A Practical Guide to the Logic, Philosophy and Thoughts of Christianity

Section 1 - Article 6

Article 6 - Logically proving God by logically disproving everything else

Written as a continuation from Article 5, this article highlight the refusal to believe anything else when one is fixated on any idea. Sometimes, in order to prove something, it may be necessary to disprove everything else to support the original hypothesis. Although the original hypothesis remains unproved, it is narrowed down. Yet certain things remain ignored due to the state of one's mind, and also because of one's expectation of the 'thing'.

Many claim that science does not prove the existence of God. This is true. If anything, evolution and many other theories can support an atheistic development of the world better in many ways better than a scenario where a giant pair of hands worked during the Big Bang (theistic evolution). However, let us also objectively acknowledge that no science ever proved that God does not exist! If it is a mistake to believe that there is a God without a test tube experiment, then it is also a mistake to believe there isn't a God. The scenario goes akin to a kid in rural countryside claiming that TV/mobile phones do not exist simply because he has never seen one, or managed to prove that one exists through his five senses. Therefore, the people who call themselves pragmatic atheists, are guilty of the very same "stupidity" they attribute to "religious people". Is it not also right for the "religious" to attribute the "foolishness" to atheists? Following a strict scientific approach, the atheists should call themselves agnostics rather than atheist.

If religious people can be said to be unscientific, then atheistic people can be said to be unhistorical. I will not enter a debate on whether history can be classified as science. History is a mere record of events as science is a record of events or things that are made to happen and reproducible. On reproducibility, History, does repeat itself e.g. wars and politic movements. Between science and history, there are more similarities than differences. Interestingly, both have been proven to be inaccurate on several occasions.

Why are atheists unhistorical? Well, most scientific atheists are in the western world (distinct from the communistic atheists) and the western world is largely influenced by the Judeo/Christian tradition. The legal system is a direct import from the Jewish Old Testament laws. This includes the moral systems. Victorian ethics of not-so-long-ago Britain were fueled by the Christian evangelical movement. American capitalism was strongly associated with Calvinism and evangelicalism (see Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Politics were always largely influenced by religious beliefs (regardless if they were right or not, and it is clear many evils have been done under the name of "Theocracy"). The Bible itself is holy, but the politics that people backed up with religion is often not. Before the blame of evil politics be pushed solely on religion, atheistic politics and regimes are not exempt from evil too. So rather than blame religion, one must understand that it is the people in power who are prone to corruption regardless of their religious affiliation. And it is them who have used religion to justify their evil.

Why is religion itself not corrupt? Let us address this with a scenario. If you give me a pizza recipe, and I decide not to follow it down to the last letter, but I modified the recipe as I like, resulting in a bad-tasting pizza, can I claim that your recipe is bad? Similarly, if people do not follow their peaceful religion down to the last letter, and problems result, it is not the peaceful religion that is at fault. Thus, before we address the next point, let us first throw out the notion that religion is bad and causes wars (what causes wars are difference and conflicts in ideologies). What is bad and evil, are the people of power that use religion as a justification for their evil deeds. To classify all religion as bad because of a few black sheep is the same as saying all men are perverts. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.