faith, therefore, according to the word of the Apostle, I can help others, show the way. Many guys from our sober movement came to the Church.”
– Do you yourself confess and receive communion?
– I confess, take communion, my confessor labors in one of the monasteries of the Tomsk region.
– But for the sacrament of communion they use wine...
– I will say this: in the Church they receive communion not with wine, but with the body and blood of Christ.
– The Monk Seraphim of Sarov spoke about alcohol: “So that there is no spirit in the monastery.”
– What do you see as the role of the Church in the temperance movement?
– The role of the Church should be exceptional: it is one of the few public institutions that people trust. And today he awaits the word of a sober sermon from the priests. By the way, in 1859, the Holy Synod, by its decree, blessed the clergy with “the living example of their own lives and frequent preaching in the Church of God about the benefits of abstinence to promote the determination that arose in some urban and rural classes to abstain from drinking wine.”
The fight for sobriety begins with yourself - the fight against your vice. The preaching of sobriety will be heard only if it is supported by the personal example of the preacher.
Here at the Moscow Sretensky Seminary they gathered 150 people, I gave them a lecture for two hours. These are future priests. If they are taught to live soberly, what a force it will be to save Russia!
Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), physicist, one of the founders of astronautics, head of the American space program: “I cannot understand a scientist who would not recognize the Supreme Mind in the entire system of the universe, just as I could not understand a theologian who denied would be the progress of science. Religion and science are sisters."
K.M. Hethaway (born 1902) American physicist and engineer, creator of the electronic brain:
“Modern physics tells me that nature is not capable of self-organization. The universe is something organized. That’s why a great First Cause is needed.”
John Klimenko (Fr. John), studied at a secondary school with in-depth study of the English language, at the Moscow Chemical Lyceum, at the Russian Chemical-Technological University. DI. Mendeleev with the qualification of a chemist, in full-time graduate school at the Institute of Organic Chemistry named after. N.D. Zelinsky RAS, defended his dissertation in the specialty “Organic Chemistry” with the award of the scientific degree of Candidate of Chemical Sciences, is fluent in English, successfully completed his studies at PSTGU with a degree in “theology”, full-time deacon of the Martha and Mary Convent of Mercy. He worked at the Institute of Organic Chemistry as a researcher, then as deputy head of one of the institute’s laboratories. During the period of scientific activity, he published 18 works in domestic and international scientific journals on chemistry, and was a reviewer for one of the leading domestic journals in chemistry - “Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences. Chemical series", taught a special course on organic synthesis at the Moscow City Pedagogical University at the Faculty of Chemistry and Biology as an associate professor.
I got acquainted with the materials of Prof. V.G. Zhdanov and the works of Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences F.G. Uglov, devoted to the problem of excess mortality of the Russian people in connection with the high level of alcohol consumption in Russia in the second half of the 20th century, periodically gave lectures on this problem, participating in specialized conferences, published a series of popular science articles on this topic and, in co-authorship with Dr. med. A.V. Nemtsov, scientific work in the journal “Issues of Narcology” (No. 2, 2010). Father John’s book “The Bitter Truth about Beer and Tobacco” has gained popularity and has been republished many times, with a total circulation of more than 100 thousand copies. He is responsible for organizing assistance to people with alcohol and drug addiction at the temples of the mountains. Moscow (order of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill).
Pascual Jordan (1902-1980), German physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics:
“Modern science has created obstacles that previously stood in the way of harmony between natural knowledge and the religious worldview. Today’s natural scientific knowledge no longer rebels against the Creator.”
Atheism is a bloody religion and against science. Atheism is anti-scientific, it is a type of religion, according to leading philosophers of the Russian Federation (IP RAS) and the ideologists of atheism themselves. And regarding atheism as a type of religion, and one of the bloodiest religions.
“Atheism, as a naked negation of religion, constantly referring to religion, in itself without it represents nothing and therefore is itself still a religion,” Friedrich Engels
(Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 36. P. 161).
I don’t understand why atheists need all this controversy? Can’t they help but believe in their hearts?
Science repressed by atheists. Scientists exterminated in the USSR:
Rudnitsky Stepan Lvovich (1877 - 1937), was a famous geographer, dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Higher Pedagogical Institute in Prague, upon his return to Ukraine he founded and headed the Institute of Geography and Cartography.
He was a member of the Scientific Society named after Taras Shevchenko, one of the founders and members of the Institute for the Progress of West and East in Vienna, the Geographical Society in Vienna, was elected an honorary foreign member of the Czech Geographical Society in Prague, the German Geographical Society in Berlin, the atheist communists sentenced him to five years concentration camp, in 1937, after a second conviction, he was shot.
Shevchuk Denis Aleksandrovich, economist, lawyer, journalist, graduate of Orthodox missionary courses
Reasonable Argument
This argument is based on a very complex abstraction. Its author is C.S. Lewis. It all starts with design and then flows into something else. According to Lewis, this proves that God must exist because:
“Let us assume that the universe has neither intelligence nor creative consciousness. In this case, no one worked on my brain so that I could think. It's just that the atoms inside my skull, for certain physical or chemical reasons, organize themselves in a certain way, which leads to the feeling that I think. But if this is so, then how can I trust my own thinking? How do you know if this is true? It's like spilling milk and hoping it spills in such a way that it represents a map of London. But if I cannot trust my own thinking, then I cannot trust the reasoning that leads to atheism, and therefore there is no reason to be an atheist. As long as I believe in God, I cannot believe in my thoughts, that is, I cannot use my thoughts to stop believing in God.
Counter argument:
The argument sounds quite convincing, so there is no final opinion on its truth yet. But its weakest point is that, in a strict sense, it is not a proof of the existence of God, because it must assume that the human mind can evaluate the truth or falsity of a statement, and it says that the human mind can be persuaded by argument.
But in order to reject the assumption that the human mind can evaluate the falsity and sincerity of a claim, the mind must consider the statement to be true or false, which immediately proves the fact that a person can evaluate the falsity or sincerity of a statement.
But all this has nothing to do with the existence of God. Thus, this argument is better viewed as a refutation of materialism. However, given the fact that most atheists have used naturalistic materialism as the basis of atheism, this argument is very viable.
Moral argument
This argument is quite old, and according to it, God must exist for the following reasons:
— There is an aspect of morality;
— Belief in God is a better explanation of this morality than any other explanation;
- Faith in God, thus, turns out to be preferable to disbelief.
Counter argument:
This argument is "technically" valid, provided these three elements are accepted, however, most critics refuse to accept the first point. Morality and ethics, in their opinion, are not a universal concept. Soldiers during the First Crusade easily killed men, women and children in Jerusalem in 1099. This was their morality. Thomas Hobbes argued that morality is based on what society lives by, so it is not objective.
Ontological argument
First formulated by Saint Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, and then adopted by Alvin Plantinga. “God exists provided that it is logically possible for him to exist.” This argument is quite blatant in its simplicity; it requires not only belief in God, but also belief in the necessity of his existence. If you are sure that it is needed, then you must believe that it exists.
Counter argument:
Critics, when talking about the ontological proof of the existence of God, emphasize "naked fallacy of assertion", which implies the presence of something inherent in unproven statements, without any evidential basis. This argument is also described as a vicious circle that reaches conclusions based on a premise, which in turn relies on unsupported conclusions.
The debate about whether there is a compelling case for the existence of God has continued throughout history, involving extremely intelligent people on both sides. Recently, arguments against the possibility of God's existence have become militant, calling anyone who dares to believe in God insane and irrational. Karl Marx argued that anyone who believes in God must suffer from a mental disorder caused by distorted thinking. Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was in a state of delusion and had these beliefs only due to the factor of “wish fulfillment,” which Freud considered an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche directly said that faith is the unwillingness to know the truth. The words of these three historical figures (along with others) are now simply retold by a new generation of atheists who argue that belief in God is intellectually unsound.
Is this really true? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position? Are there logical and reasonable arguments for the existence of God? Is it possible, without resorting to the Bible, to prove the existence of God, refuting the positions of both “classical” and modern atheists, and provide a strong justification for faith in the Creator? Yes it is possible. In addition, demonstrating the validity of arguments in favor of the existence of God, at the same time makes the position of atheism intellectually unfounded.
To make the case for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. Let's start with the simplest metaphysical question: “Why do we have something and not nothing?” This is the fundamental question of existence: why do we exist, why does the earth exist, why does the Universe exist, and not nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian said: “In a sense, it is not man who asks the question about God, but man’s very existence that raises the question.”
When considering this question, there are four possible answers as to why we have something rather than nothing:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality arose independently.
3. Reality exists independently (it is eternal).
4. Reality was created by something/someone that exists independently.
So what is the most likely solution? Let's start with reality, which is simply an illusion, as some eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher René Descartes, famous for his statement: “I think, therefore I am.” This scientist - a mathematician - argued that if he thinks, then he must “exist.” In other words: “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” It takes someone to experience illusions to prove their existence. Moreover, you cannot question your existence without proving your existence, and that is an argument doomed to fail. Thus, the possibility of reality as an illusion is rejected.
What follows is an option about a reality that arose independently. When we study philosophy, we learn about statements that are “analytically false,” that is, false by definition. The possibility of the independent emergence of reality belongs to this type of statement for the simple reason that something cannot exist before its emergence. If you created yourself, then you must have existed before that, which is impossible. In evolution, this is sometimes called "spontaneous generation" - something coming from nothing - a position that few (if any) intelligent people support, because it is impossible to create something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I have never made a proposition so absurd that anything could come into existence without a cause.” Since something cannot arise from nothing, the alternative of the independent emergence of reality is excluded.
Now we are left with only two options: eternal reality or reality created by something eternal - an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summarized these alternatives as follows:
• something exists
• nothing can create something
• thus, there is a necessary and eternal “something”
Please note that we have to return to the eternal “something”. An atheist who ridicules a believer in God for his belief in an eternal Creator must himself believe in an eternal universe; this is the only option he can choose. The question now is where does the existing evidence lead? Do they indicate the existence of matter before mind, or mind before matter?
Today all major scientific and philosophical evidence points from an eternal universe to an eternal Creator. From a scientific point of view - honest scientists admit - the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, everything that has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it must have causes. The existence of a beginning for the universe is emphasized by such evidence as the second law of thermodynamics; the "big bang" radiation echo discovered in the early 1900s; the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to the beginning, as well as Einstein's theory of relativity. Everything proves that the universe is not eternal.
Moreover, the laws surrounding cause-and-effect relationships deny the fact that the universe is the final cause of everything we know, for one simple reason: an effect must resemble its cause. If this is true, then no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless and amoral universe could accidentally create beings (us) who are full of individuality and obsessed with purpose, meaning and morality. This, from a cause-and-effect perspective, completely refutes the idea that everything that exists comes naturally from the universe. Thus, in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
The philosopher J. S. Mill (who was not a Christian) summed up the conclusion we have arrived at: “It is evident that only Reason can create intelligence.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that the eternal Creator is responsible for reality as we know it. Or, stated in a logical set of statements:
• something exists
• it is impossible to get something from nothing
• therefore there is a necessary and eternal “something”
• the only possible options are the eternal universe and the eternal Creator
• science and philosophy refute the concept of an eternal universe
• thus, there is an eternal Creator
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who came to this conclusion many years ago, commented: “Essentially, what I realized was that to remain an atheist, I had to believe that everything comes from nothing, the nonliving produces the living, randomness produces precision, chaos produces information, the unconscious produces the conscious and the senseless produces meaning. Such leaps of faith were too great for me, especially in light of the compelling evidence for the existence of God... In other words, in my estimation, the Christian worldview, taken together, has much more compelling evidence than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must answer is this: If an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that he does exist), what kind of creator is he? Can we infer about him from his creation? In other words, can we understand a cause by considering its consequences? The answer to this question is yes, we can, given the following characteristics:
• He must be supernatural in nature (since he created time and space)
• He must be extremely powerful
• It must be eternal (self-existent)
• He must be omnipresent (he created space and is not limited to it).
• He must be timeless and unchanging (he created time)
• It must be immaterial because it transcends space/physical matter
• He must be a person (impersonal cannot create a person)
• It must be infinite and one of a kind since two infinities cannot exist
• It must be diverse, but have unity, since unity and diversity exist in nature
• He must possess a higher intelligence - only a rational being could lead to the emergence of intelligent beings
• He must be purposeful as he intentionally created everything
• It must be moral (a moral law cannot exist without a legislator)
• He must be caring (otherwise he would not give moral laws)
If this is so, then we must now ask the next question - does any religion describe such a Creator? The answer to this question is yes: the God of the Bible fits this description perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 89:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/immutable (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5: 24), is personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/one of a kind (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse but has unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4–5), driven (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6–7).
The final question on the topic of God's existence is whether the atheistic position is justified. Since atheists argue that the position of believers is untenable, the only reasonable solution is to turn the issue to them. The first thing to understand is that the atheist’s statement is “there is no God!” (as the word “atheist” implies) is a philosophically fragile position. Legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “A positive existential statement can be proven, but a negative existential statement, which denies the existence of something, cannot.” For example, someone may claim that there is a red eagle, and another person may claim that there are no red eagles. The first one needs to find only one red eagle to prove his claim. But the latter needs to comb the entire Universe and be literally everywhere at the same time to make sure that he did not miss the red eagle somewhere and at some moment, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists admit that they cannot prove that God does not exist.
Further, it is important to understand the issues surrounding the seriousness of the truth claims expressed and the amount of evidence required to justify certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two glasses of lemonade in front of you and tells you that one might be tarter than the other, then since the consequence of getting a tarter drink is not serious, you won't need much evidence to make a choice. However, if the owner adds sweetener to one glass and rat poison to another, then we will want to see a lot more evidence before making our choice.
This is precisely the situation in which a person finds himself, choosing between atheism and faith in God. Since belief in atheism can lead to irreparable consequences in eternity, it would seem that atheists must present significant and convincing evidence to support their position. But they are unable to do this. Atheism simply cannot pass the test of the strength of the evidence it puts forward. Instead, atheists go into eternity with their fingers crossed, hoping not to find the unpleasant truth that eternity actually exists. As Mortimer Adler says: “The acceptance or denial of God, more than any other important issue, has an influence on life and action.”
So, does belief in God have a rational basis? Are there rational, logical and reasonable arguments for the existence of God? Without a doubt. While atheists such as Freud argue that those who believe in God seek the fulfillment of their own desires, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually seek the fulfillment of their desires: hoping and wishing that God did not exist, not there was liability and therefore there was no trial. But Freud's words are refuted by the God of the Bible himself, who confirms His existence and the fact that condemnation does await those who know within themselves that He exists, but suppress this truth (Romans 1:20). But to those who respond to the evidence of the existence of a Creator, He offers the path to salvation, which was achieved through His Son, Jesus Christ: “And to those who received Him, He gave the right to be children of God. These are those who believe in Him, who were born not of blood, not of carnal passion, not of male desire, but of God” (John 1:12-13).
Nilacala.ru
12 arguments from atheists
Interesting / Science / Education and Career / Religion / Philosophy
Tags: atheism, God, Creationism, Civilization
25.08.2019
Atheism, denying the Supreme Mind, or the idea of theism, oddly enough, is based on it. In this regard, atheism is not self-sufficient, it depends on theism and parasitizes on it. In addition, atheism is destructive, since it does not offer an explanation for the origin of the universe, but denies what exists. If there are laws in the universe, then they were once established, no matter by what authority. The law, moreover, obviously, in force, means the current power and legislative authority.
Atheism is essentially based on envy and conceit. Envious people cannot accept the very idea of the existence of a superior mind. This makes them angry. Envy is the main motive in atheism; based on envy, they look for “arguments.” All their arguments are standard and represent either complete fiction or half-truths, with interpretation in the direction they need. Let's look at the main ones.
1. “If God created everything, then who created God?” God is eternal. He exists outside of time, that is, always. Matter exists in time, but parallel to the temporary reality there is another, eternal reality, which is not affected by the temporary. This is the only reasonable explanation for the origin of the world.
Atheists will say that nothing is eternal, but the fact is that they do not know whether it exists or not. At the same time they undertake to assert. A reasonable person is able to at least admit that eternal reality exists, as, for example, in mathematics or other science, in order to solve a problem, an assumption is made that perhaps this is so - and the problem is solved. That is, assumption is a completely scientific method. But atheists do not even want to make an assumption and do not offer any solution; they simply indiscriminately deny the very possibility of another form of being.
2. “Which God do you mean? There are many gods, and there are many religions.” God is one for everyone. Just like, let’s say, there is one sun, although in different languages the sun is called differently, and a reasonable person understands that we are talking about the same object, and not about different suns. Likewise, all religions talk about one eternal source of everything, although they call it by different names.
There are few world religions, there are only three of them: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism - and any sensible person can understand that they are talking about the same God - about the single source of everything. Formally, Buddhism is also classified as a religion. In addition to religions, there are more than a hundred different churches (denominations), which are variants of understanding the same religions. As a result, there is one God, there are 3-4 religions, dozens of confessions, nevertheless, the basis of consideration for both religions and, accordingly, confessions is the same object - God.
3. “No one has seen God.” Without knowing each person, one cannot make such statements. Maybe someone saw it; this possibility cannot be ruled out. But atheists undertake to speak on behalf of all people at once, having no idea about the actual situation.
4. “Show me God, then I will believe.” Vision is not omnipotent, it has a very limited range, for example, we do not even see the ordinary material mind, what can we say about the Higher Mind? Every person has a mind, but we cannot see it with our limited vision or touch it with our hands. However, with the help of the mind, through observation and evaluation, we can understand that there is a mind.
For example, you see a good house and understand that it came into being as a result of the good mind of its creator. In the same way, any person can see and understand that the universe is organized in a certain way: there is the structure of the atom, there is space, a specific set of chemical elements, a certain amount of materials - billions of tons of various substances, there is time, there are the laws of physics and chemistry. All this had to come from somewhere. Scientists have been studying the world with the help of reason for thousands of years and still cannot fully understand it. Logically, this means that the world was created by a more powerful mind than the mind possessed by scientists.
5. “Religion was invented by people.” But how do they know this? Is there any historical evidence? Let’s say there was a decree from such and such a king to invent a religion, information in the chronicles that a group of such and such people sat and came up with a religion? There is no such historical evidence, therefore, this is an unfounded statement made up by atheists.
6. “Religion is faith, but with us it is knowledge.” Probably many will be surprised, but initially religion presupposes knowledge, not faith. For example, the first commandment in Christianity says: “...with all your mind.” To understand the source of the material world, the whole mind is needed. Religion provides the key to the worthy use of reason, giving fundamental answers to all important questions, including the origin of the material world.
Modern science cannot explain this point, leaving people in the dark. Scientists have a “big bang” theory, but it does not stand up to criticism. For example, there is a big question about it: where did the point and the laws of its existence come from? Scientists have no answer to this. They also cannot show a model of such an explosion by conducting a practical experiment. Let, for example, compress at least 1 kg of sand into a point, then it will explode itself and atoms, space, round planets and so on will appear. What is the knowledge here? The theory is awkward, there is no practical demonstration.
Atheists will ask: “Where is the practical demonstration of religion?” Answer: “Everywhere.” For example, your house - it was created with the help of the mind, your car, your computer, the table, the stool on which you sit, whatever - it was created with the help of the mind, and did not appear by chance as a result of an explosion. Consequently, the entire collection of material objects (the universe) must also be created with the help of a mind, only much more powerful than ours.
Thus, religion gives people knowledge, but atheists, including atheistic science, give nothing. Atheists will say that, “not everything at once, in the future science will give the answer.” In response to this we will say: “Okay, then in the future we’ll talk about the validity of your theory, but for now - alas.”
7. “Science has explained both the origin of life and the diversity of species without any God.” Modern science cannot give a clear explanation of the origin of life “from random mixtures of chemical elements” and cannot demonstrate such experiments.
Scientists have never been able to “synthesize” life or bring back to life even one dead person, so the phenomenon of life still remains a mystery to science. The theory that life is a random combination of chemical elements remains a mere assumption, without any evidence.
The main problem of the theory of the self-emergence of life and the development of life species is that it directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, according to which there cannot be any “self-creative” processes in the universe due to the tendency of any organization from order to chaos, from complex forms to simplified ones , from moving to stopping. Accordingly, development is possible only with reasonable intervention. For example, a breeder develops a new species of plant or animal. This is a demonstration of the principle of creation of different forms of life with the help of the Supreme Mind.
8. “Religion was invented in dark times, when people did not know how to explain natural phenomena: lightning, rain, etc.; People used to think that the earth was flat and stood on three pillars, but now science has explained everything.” About a flat earth on three whales or elephants - such descriptions do not exist in religions. Maybe this is some kind of mythology of different peoples, but there is no such information in the main scriptures.
As for lightning, rain and other things, the explanations of science do not change anything in this regard and do not cancel people’s dependence on climate and weather. Now, due to “progressive” human activity, the climate is deteriorating throughout the entire earth. Scientists, of course, know how to explain this, but what good are their explanations? People need a good climate, clean air, water, good products, not “explanations.”
9. “Religion has brought a lot of evil, wars - remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic terrorists.” The authority of religion is used by selfish people, but religion itself is against violence and evil in any form.
Selfish people use any generally accepted authority or ideal, including religion, to achieve their goals. For example, if religion has weight in society, they say that God wants this or that, trying to get from people what they actually need for their own personal purposes; if religion has lost its influence and the ideals of humanism or democracy arise, selfish people are already using them. For example, the two bloodiest wars in history - World War I and World War II - were waged without religion, without a religious reason, but atheists modestly “forget” about this.
Religion establishes the principle “thou shalt not kill,” and anyone who violates it, even if they call themselves very devout, goes against religion and is, in fact, werewolves of religion. It's like, for example, werewolves in uniform in the police. They are supposed to uphold the law, but under the cover of the law they do their business, but this does not mean that the police are evil and are not needed. You just need to restore order in the police and eradicate werewolves, punish the culprits. The same goes for abuses in the name of religion.
10. “Religion is a business, earnings. The priests live in luxury." Religion as a doctrine does not imply earnings and a good life for priests. The argument echoes the previous one: what happens in churches simply needs to be brought into line with the teachings of the founder, for example, for Christianity this is the teaching of Jesus Christ. Priests should not be allowed to serve mammon (wealth).
11. “Religion exploits people.” The commandments, for example in Christianity or Islam, on the contrary, prevent exploitation, prohibiting usury, profit, debauchery, deception, the pursuit of money, property, and so on - all that money is successfully made from now, when religion in society is weakened. Forgetting religion allows people to be exploited on a much greater scale than when religious norms are present. Actually, that’s why there was a systematic struggle against religion, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries.
12. “Religion keeps people in obedience.” If the population of a state consists of honest, law-abiding people, that’s good, isn’t it? What's bad about it? Atheism instills in people dissatisfaction with everything and everyone, as a result the world is rocked by conflicts, orange and other revolutions, after which the rulers rob people every time in a new circle - what's good about that? Atheists say that progress and happiness are everywhere now, but in reality there is neither the first nor the second, deception and exploitation of people are simply growing.
Evgeniy KHALILOV
