“The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law.” (Psalm 119:51)
The word “agnostic” comes from the Greek. An “agnostic” is a person who doesn’t know if there’s a God or not and who doesn’t think it’s possible to know that. Unlike atheists who boldly and confidently proclaim, “there is no God,” agnostics don’t know and don’t particularly care.
A few days ago, national radio talk show host Michael Smerconish featured Vincent Bugliosi as his guest. Bugliosi, age 76, is the lawyer who prosecuted Charles Manson four decades ago. Bugliosi is an outspoken agnostic who authored the recently publishes book “Divinity of Doubt: The God Question.”
I’m sure it’s no surprise to you that I strongly disagree with Bugliosi. I’m not an agnostic. I believe in God with all my heart, and believe God is actively interested in our lives. Many years ago, I would have been angry and upset to hear such a broadcast. I would have felt it was dishonoring to God, His Word, and to Believers. But that’s many years ago. Today, at age 56, I’m not fazed by such a broadcast at all. The Bible itself predicts that such will be the case, in many passages, including I Corinthians 2:14 which reads:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Bugliosi’s book has certainly sparked anger and criticism. He says his biggest detractors have been atheists. You might think there would be a camaraderie between atheists and agnostics. In fact, they are very much as odds and typically don’t get along. Of course, a number of theists have been critical. Bugliosi himself has disdain for atheists and theists, but the group he has the LEAST respect for and the most frustration with are evangelicals or “born-again Christians.” (That included ME!) Bugliosi quoted several statements of Billy Graham’s, expressing contempt for Billy Graham’s beliefs. He proceeded to attempt to rip Billy Graham’s beliefs to shreds.
Bugliosi argued that born-again Christians’ beliefs are SO illogical and SO nonsensical as to be irrelevant and preposterous. In fact, when I heard Bugliosi’s comments, I wanted to shake my head and laugh! I Corinthians 1:18 says,
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.”
Incidentally, as is typical with skeptics and critics, Bugliosi’s Biblical knowledge is not as accurate as he things. He claims the Bible in the time of Noah limits man’s life span to 120 years. IN fact, in context it meant the flood would happen in 120 years, NOT that man’s lifetime is limited to 120 years. Bugliosi like a lot of people seemingly wants to call God into his study, sit God down, lecture God about how selfish and illogical He is, and then send God way with His tail between His legs, as it were.
WHAT ARROGANCE!
By man’s standards, God is not logical. By man’s standards, having people spend eternity in Hell makes absolutely no sense. But God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and God’s ways are not our ways (see Isaiah 55:8-9). I “received Jesus Christ as my Personal Lord and Savior” on July 21, 1970. Over the past forty years I’ve experienced “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat” (to quote that old ABC sports program) many times. Forty years after “getting saved,” I do not regret my decision to commit my life to Jesus Christ.
Just before letting Bugliosi go, Michael Smerconish asked him if he is “hedging his bets” ... if he (born a Roman Catholic) still attends church “just in case.” Bugliosi does not.
Yes, Vincent Bugliosi’s comments did not upset me. IN fact, they made me feel MORE CONFIDENT in my faith! So, thank you Michael Smerconish and thank you Vincent Bugliosi!
EMMYS 1970: My World...and Welcome To It
1 year ago
3 comments:
Hello, your argument for why your faith is true is actually a known logical fallacy called special pleading, rather than an argument against it. An example from wikipeida reads: "I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena." St Paul's arguments in explanation of non-belief are nothing more than this documented fallacy. "I know you can't see the justice in eternal torture, its because your mind is unregenerate, you must be regenerate to see the justice in that" I could just as well as say to you, "I KNOW God isn't real, because an all-knowing invisible mouse lives in my ear, and he told me, but your incapable of understanding, because my invisible mouse doesn't live in your ear" and sadly St Paul one of the most respected figures in Christiandom, has an argument that is just as poor. The second evidence you cite for God's existence is another fallacious argument known as the self-fulfilling prophecy. "The invisible mouse in my ear told me that people would mock me and him and deny his existence, so now I KNOW FOR SURE he's real" Not only are the self-fulfilling prophecy and special pleading arguments fallacious, but they are subjective. While God may be real to you, you have no way of proving with these arguments that he is to others, and the same arguments could be used as "proof" that an invisible mouse lives inside of my ear. The special pleading argument is fallacious and subjective, and also I'm not trying to belittle your God by comparing him to an invisible mouse, so please don't take that the wrong way, I'm simply trying to show that using your logic, I could make an assertion that you consider ridiculous and yet it would be equally plausible as your assertion, which casts doubt on your assertion, or at least the way you are making it.
redcommander, while God may not be real to you, you have no way of proving that with your arguments here either.
A rather elliptical logic you just spent 30+ lines to describe, eh?
Thank you for responding to my comment. I wasn't trying to prove that God isn't real, merely that the special pleading and self-fulfilling prophecy arguments do not prove his existence, and that they shouldn't be cited as evidence that reinforces one's faith when they are known fallacies.
Post a Comment