|
|
The age-old debate about whether or not there is a God is tiresome. When I was a younger lad, I found it fascinating, and was certain there had to be a conclusive answer either way.
I was wrong. Why is it impossible to resolve to universal satisfaction? Because the realm of the unknown is just that: unknown. Due to the nature of something unknown, the conclusion regarding it is left to the individual's subjectivity to discern a suitable answer. After all this time and experience witnessing the futile nature of the debate, ad nauseum, you'd think I'd know better than to watch a YouTube video of an official debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, that was held on September 9th, 2008: Does God exist? Someone in the audience pointed out near the end that everyone attends these debates already comfortable with their own answers, so the debate is reduced to meaningless spectacle, instead of being the edifying event it is allegedly intended to be. I would have to agree. So yes, as everyone else, I watched the debate already content with my own answers. I watched Turek provide a list of bullet points based on current scientific knowledge to argue the possibility that God exists. I also watched a likely intoxicated Hitchens blather on with the usual simplistic, emotionally charged, manipulative claptrap, instead of honestly addressing the premise of the debate. Did my personal belief system make Turek's compelling argument based on probability more feasible than it already was? No. It was a reasonable argument, whether or not it was ultimately defensible. If I were an atheist, would that make the cliché histrionics of Hitchens any less disappointing for someone who came to watch him emerge triumphant? No. The debate was a farce because the question being posed is never answered by reason; it is only 'answered' by a preconceived mindset. Hence the meaninglessness of such a debate. If one mind can't convince another in these matters, then why ask the question? Regardless of what opponents in this matter may contend, the burden of proof is on both sides, not just one. Instead of "Does God exist?", I think the question should be: Should one be free to believe something is true that someone else believes is false? Your answer to that question reveals not only your mindset, but also your true intentions. As far as the mindset of the minority of atheists who are defined by their anger and cynicism, I'd say Turek summed it up in his description of Hitchens's book: "There is no God, and I hate Him." What a needless waste of time and emotion. |