Aaron Hancock, our official unofficial Christian representative, has written an interesting retort to the Penn Jillette article posted earlier. Please take a look and post your comments here. I will start us off with my opinion.
RE:RE: There Is No God
I found the first few paragraph rather wordy and misguided. Penn was simply saying that he "believes" there is no God. Aaron needlessly picked apart the word "believe" and ran in circles with it. Believing there is no God simply means, until I see God myself or proof of him/her/it, God doesn’t exist in my mind. He is not definitively saying that God can’t possibly exist. He treating God like Santa Clause… sure many people believe in him, but I don’t because there is just no evidence to the contrary.
As for not having a solid point of reference to make his statement, well quite honestly he doesn’t need one. The onus is on the people who do believe in God, otherwise everything would exist by default. Think about that for a second. The Easter Bunny, Santa, Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and everything else would "truly exist". Now go ahead and prove me wrong….you can’t. That’s what Penn was eluding to when he said you can’t prove a negative. Obviously that’s not true in all cases, but for this it is.
Science in general is extremely unreliable as a reference source for confidence because what we ‘know’ about science is constantly changing. Hundreds of years ago, we ‘knew’ through science that the earth was flat. Within the last few decades, science has changed what we ‘know’ about atoms. Now we know that atoms have quarks and leptons, which are now ‘known’ to be the fundamental particles by which all structures are built. My point is that today we ‘know’ that quarks and leptons are the smallest possible particles and 100 years from now we could very well ‘know’ they are not.
This is wrong in so many ways that it hurts when I read it. People thought the Earth was flat because it looked flat; it was only through science and observation that man proved it was not. Science is like a giant book of knowledge that is constantly growing. With everyday that passes a new chapter is written, corrections are made and more of the "story" is revealed. Sure, our knowledge of particles has changed, and quarks may not be the smallest constituents of matter, but we know for a fact that they do exist and are real. It was part of the story. Will something come along 100 years from now that is smaller? Maybe, but I guarantee that will not change the fact that quarks do exist. Our knowledge gained through science improves and grows everyday. That can’t be easily argued.
I will append the rest of my review after a goodnights sleep :)
No related posts.