Some Rules For A Long-Running Rant …
06 Jun 2007 07:41 by Math
Taking to the field are two sides. Each team has eleven players, one of which holds a specialised role sporting gloves. Both teams have the objective of winning. All is finely balanced except … except one plays cricket and the other football. How do these sides compete? What rules do they use? How do the footballers head a cricket ball and would it affect their intelligence?This conundrum is a simple analogy to illustrate the problems of discussion held between religious faith and empirical fact. On many theist/atheist blogs, the two polarised sides battle as if it's something as fundamental as whether or not Marmite should be banned.
If truth is to win out then surely there should be some way of creating a set of rules whereby full engagement can occur - where both sides can compete on a level playing field?* Well there is. The answer is 'home' and 'away' legs.(* - Coming from Portsmouth and going to Fratton Park, I've never seen a level playing field in my life.)
Returning to the aforementioned sporting teams, there should be an environment whereby the football team hosts the cricket team playing by football rules only and vice versa. In the world of (a)theistical debate those with faith should host a 'faith-debate' whereby they use their articles of conviction against the scientists. Here the scientists can use 'faith' back to the believers without recourse to logical reasoning or evidence.
The scientists then host the return leg of the debate whereby they use logical reasoning and/or evidence. Here, the believers cannot rely on faith since it is against the rules of engagement and, therefore, must use the same devices of logical reasoning and/or evidence as the scientists.
So what would such a match appear like? Let's see, using the argument that God is omnipotent and omniscient:
Home leg for the theist (using faith):
Theist: I believe that God is both omnipotent and omniscient (1 point to theism).
Atheist: I believe that God is not both omnipotent and omniscient (1 point to atheism).
So it’s all square going into the home leg for the atheist (using reasoned logic/evidence):
Atheist: Using reasoned logic, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatable since if God is omniscient then he knows what he’s going to do. If he knows what he’s going to do then he cannot change his mind later since this would mean he didn't see it coming. If he cannot change his mind then he is not omnipotent. Therefore God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. (1 point to atheism).
Theist: Using reasoned logic, I - er - believe that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. (no points to theism – faith used yet again).
Final score:
Theism 1 v 2 Atheism
Hmm … I feel a full season of such games coming on.
Add A Comment
PLEASE NOTE! New and infrequent commenters may be comment-moderated, depending on whether you attempt to post links or use a link URL that looks "unusual". Regular commenters (under 90 days counts as regular) whose browsers accept cookies will be auto-approved to comment instantly. That'll teach you not to visit. HTML is not permitted. BBCode is allowed. Please see the Help Page for valid BBCode.
And in time for tonight's England Estonia game too! When, despite our leanings towards the atheistic, we'll both be praying for some miracle to make Joe Cole's stepovers not send us into hysterics.
Just where *do* you stand on the all important Marmite debate? ;)
I know I'm going to regret doing this but putting myself in the place of the Theist (for a change), and in an effort to enter in the spirit of the ongoing atheist/theist battle, I would answer the second argument as follows:
Theist: The commonly agreed definition of omniscience is to have infinite awareness, understanding, and insight; or to possess universal or complete knowledge. The commonly agreed definition of omnipotence is having unlimited authority or influence.
Using reasoned logic, and these definitions, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Omnipotence allows God the ability to have complete influence over everything in the Universe (but does not require Him to exert that influence). Omniscience gives God the ability to fully realise the consequences of any actions should He choose to assert his influence. Your suggestion that God cannot change His mind as this would mean He didn't see it coming is invalid for an entity that exists outside of our time and space, where our concept of past and future do not exist. (1 point to theism).
This, of course assumes that I have decided to engage you in a reasoned argument along the lines you suggested, rather than being so incensed by your perfectly valid question impertinent blasphemy that I've felt it necessary to declare a Crusade, Jihad or whatever form of religious subjugation my particular flavour of belief-system prefers.
More importantly – Marmite should be given to all primary schoolchildren on a daily basis instead of milk. Any that screw their faces up at the taste should be immediately expelled.
Marmite smells like sewage, IMHO. My father-in-law (who is British) likes it, though.
Edit: your anti-spam has gone from depression to dementia--it made me put in the wrong answer to get this comment posted
I couldn't get past the smell.
Omniscience and omnipotence are not mutually exclusive. Consider: God is omniscient and knows what he's going to do. He's also omnipotent and can do anything - even change his mind. But he chooses not to. Why? Because he's God. He got it right first time. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to just to prove you can. I can shoot myself with a stapler. Perfectly possible. I choose not to but I still have stapling power to the extreme!