Well, it seems as though there’s yet another religious tool floating around the web. Actually, I just came across it on Facebook for the first time…
Forget the fact that this little project has been proven fallacious. I’m more interested in the rather absurd argument it presents. While I never intend for this blog to be a breeding ground for religious debate and endless back and forth on *you show me yours and I’ll show you mine* proofs, I do however like to occasionally point out some issues with apologetics.
1. To equate cold and darkness with an idea or concept is a problem. Cold and darkness are observable through our senses. Whether they are real, or just the absence of their opposite, doesn’t really matter. They “feel” real. If we can experience something (or the absence of something) through our senses, it’s real (practically speaking).
2. Evil is a concept, and idea. To say that evil is the absence of God could be correct. To say that evil is the absence of good could be correct. Perhaps good is the absence of evil? Perhaps good is the absence of God? Which way is the right way? And why? It is no more correct for person “A” to assert that Evil is the absence of God, than it is for person “B” to assert that Good is the absence of God.
3. The implicit “appeal to authority” of Einstein as a defender of the faith is really disingenuous. If Einstein were a believer, I could understand. However, the poor fellow is still to this day misquoted and misjudged. Einstein was not a believer! One can debate all day long the actual views of Einstein on this. What is safe to say, is that he was no believer in a personal God.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. -Einstein in a letter to Hans Muehsam (30 March 1954).
I assure you that I am not trying to be provocative, just realistic. If you are a believer, I don’t care in what, you need to be aware that what you see as a foolproof argument in favor of your belief tain’t necessarily so. I find that religious debate (political debate too for that matter) over the internet is a waste of time. It needs to be understood by both sides that the chances of anyone actually having his or her mind changed because of an argument is infinitely small. Arguments and proofs are not going to change minds. The believer will not look at arguments from my point of view, with an open mind.
In essence, the above video will have its desired effect on those who are already prone to believe. The nonsense of the argument will be just that to non-believers…nonsense.