Velvetta Rotel Chicken Commercial

GOOD USE OF ATHEISM IN TEN OBJECTIONS. About Quebec atheist Claude MJ Braun (Michel Brûlé, 2010)

God and God is three.

Raymond Devos

third and final part

8. Contrary to the observation and reason, faith is futile and inefficient. Since the Enlightenment, in fact, faith is denounced as a pseudo-knowledge, then it is unmasked as being a mere belief ridiculous, as when the Greeks believed that lightning was expressing the anger of Zeus. Now, faith or religious belief Christian in particular, is a complex phenomenon and more than mere belief rather surprising and ridiculous. First, believe is a complex mental phenomenon involving what is believed, the content of the belief on the one hand, and - as analytic philosophers say - the attitude towards the content of which is that belief, the other hand. philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), one can not accuse him of being a believer, was the first to ask a crucial distinction between believe that -believe-in and . ( Leviathan, Book 1, Chapter 7) The religious belief, according to Hobbes, includes not only a believe-that - so what is known in the jargon, a "propositional attitude" is to say an attitude toward a proposal. For the Christian, it will be believe that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, it is primarily a believe-in - the attitude towards a proposition, namely, the belief in resurrection. David Hume (1716-1776) said of his side as if the propositional content of belief - the belief-that - is only likely truth or falsity of the belief itself - believe the -in - n is not susceptible of truth or falsity (see Treatise of human nature, Book I, III, VII). In Quebec, a sovereignist believes in the sovereignty of Quebec. If believes that Quebec will Sovereign in 2050, the propositional content of belief is possibly true or false. His belief in sovereignty, however, is itself neither true nor false, but, say, sincere or not.

distinguish therefore believe that the-believe-in within the faith. However, the in- believe is essential to faith, and has the same priority as -believe. So when, in the Gospels, Jesus exclaims before a foreign woman who believes in him: "Oh! that your faith ( pistis ) is great! "(Matthew 15, 28), Jesus probably means that the faith of the lady is a believe-in powerful and profound . St. Paul goes on to say that "when I have faith ( pistin ) the fullest, one that moves mountains, if I lack love ( agapèn ), I do am nothing. "(1 Corinthians 13 2). This believe-in seems logically to imply the believe that -and not the reverse, because I can well believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as taught by the Church, but 'm matters little. Therefore, what matters is the faith in the belief-in that, if we believe Paul is the love (agape ).

But the believe-in agape as is precisely what the Church - Thomas Aquinas, him again - as means of faith, theological virtue . It follows that faith is essentially a under - excellence (arete Greek). The atheist who rejects faith as futile and ineffective, denies a virtue, precisely what has the most value, the same excellence. Besides God, would be of this nature, excellence by excellence, the agape. So, rejecting the belief-that of faith, atheists reject belief -in, the virtue par excellence. The bathwater and the baby, so to speak.

9. The natural explanation is sufficient, the supernatural explanation is superfluous. There is a very intriguing sentence in Darwin's masterpiece, The Origin of Species (1859). In the last chapter, in fact, when Darwin discusses the challenges facing his theory, we read:

The analogy leads me therefore to think that all beings held that lived on earth are probably descended from a single primordial form into which life was breathed into the origin.

A plausible interpretation of the previous sentence is that Darwin believed that life was breathed into the inert material by a Higher Being, God. In any case, Darwin seems unable to explain in naturalistic terms the transition from inorganic to living beings. The title of his book offers less, ultimately, that it announces.

Whatever is, back in the ninth argument atheist. What was there before the famous Big Bang ? Physics is unable to say anything on this thorny issue. So, the question of what was there before the Big Bang , where it produces and what was established this tiny spot containing the seeds and dense universe, does not arise as the atheist. But the question is perfectly legitimate, even if no reply has been advanced by science. In fact, ever since the Enlightenment, such questions - questions philosophical and religious questions of meaning - are hit with a curse. Science is master of us thought without sharing. It is still legitimate to think metaphysically. The famous question that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) raised its Principles of Nature and Grace founded because (1714): " Why is there something rather than nothing? Assuming that things should exist, why should they exist and not otherwise? "is perfectly legitimate. If God exists, why does it exist? What is the rationale for its existence? Why God is there? The atheist rejects these questions as meaningless.

Consider the following reasoning from Aristotle:

(1) Any thing that came into existence from a cause which existed previously.

(2) The universe appeared there 15 billion years.

(3) Therefore the universe has a cause that is earlier.

The atheist rejects this argument, however, quite legitimate. What is wrong according to him? For the atheist, the universe comes from nothing, would have made from scratch and nothing. This is, of course, the atheist belief. On this point, we can not tax the believers as irrational belief denying premise (1) seems even more irrational than the belief in God as the cause of the universe because it is irrational to believe that something appears out of nothing, whether the universe in its entirety or electricity that powers my computer.

The usual reply of the atheist is: "Okay. So if everything has a cause, where does God? What causes it? "The answer seems unstoppable, but she misunderstands the meaning the first premise because it states that anything that appeared one day from a cause which is before, not that everything has a cause that preceded . Thus, something eternal - which does not need a cause for his birth - is sufficient in itself and has always been.

In Breaking the Spell. Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006), Daniel Dennett argues that the universe does have a cause: it is himself! By applying the stuff that is to do everything, "as he calls it, the universe, he says, has itself created. The trick in question is actually the belief that the universe was self-created. However, it is impossible. In fact, that the universe may have self-created, it must first he existed in a certain way, so there exist before, which is quite inconsistent.

It follows that the root cause of the universe must transcend the universe, that is to say that it is itself not caused. This is the First Cause. God. Since He created time and space, God is timeless and immaterial. He is all-powerful since He created the universe. We can now answer the metaphysical question of Leibniz Why is there something rather than nothing? Assuming that things should exist, why should they exist and not otherwise? The universe exists, no one doubts, and astrophysicists say that the universe has not always existed: it was there some 15 billion years. Now that the universe has come into existence, there must be a First Cause, not caused by another cause. Why God is there? Since it has always been the question of its existence does not arise. It is itself the reason for its existence.

10. The atheist does not believe he did not want to believe. He will think when he meets a good point. Of all the arguments for atheism proposed by Claude Braun, the latter is the more pitiable. The atheist is right here in the same situation as those who fight against pornography in a futile attempt to define it: there are only when they see it. On the other hand, do not rely too heavily on the arguments on religious conversion. If, as I think faith is a virtue, then, in agreement with Aristotle, I think we should rather focus on the role of education in virtue. Unfortunately, in a liberal society like ours, where religious education is pilloried for indoctrination, do not count on it. At least we can hope that the debate raises awareness. Let us not forget that the hope - with faith and charity - is held as a theological virtue. Everything is about virtue. God Himself is that virtue, and if you have trouble with faith and hope, we can always pray to God to make us share these essential virtues because it is the nature of virtuous share. This is called generosity, love better.