The Wright Perspective: Arguments for Everything and Nothing

My latest is up at Every Joe.

So why do Progressives pretend there are no rational arguments for the existence of God?

The various arguments in favor of the existence of God and the truth of Christ do not find favor among secular, that is, antichristian philosophers of this generation. However, such arguments are not any more nor less sound and clear as arguments in favor of the existence of the law of cause and effect, the existence of an objective external universe, the existence of a universal standard of morality, the prudence and fairness of the death penalty, the gold standard or any other topic debated and settled by argument.

The fact that such arguments are rarely discussed is not a sign of the alleged enlightenment of this generation. It is not a sign that this generation is too savvy to waste time discussing abstract matters.

Rather, it is a sign that this generation suffers from severe educational retardation, and no longer regards the use of the faculty of reasoning as a proper method to distinguish true from false. Look on any modern talk show. Now they are shout shows.

The intellect of the intellectual class has diminished sharply within the last fifty years.

Next time you come across an argument for or against the existence of God, look and see what standard is being used. Before you pass judgment on the merits of the argument itself, look at the form of the argument, and see whether it is sound. Make sure you understand what the argument is trying to say before you decide whether you personally find it persuasive.

Is the Argument from First Cause, for example, any less reasonable than whatever argument you can provide to defend, for example, a belief in female suffrage, or a belief that quantum mechanics will one day be reconciled with relativity?

Whole books have been written about every nuance of these deep questions for centuries, but in the final analysis, there are four strong philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Read more:

I am trying something rather subtle here, not to prove or disprove the case for or against, merely to argue that the case is not one unworthy of a hearing, that is, it is not to be dismissed out of hand, without pondering the arguments on both sides. I somehow doubt any readers of the Leftwing persuasion reading the piece will comprehend that point.

I notice with a supercilious arch of my eyebrow that no comments have been posted as yet on this column, which deals with a serious topic, whereas I got a zillion comments on a column which made the rather trite and tried observation the Political Correctness types care more about political correctness, that is, what will help their party, cult, movement and worldview, than about correct correctness, that is, matters of fact.

Immediately in the comments section of that column, the first Leftist insisted earnestly that it was an uproven assertion, nay, a slander, for my column to say that Leftists do not believe in objective truth; and the next comment by a Leftist equally loud in insisting earnestly insisted that it was an unproven assertion, nay, an absurdity, for my column to say that objective truth exists. Neither bothered to argue with the other, or explained how the logical conundrum was to be resolved.

I assume the arguments for and against the existence of a divine and necessary being are so well known to the well read, rational, and calm readers of the internet that the column provokes no controversy.

Or perhaps the subject was too deep, and hence of no interest to the readership. Either that, or I am off my game and it was boring.

Not to worry. I will write something in a lighter vein next week.