The Atheists vs The Believers: 1st Period (Part 2 of 5)

This blog is a contiuation of a five-part series dealing with the argument between atheism and belief in God. Today we begin with the First Period of the metaphysical hockey game introduced last week in the "pre-game show."

The crowd has been anxiously filing into their seats and everyone is finally ready to go, so with no further ado: The opening face-off.

Lining up to take the draw are esteemed philosopher and Saint, Thomas Aquinas and renowned evolutionary biologist, and outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins. Aquinas is known for his attempts to reconcile faith and reason and is most known for his "Summa Theologica", a massive work that includes the well known "quinquae viae", or the "Five Ways." Dawkins is a prominant anti-creationist who in his book "The God Delusion" argues for the non-existence of God and points out religion as a major source of evil in the world. He discusses the "Five Ways" directly in "The God Delusion" and dismisses them saying: "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas don't proove anything...". Dawkins also argues that it is unimportant to study theology in order to disprove it in the same way "most of us disavow...the Flying spaghetti monster, without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology..." With this in mind, it is clear that right from the opening face-off, this is truly going to be one hell of a match (figuratively speaking of course).

With the players ready to go referee Immanuel Kant skates to centre ice to drop the puck. The animosity in the air is palpable.

Dawkins looks ready, but Aquinas knows exactly what he wants to do. Years of research and philosophical training have prepared him for people like Dawkins who are willing to refute his arguments without even understanding them. Just as the puck is about to be dropped Aquinas looks out from under his helmet and says "If you don't believe theology is worth studying, why do you systematically try to refute the"quinquae viae" in your book?" With that said, and Dawkins slightly unsure how he should answer, the puck is dropped and Aquinas wins the draw back to McGrath. As he skates away Aquinas politely mentions that at no time did he ever call the "quinquae viae" proofs of God's existence but that it was rather people like Dawkins who gave it that appellation many years later.

Although there is no goal scoring yet, momentum seems to have shifted to the Believers after Dawkin's philosophical weakness being exposed early. As expected, the Believers have started out with a tight-checking style mainly stating their belief as they dump the puck in while waiting to pounce on a mistake by the Atheists.

The Atheists however play with scientific precision. Dawkins recovers from his early blunder, firing several well-aimed shots on goal, including the dangerous "flexibly definable God" argument. This shot implies that God can be seen as a "filler" in the increasingly few gaps in our knowledge left unexplained by science. With this promise of religion soon being rendered history by scientific progress, the Atheists gain new life. They are beginning to overwhelm to Believer's defence who are only able to try and deflect these shots wide of the target in the hope of making it to the end of the period unscathed.

Unfortunatly for the Believers, with a few minutes left on the clock, young Oxonian defenceman Alistair McGrath admits the validity of Dawkins refutation of the long-treasured Christian belief of "intelligent design", leaving him all alone on a break-away. At the last second McGrath reaches out and trips up Dawkins by saying intelligent design and William Paley's "The watchmaker" (which is a 19th century argument that argues that if one were to find a watch on a beach that would not assume it came to be on its own, but rather that there was a watchmaker who designed it; Paley goes on to infer that the world is the same and that it is too sophisticated and "intelligently designed" to occur on its own) is a 19th century argument that it is not representative of contemporary Christianity, but it is too late. The whistle blows and Immanuel Kant crosses his arms over his head. Penalty Shot!

The crowd is on their feet as Dawkins starts in. He skates out wide to the right side and cuts back in across the top of the circle, gaining speed and hoping to catch the Believers goaltender out of position with his favourite "there almost certainly is no God" manoeuver. It appears to work as the goaltender starts to follow Dawkins across exposing the bottom right-hand corner of the net. Dawkins fires and already has his arms in the air when out of nowhere a big, "Christian" goal stick slides along the ice and deflects the puck up over the net into the crowd. No goal!

Dawkins looks back, wondering how he missed a sure goal and sees Jesus standing in the crease, staring right at him as if to say: "you're going to have to do better than that."

Indeed it appears as if saying there almost certainly is no God proves nothing but the improbability of God, which Jesus defeated with an equally inprobable save.

After two more minutes or spirited (or perhaps "lively" would be a more appropriate term) but goal-less play the buzzer sounds and the first period is done.

0-0. A scoreless, but extremely entertaining period of metaphysical hockey leaves nothing resolved, but many interesting ideas to think about over the next week leading up to next Wednesday's 2nd period.

The Atheists hold a clear advantage in shots, outshooting the Believers 9-2 and were the stronger of the two teams over the 20 minutes. It looks like they may have to change their tactics a little bit to get through the tight checking of the believers and get their shots through to the net. Faith is proving a difficult defensive tool to get around and the experts are saying that if they want to break through with some goals they will have to stick to their strength of using fact based evidence instead of probabilities. In an interview with Athiest coach Jean-Paul Sartre, he suggested that perhaps the Atheists will be looking more towards their experience in the 2nd frame to try and get back to the "essence" of their ideology.

On the other side the Believers are not overly pleased or disappointed with the 1st period. They played to their strength and it didn't fail them, the score is still even. Believer coach Karol Józef Wojtyła commented that his team needs at some point to find some offence and emphasized the importance of the defence stepping up into the attack. Only time will tell if these coaches make good prophets or whether their words fall on deaf ears.

Either way, the 2nd period promises to be evilly exciting.

Check back next week for period 2 and the continuation of "The Atheists vs The Believers" at 5pm EST on Wednesday April 8th.

The Atheists vs The Believers - Pre-Game Show (Part 1 of 5)

Alright, here it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The debate between believers and atheists has gone on, unresolved, for so long that we here at The Blog Journalists have decided it’s time for a final showdown.

One game, winner takes all, losers are converted.

Hold on, one “game”? Isn’t this a several thousand year old metaphysical question? How will it be solved?

The answer is on the ice.

Over the next four weeks The Blog Journalists will be simulating the first ever (I am going out on a limb here to say I am very sure this has never been done before) metaphysical hockey game. Our worthy opponents are “The Atheists” who will face-off against “The Believers” for eternal glory (or, should we say in light of the unresolvedness of the competition at the current time, mortal glory….but with a chance of eternal glory!)

The match will theoretically be played at the centre of the hockey universe, The Air Canada Centre in Toronto (emphasis on “theoretically”; please don’t show up at the gates an hour and a half prior to game-time) and is being dubbed the most meaningful hockey game to be played in Toronto in a long, long….long time.

This game will differ from your ordinary hockey game as organizers (namely myself) have agreed to play the game one period at a time over the next several Wednesdays in order to fit The Blog Journalist’s schedule.

This week we will be providing a bit of expert analysis as well as revealing the tentative starting line-ups for each ideology. Next week it’s “Game-On!”

First things first, let’s meet the competitors, starting with the high-powered Atheists. The present team captain Richard Dawkins, authour of The God Delusion will play forward, a position that The Believers have called fitting, as they find him quite offensive. Dawkins will be flanked by a couple of Europeans (as if The Atheists needed anything else to get on Don Cherry’s hit-list), one who has earned the nickname “The Greek”, Epicurus, and grinder from Germany, Ludwig Feuerbach. On defence the Atheists had been hoping to secure a pair of top-scientists, but were unable to convince either Charles Darwin or Einstein to join their ranks, as they decided to take this one in from the stands along with the rest of the agnostics. Instead the Atheists will have to settle for the relatively green defender, authour Philip Pullman whose inexperience will be made up for by veteran Sigmund Freud. Rounding out the atheist squad is goaltender Karl Marx, who although is in theory is one of the best goaltenders around, to this point has been ineffective in putting this into practice. One more interesting news-tidbit surrounding Marx, he has also been quoted in the papers saying something about the need for drug-testing and rampant opium-use amongst The Believers, although there has, to this point, been no evidence to support these claims.

Now to take a quick run-through The Believers’ starting lineup.

On forward The Believers will be sending out a line being dubbed the “All-Saints” unit, composed of St. Thomas Aquinas up the middle with St. Anslem of Canterbury on the left and St. Augustine of Hippo on the right. The expectation is that this line will maintain a defensive, dump and chase style to try and neutralize the powerful Atheistic attack. The defense for The Believers will be the more contemporary pair of Oxfordians, Professor of Historical Theology Alistair McGrath, authour of The Dawkins Delusion, and Systems Biologist Denis Noble. This pairing has been known to work very well together historically and give The Believers a much needed youth movement on the blueline. If they prove to be too green, The Believers have “The Rock”, otherwise known as St. Peter, waiting in the wings. Finally, the easiest position of all for The Believers to fill was goaltender as it is well know amongst believers that Jesus saves.

Overall, The Believers have a more experienced team, with a number of their players being several hundred years old. Only time will tell whether this will prove to be a disadvantage and if their metaphysical stick-handling will defeated by the younger, more contemporary Atheists. Either way, their play is regarded by experts as philosophically sound.

There is no doubt in my mind (especially since I am writing this stuff) that this will be a tight game and that it will go down to the wire. If needed, there will be “sudden death” overtime, which as ominous as that sounds in a metaphysical debate, I promise you it does not imply any sort of death, but rather “next goal wins.” But you already knew that…

That about sums up this week’s pre-game festivities here at The Blog Journalists. Please don’t forget to return at 5pm next Wednesday for the first period.

Note: Two things I would like to mention. Number 1: this blog series is intended to work as a fresh look at a subject that is all to often bogged down by reactionaryism. My goal in this work is to present popular arguments, new and old, in an interesting to read format with a neutral view. I do not intend to offend anyone through this series and am in no way trivializing the philosophical importance of the debate or the belief or non-belief of any individual. In fact, I am trying to do quite the opposite. I am trying to promote the subject matter and the validity of both “ideologies.” I realize that I have taken a very Western/Christian approach to the debate and I must say that I regret this as I would have liked to have taken a broader approach, however I choose to stick within my realm of experience so as to not misrepresent any facts or groups of people due to my ignorance of the subject. If you have any questions, please either leave comments on the forum to promote discussion, or for private inquiries, please email: theblogjournalists@gmail.com

To the Glory of...Reason? Response to "To Reason"

Interesting post Russ. I have now read Ms. Lakritz's original article and agree with your assessment. It is a one-sided article that simply breaths of reactionaryism.

Her attack on reason is of course laugable. Ironically it is her own reason (even if one disagrees with this reason) that motivates her to respond to the athiest students of the University of Alberta. The way she tries to make her point would be unacceptable in an elementary school.

All knee-jerk reactions aside, I think the place where she truly went wrong was where she decided to seperate God and reason from one another (despite her misinformed attempt to reference him, St. Thomas Aquinas would be spinning in his grave.)

In fact her characterization of reason as 'malleable' and a source of entitlement is a claim that, if taken seriously, would set the world of philosophy back somewhere in the neighbourhood of several thousand years.God is a concept that, despite what Christians, Jews, Hinduists or probably even the Scientologists would say, is itself malleable. The word God is merely a word and depending on who is doing the defining, it could mean any number of things. To one person God could be the creator of all things but to another it could be a less definable concept, something more abstract such as a code of morals the idea of perfection. Even the athiest must admit they have some sort of concept of God; after all, how could an athiest deny God without first having some sort of idea of what they are denying?

As a final note, I went to the University of Alberta website and stumbled across the university's motto which is proudly displayed on the university's crest. The Latin reads 'Quaecumque Vera' or 'whatsoever things true.' Personal beliefs aside, truth is the main goal. Reason is the tool we have to reach this goal. No matter what truths we come to as individuals, reason is the road there. Lakritz undermines the truth of her own article by ripping up this road.

Will Grassby