against agnosticism – Harmonia Philosophica

Summary of arguments in favor of Christianity (and against atheism/ agnosticism)

Discussions for Christianity, religion and atheism are very common nowadays. The following is a breakdown of some of the key arguments in defense of Christianity against the main arguments of atheists / agnostics.

Argument from atheist	The answer of the Christian	Related articles
Religions are fairy tales	This is a generalization. Be more specific.	Religion and science unification
Jesus Christ never existed	Many saw Him. Many wrote for Him. Many died for Him. What more proof do you want? For many historical figures we have much less evidence.
Resurrection is a fairy tale	Actually the opposite is true: Death is a fairy tale. Which is based on many philosophical dogmas (belief in the notion of change, in time, in senses etc). Read Parmenides.	Against atheism, in one simple sentence – Episode 2: The Resurrection miracle is not so weird as it seems… Resurrection – Illogical, thus True Against atheism, in one simple sentence – Episode 2: The Resurrection miracle is not so weird as it seems…
Whoever wrote about Christ was a christian	They turned into Christian because they saw Him. And they weren’t rewarded for that. Exactly the opposite: They died for that.
God is a fairy tale	Which God do you refer to? Explain to me what you are talking about. God as the First Cause is perfectly logical. Aristotle himself had arguments in favor of that. God as the One in which we all belong has also deep philosophical roots from the time of Parmenides. (just to mention two examples)	Religion and science unification Articles related to “One” How to easily beat an atheist in a debate
Modern science has made religion obsolete	Science deals with the how. Religion with the why. Even the Global network of Science Academies accepts that. Not to talk about great scientists. In the past religion and science were not separated. They are both needed to reach the truth. Biology is a nice science. But it is not theology nor philosophy. As much as it is related to viruses, it is not at all related to God.	Religion and science unification Articles related to “Science” and “Scientific models”
When I get sick I go to the doctor, not to church.	And that is a good thing you do. Religion heals the soul. Not the body. Nor does it compete with science for the things on this earth. Religion deals with metaphysical matters.	Articles related to “Religion”
Medicine heals. Not the belief in metaphysical beings.	Modern medicine relies on Christian philosophy (love towards the weak). What is more, medicine is not in any way against religion, which deals with other matters.	Why Medicine is NOT a pro-Science argument!
Science will someday explain everything	Actually the only thing that science has proved is that it will never prove everything. Read Gödel.	The limits of science
Science proves. Religion is based on faith.	First, science proves based on unproved axioms. Thus, it does not prove anything. Secondly, religion is also based on logic (see the arguments of Aristotle for the Immovable Mover) and on empirical facts (see the cosmic parameters which have been set to the exact values needed for the existence of life for example, witnesses to the resurrection etc), while faith in religion is by no means what we call “blind faith” but faith which supplements the existing logic and the aforementioned evidence.	Religion and science unification The limits of science
Every religion says a different story.	I do not care. I am a Christian. I will not apologize for other religions.
Religion is responsible for all bad things.	No, the exact opposite is true. Atheistic regimes are responsible for the greatest massacres. Christianity is the basis of the European civilization, including humanism and Renaissance. In the colonies Christianity helped countries set the proper foundations for structured free states.	The positive effect of Missionaries. [OR: Christianity as the basis of civilization] Articles related to “Religion”Religion: Its contribution to society (and other subjects) Fasting. Ancient knowledge. Precious religion. Religion as a Guide Decline in religion, decline in morality
Why shouldn’t I believe in the Flying Teapot instead of God?	Everything is a matter of definition. How do you define this teapot? If you give it the same characteristics that the Christian God has, the name is not an issue per se. If you just define it as a flying teapot then this has nothing to do with God. How can a flying teapot create the cosmos?
Religion is old fashioned.	And that is a good thing. Values should not change according to fashion.	Church is old-fashioned and that is a good thing
How does religion explain evil?	Actually the problem is not the existence of evil but the existence of good in such a world. And that existence of good despite the harsh conditions is an argument in favor of God. Evil is just the result of man’s free will.	The problem of Good… The problem of Evil… The problem as the Solution!
Why do good people and children die in this world made by God?	First of all death means nothing for the Christian but the portal for the eternal life. Secondly, how come an atheist be frustrated about this? If we are only matter then what does it matter who dies? Are you upset about matter? Are you upset about stones? About wood? Dirt perhaps?	Why do good people suffer? Against atheism, in one simple sentence…
Why should I listen to religion to be moral?	There can be no ethics without a stable reference point beyond the personal beliefs of men. If you are a good person because you decided so, good for you, but that means that you can easily decide not to be good at any other point in time. So this means nothing for the morality of your actions per se. Don’t forget that Nazis killed Jews because they thought that this was a good thing (and they even had a state law forcing them to do so).	Articles related to “Ethics” The source of ethics
Only old men believe in religion.	Mainly young people believe in atheism. Old men are wise. Young men are usually arrogant and ignorant.	Articles related to “Atheists”
Religion oppresses me.	In 2019? Are you kidding me? The exact opposite is happening: Christians today are under persecution!
Church condemned Galileo.	And was correct in doing so! Read first about something before speaking about it. Galileo was first of all wrong in everything he said, from a scientific point of view! Secondly, his stance was highly arrogant and offensive against a friend of his (the Pope) and during a time period in which the church fought the external bitter challenge of the Scripture from heresies.	Religion and science unification Earth at the center of the universe? From Galileo to Hubble: Copernican principle as a philosophical dogma defining modern astronomy Articles related to “Galileo”
The Church had the Holy Inquisition!	And rightfully so! This institution made its appearance in Spain during an era of constant turmoil. If some of the heresies fought by the Holy Inquisition back then had prevailed (e.g. the Cathars) there wouldn’t be any Christians left in Spain. Remember that the church has not only a theological/ philosophical aspect but also a cosmic one. And the latter is often involved in politics. Try not to mix these three aspects. Mistakes in one of them does not mean anything for the others.	Articles related to “Holy inquisition” The contribution of the Holy Inquisition to civilization (no it is not a joke)
I am a free thinker, so I believe in nothing!	Actually you are a sheep and for that reason you react against religion. Atheism is in fashion these days, so being an atheist today just shows that you follow the flock. If we lived in the middle ages, you would probably be the best and most obedient worshipper.	Yes, I am a Christian. And I do not tell you why! Common Mistakes in Arguments Against Christianity
All clergy is corrupted.	Many priests are indeed corrupted. But their percentage in the church is smaller than the percentage of the same corruption in society. This doesn’t mean nothing of course. The goal is for everyone to be a saint. But no one achieves that. People who go to church need Christ, they have no already achieved sainthood. Should they be perfect? Sure. As much as the scientists should be perfect too. But they are not. The church is made of flawed people. Don’t judge Christ and His teachings via those people.
Middle Ages were darkness.	No. This is a view promoted by the Enlighteners to promote the idea that Enlightenment is light. This view has now been strongly disputed. In the Middle Ages we had an overdevelopment of the humanities (and they need those the same way we need exact sciences). We had humanism and the Renaissance. The first universities were built back then. Actually the whole modern European civilization is based on the foundations laid during the Middle Ages.	Middle Ages – An era of light! Against Enlightenment: The Enlightenment was not light. The Enlightenment is darkness.
I believe in nothing.	Good for you. So you don’t believe that you have free since it hasn’t been proved yet. You don’t believe that tomorrow it will dawn since this is not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt either. Or perhaps you are not consistent with what you believe and believe things which are not 100% proven? Faith is another thing than blind faith. Don’t confuse them.	What does it mean to be Dogmatic?
Saying “I don’t know” is the most honest answer we can give in metaphysical questions.	If you say “I don’t know” to everything that has not been proven with 100% certainty then you should say “I don’t know” about everything! Nothing has been 100% proven! And neither will they ever! (See Gödel) This is the only thing that has been proven. Are you honest enough to do that? Or do you simply cover up your anti-Christianity sentiments with the cloak of the “agnostic”? Christianity has painted a picture for the world. Picture your own and convince yourself that it is better. Don’t hide behind the “I don’t know.” Culture and science never progressed with “I don’t know”.	Articles related to “Agnosticism” Agnosticism, as a cloak to Dogmatism Why you can’t be an agnostic
Religion is convenient and makes you feel better. It is the opium of the people.	The exact opposite. Christianity constantly reminds you of how much effort you need to be good. The last thing it does is make you feel better! If you want to feel better, become an atheist, believe that nothing matters (since everything is matter) and drink some wine. Not for a second believe that Christianity is the easy way out. Most saints became martyrs.	What is Christian is NOT How to easily beat an atheist in a debate
The Old Testament is a despicable book.	Actually it is despicable to say stupid things about things you do not understand. The Old Testament states the obvious: that when you do bad things you will be punished. (Remember: causality is the cornerstone of science. Why deny it in life?) Modern man cannot stand that. He wants to be free and do whatever he likes. And as a spoiled child, he does not like his Father to punish him for anything.	Old Testament: Not for the faint-hearted. (An easy interpretation)
I am an atheist! Blha blah blah blah blah…	Why should I discuss with you? Aren’t we all random sets of matter? Why does your opinion matter? Why does anything matter?	How to easily beat an atheist in a debate Against atheism, in one simple sentence… Against atheism, in one simple sentence 2: Resurrection… Against atheism, in one simple sentence 3: The ‘randomness’ argument debunked…
I am an agnosticist. Blha blah blah blah blah…	Why should I discuss with you? Why does your opinion matter? If nothing can be proved, how can you be certain for what you say?	Agnosticism, as a cloak to Dogmatism Why you can’t be an agnostic Against agnosticism II: Why “I do not know” is never the answer… Articles related to “Agnosticism”
I am not stupid to believe in miracles.	And yet miracles happen all the time. First and foremost the most important: your very existence. But if you want miracles that meet your scientific criteria, you can look in literature for cases of Near Death Experiences. There you will find many interesting cases published and in medical journals.	NDE and other consciousness without brain references Near Death Experiences are Real (not just… real!)

Against agnosticism II: Why “I do not know” is never the answer…

In today’s world, many people like to play the agnosticism card. When in face of touch questions, they answer “I do not know” and explain that they do not have enough data to have a definite answer on the question.

That – at first sight – seems like a perfectly legit (if not the MOST legit) answer to a question.

After all, how can you have an opinion on something you do not know the answer to? Isn’t it more honest and scientific to admit that you do not know?

Yet, all of the above is wrong.

The truth is that we can NEVER know anything with 100% certainty. We can never be completely sure that what we say is right. We do not and we will never know all the parameters of ANY problem so as to have a definite opinion on that problem. The realm of knowledge is infinite and the more we explore, the more it expands. There will always be gaps in our knowledge of the cosmos. Taking that into consideration, it is typically and scientifically wrong to claim that we “know” anything. Even for the simplest problem (let’s say: to predict where a billiard ball will hit next) we do not have and we will never have all the data to provide the perfect solution to that problem. We can predict where the billiard ball will hit with a great accuracy, but the more we know the more we will have a better accuracy to that answer. Typically speaking: we will never reach a point where we will be able to say that our answer is the BEST possible answer. (one can search for Poincare and the “Three body problem” to see that we can never even predict how a simple system of 3 bodies will behave in the future, to understand the limits of our methods of thinking)

The same as the above, apply to even greater extent to philosophical and theological problems. We will never know for sure how the cosmos was created. No matter what we do, even after 1,000,000 years we will not have “all” the data to give an answer. We will never be able to know with a 100% certainty the solution to the problem of “free will”. We will never be able to have a definite answer to questions about human consciousness or about the nature of existence per se.

Having that in mind, the position of the agnostic seems more and more like hypocrisy and evasion that a true honest position. The agnosticism’s solution of “I don’t know” is not a valid answer anymore.

Related article: Why you can’t be an agnostic

Sure, we do not know and we may never know how the cosmos was created. But stating “I do not know” in order to avoid the answer, is like saying that “The sun rises from the East” and avoid the answer. You simple state something which is anyway true (“I do not know”) to justify your evasion of taking a stand or for attempting to answer.

Making things worse, practice has shown that people who tend to answer “I do not know” in questions of metaphysical type (like “How was the world created?”) are truly atheists trying to cover up their true position under a cloak of scientism. And this stance is perfectly out of line from what true science also believes: True scientists try to reach for the truth by taking a stance for unanswered difficult questions. Science has progressed not by saying “I do not know” but by proposing possible solutions and theories to explain unexplained phenomena. Simply saying “I don’t know” would truly make Newton – who tried to answer why the planets move in an era where gravity was unknown – turn into his grave. Agnosticism is the best way to stay stagnant in an era where progress of knowledge seems to be the best and only way forward.

In summary, agnosticism is in every aspect wrong.

Yet again.

“I don’t know”…

Agnosticism, as a cloak to Dogmatism

Many people, when asked if they believe in God, answer “I am an agnosticist”. Agnosticism seems the best place for “free thinkers” and is promoted as the safest harbour to protect from dogmatism.

Well, I have some objections to that. I will show here that agnosticism as a philosophical idea is something like a cloak to deep Dogmatism. Something like a camouflage for the hypocritical “free” thinkers who are actually more like fundamentalists trying to sneak into the night into the Academy of Plato – and the burn it down.

I have already shown why one CANNOT practically be an Agnosticist in the first place, at the article Why you can’t be an agnostic. Here I will elaborate more on the hypocritical uses of this philosophical idea and expose what seems like a “method to hide from public eyes the dogmatism one has”.

Take the infamous atheist priest Dawkins for example. You will never see him state that “there is no God”. You will see him however state that he is an agnostic (see here and here) or that “there is PROBABLY no God” (see here).

All nice and well, you would say?

Not at all, I would answer.

The point is that Dawkins HAS made his choices. He HAS made up his mind. He “knows he knows” even though he does not admit it. He HAS made up his mind for the philosophical subjetc of God. He HAS decided on whether afterlife exists or not. He HAS decided whether he wants to go to Church every Sunday or not. He HAS decided whether to debate for or against theists. He HAS decided whether or not he wants to have educated friends. After all, when Playboy asked him here if he has any religious friends he answered the glorious “No. It’s not that I shun them; it’s that the circles I move in tend to be educated…“.

If he wanted to be TRULY agnostic, then he would explore both views. He would explore both possibilities. He would pursue other paths, so as to find out which one is the right one. But he does not.

All in all, Dawkins HAS made up his mind.

However he keeps on hiding behind the cloak of “agnosticism”. But WHY? Why would he lie? Well, I guess the answer is simple: saying he is “agnostic” lets him off the hook for some very embarassing questions and helps him keep on the face of the “free thinking scientist”. After all, it suits him well. Agnostics are not “fundamentalists”, right?

Well, as it seems from his case that they can. And stating you are not an elephant does not mean you are not one…

One can find many other similar cases of known “agnostic” atheists everywhere you look. It is actually no accident that the very term “agnostic” was invented by a man known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” (imagine how… “gentle” he was in his views). He too claimed that he was agnostic, even though his battles against religion were epic…

Russell is another great example. He claims that he is an agnostic and when he is asked “Why shouldn’t one raise the question of the cause of the existence of all particular objects?” he answers “Because I see no reason to think there is any” (see Copleston vs. Russell radio debate here). Later on, he says “I don’t admit the idea of a Necessary Being and I don’t admit that there is any particular meaning in calling other beings “contingent.” These phrases don’t for me have a significance except within a logic that I reject”. So he HAS decided that specific questions have “no meaning” (what does that mean really?!?). So he HAS made up his mind about whether or not the cosmos has a Cause. And he DOES NOT want to look into the problem. If he was genuinly agnostic, he would search for every possible answer. But he does not. Because if he searches for an answer, he knows he might find an answer he does not like…

Most agnostics like to say “I do not have an opinion on whether a flying teapot is orbiting Mars”, in a way to quote an example invented by Rusell. They say that so as to show you that this is how the also treat the problem of God. They “do not know” as “they do not know the answer to the teapot story”. But making the philosophical question of whether the cosmos has a First Cause equal to the question of a flying teapot (or a “tooth fairy” – another infamous parallelism used by fake “agnostics”) shows there is more to that “agnostic” opinion. The one who makes this equations HAS decided that the question of the existence of the world is not worth his effort. He HAS decided that the First Cause is EQUALLY important to a teapot. This is Hypocrisy. Not “free thinking”.

An atheist friend of mine used to tell me the example of the teapot in his attempt to convince me that he was an “agnostic”. Well, the fact that he was attacking religion whenever he got the chance, did not help him convince me…

A scientist who searches for the explanation of consicousness on a metarialistic basis, cannot say he is agnostic on the matter of God. He believes everything is matter, so he HAS a very SPECIFIC opinion about God. A biologist who every day attacks religion and its proponents, CANNOT claim that he is an agnostic!

Agnosticisim is almost impossible to practice. But not impossible at all. That is why the article is not titled “Agnosticism is a cloak to Dogmatism”, but “Agnosticism, as a cloak to Dogmatism” instead. However when used, it must be used HONESTLY and not as a method to evade questions.

All ideas deserve respect. But how people use philosophical ideas, is their problem… Or maybe it is all in the ideas themselves?

Well, I “don’t know”…

Or maybe I do? …

Harmonia Philosophica News

New article at Harmonia Philosophica Blogger portal: Christianism – Unhappiness – Atheism. A surprise relation
Check the new philosophy blog Philosophy Snapshots !