Re: There Is No God by Penn Jillette

Whenever I have the free time, I read a chapter from The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens. Today I read a very short piece written by magician Penn Jillette. It is chapter 40 in this volume, spans about a page and a half, and can also be read on the NPR site here. Jillette's perspective can be summarized as:

"So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power... So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."

I have to say that I am glad I read this perspective. It's actually refreshing. If I may summarize the perspective for my understanding and I am open to correction if I am mistaken... I gather that Mr. Jillette is saying, let's all just start off with no belief, and then ask what evidence exists to believe there is a being that many call "God". I am actually compelled to sympathize with this approach. But then I started to think about it. The idea that we only believe in things which can be proven through the empirical sciences is a presupposition of empiricism. One of the ideas in natural philosophy is that we have first principles which are not proven, and cannot be proven. I presuppose that there are beings or realities which may exist beyond what can be empirically demonstrated or proven. Then I turn to some philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and then I look to history and sacred theology to fill in the rest of the picture.

Thank you Mr. Jillette, for presenting such a practical perspective pro-atheism. Unfortunately, it's not a good enough case for someone who already believes. 

Laurence Gonzaga

10.18.15

Re: Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I didnt watch the first part of the debate because I know where each is coming from already. I was most interested in the cross examination and the Q & A portion. The two didn't disappoint. I found some inconsistencies in both positions. For Bart he made a lot of effort to show that we don't know what happens after we die, and yet he claims nothing happens when we die and nothing is not something. But he is saying he knows nothing happens after we die. At this point I think it was a clash of philosophical terms. D'Souza on the other hand made a few references to adultery as his choice of bad things people do and we know now, it was a bad thing which he did do. I suppose that is not a flaw in his argument though, although perhaps the credibility of the debater is now in question.