I have to finish my blogging early today to leave time for one of my two annual Easter traditions. I will be viewing the Life of Brian tonight, and I’ll listen to The Messiah (What can I say, it’s beautiful music) at some point before the weekend ends.
Before I commence watching the heretical movie, I must say a few words about the sad state of religious apologists today.
Two recent posts at Pharyngula (here and here) are almost enough to make me forgive and forget Christopher Hitchen’s shameful apologism for the adventure in Iraq. Recently he’s been descending into the pit, so to speak, debating (if you can use the word with these folks) the religious. I confess that I couldn’t bear to listen to this entire debate, (they ganged up on Hitchens five to one, including the moderator) but I did listen to the following audios in full:
Part One:
Part Two:
The utter intellectual bankruptcy of these people is amazing. The fellow in the audio’s argument goes something like this:
1. Assume that I am right.
2. Then it follows that I am right.
Would anyone make such an argument about any other subject? The people in the video aren’t much better. The circularity of their arguments is amazing. But then, the only argument they have is one from authority. There is a God because the Bible says there is one, or because someone else said there is one, or because I can’t imagine that life would be worthwhile if there wasn’t one.
Isn’t it self evident that these same arguments could be mustered by a Muslim in favor of Islam, or a pagan in favor of Zeus? If your argument could prove anything, it proves nothing. Is this the best that they can do? If people like Hitchens and Dawkins continue to get exposure in the media, the forces of darkness are going to have a tougher time hanging on to their sheep.
Post a Comment