A quote I found on Rant Fever (and several other places) from Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist:
Atheism comes from, literally, the Greek word a-, ‘the negative’; and theism, the word theos for ‘god’ — ‘negative God’ or ‘there is no God.’ It is affirming the non-existence of God. It affirms a negative. Anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. It would be like me saying to you, ‘There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe.’ The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating, because what you are saying is, ‘I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, “There is nobody with infinite knowledge”.’ Atheism, as a system, is self-defeating.
The basic argument is: to prove that a white stone with black dots does not exist you would have to look at every single stone in the entire universe. However, to prove that a white stone with black dots does exist, you simply have to find a single white stone with black dots. Since the negative, the “a-stoneism” so to speak, is impossible (given a human’s limited knowledge and sub-light-speed travel ability) it is a logical contradiction, according to Zacharias.
Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Even though stones are a little different than gods or God the contradiction still seems to hold water in God’s case — saying that God does not exist is equivalent to saying that you definitely know that there is no God anywhere in the universe. But how can you know that if you’ve not been everywhere in the universe?
Ok, let’s ignore the logistical implications of looking for God the same way we look for stones and the philosophical implications of equating a physical object with a non-physical being … or spirit … or whatchamacallit. Instead let’s move to the other half of the argument. If it’s easier to prove a white stone with black dots does exist than it is to prove that it doesn’t then it should be easier to prove that God does exist than it is to prove that He doesn’t, right? I mean, come on. All you have to do is find one — I mean Him! (This will be left as an exercise for the interested reader.)
Now, I’ve heard Zacharias speak. Many years ago I even walked down the isle to re-dedicate my life to God during one of his sermons. (Or was it re-re-dedicate?) And I’ve read some of his books. So, I have a good idea where his arguments tend to end up.
In a nutshell, Zacharias is not a religous pluralist. That is, he believes that Christianity is the one and only true religion and that all other religions are false. He lumps atheism in with religion and so it lies under the “false” category. Fair enough. But Zacharias seems to stop short in his argument about atheism. In my opinion, he doesn’t take it far enough — doesn’t take it to its logical conclusion.
And the logical conclusion is that Zacharias’ argument actually supports religious pluralism! Think about it. If it is a logical contradiction to say that there is no God, then it’s also a logical contradiction to say that there is no God.
Did you notice what I did there? The first ‘God’ implicitly refers to the Christian God of the Bible. The second ‘God’ implicitly refers to Allah of Islam or to Shiva of Hinduism or to … Zacharias’ argument is not specific to his Christian God and so is applicable to the Gods of many religions.
I guess Zacharias is a religious pluralist after all!
Sphere: Related Content
i dont really understand the last couple of paragraphs, but i want to totally affirm the whole idea of equating God to a rock…while this argument is useful in illustrating one point of logical argument, taking the parallel further than that gets pretty shaky…i read stuff all over the place that tries to limit discussions about God to single statements or other oversimplified comparisons to various non-persons…if we are gonna do this we gotta do it right! peace and love from the land of japan…davej
and also..this post made me think about this:
with the exception of atheism, all major world faiths seem to pretty much agree that there is a god, and he is outside of the self in terms of location and origin…but the discussion then becomes “what is he like?” or “what kind of person is this One?” which is a much more detailed question and much more varied in scope than whether he exists or not…a challenging undertaking to say the least…rock on.
dave,
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, all analogies are limited. I think Zacharias’ point in this argument was simply to deny atheism and say “God exists”. So, to take the analogy any further is done with some peril to logic.
And, yes, perhaps I am taking this one argument out of context (but there was no context in the post from which I took the quote so I’m not the only one). But even so, I think that my point is valid. And that point (which I try to poetically state in the last couple paragraphs) is that this argument only “proves” there is/are God(s). It does not “prove” that only the Christian God exists. In fact, it proves that every religion’s God exists.
Furthermore, this argument is not weakened by asserting an obscure God. If the God being asserted only exists in one single cubic inch of space in the entire universe the argument still holds. You cannot say that this God does not exists until you search every cubic inch of space in the entire universe.
There are other classic arguments that go further and try to say something about the nature of God. One place I just found which seems pretty good (at least at a very quick scan) is http://www.existence-of-god.com.
I’m working on some more posts about Zacharias’ arguments for God and, specifically, the Chrisitan God. So, please stay tuned.