Last week our church hosted a formal debate where friends, family and the wider community were invited to participate. The topic was on the rationality of the belief in God. My husband took the stance that it was rational to believe in God and the visiting professor took the opposite position. Overall, it was a great night, and such a beautiful opportunity to be under one roof with people who fundamentally disagree on key subjects, but yet be civil and welcoming to one another. I would say, it was a holy moment…
With that said, it does not mean I was not nervously sitting in my seat as the debate played out. I had my head bent for a lot of it, because I wanted to hear the words and judge the ideas on their own merit. I did not want to read into the facial expressions or body language. So with my phone open, I tried to take as unbiased notes as I could.
It did take some brain power to follow and process the arguments. I then found something to be lacking for me in clarity through the arguments being made, and that was the definition and subjective use of “evidence.” Professor Shapiro almost exclusively relied on physical evidence while Isaac relied more on the nonphysical. I found this to be troubling, because Shapiro was ultimately saying, because there is no physical evidence for God, all other evidence does not amount to anything. All that is real, is physical and nothing can exist beyond its boundaries. To his credit, he said that not knowing the cause of something is okay, and that it is presumptuous to think that we live in a universe where all things should be knowable. Yet, he objectively argued for the exclusivity of physical evidence as the ultimate and only decider of what is rational. It eventually became evident to me that God CANNOT exist in Shapiro’’s world…
Mongoose Vs. Cobra
Mongoose are known to be able to get the upper hand on Cobra’s. This is because they are immune to its poisonous bit and also, because they can jump around quickly to get out of the striking path. One day a bet is placed on who would win a fight between the two. People largely placed their bets on the mongoose because they know it’s abilities. Both animals are placed in a box and covered. When the cover is removed, the mongoose is found dead.
We could postulate that the cobra just out witted and out maneuvered the mongoose. Although, technically true, if we took a step back and look at the bigger picture, we could see the mongoose from the start was at a disadvantage. It needs the room to jump around as its defense, but when a box is put over it, it’s hands has just been tied so to speak. Evidence for God’s existence cannot exist in Shapiro’s world, because he has limited the scope for what is possible. Anything leading beyond the physical realm will always be a mystery not to be solved or, declared unresolved until further conclusion. He concludes, if God is non physical, and the non physical does not exist, therefore God does not exist and belief in God is not rational.
Shapiro comes in with the assumption that the physical is all there is. To limit the human experience to only its physical nature, I believe is to diminish the complexity of humanity and the universe as a whole. The mind alone is a wonder in itself. Our consciousness alone testifies of the otherness of our experience. We make the mistake of taking one discipline (scientific method) or sense of examining the world and broad brush our whole experience to fit through that lens. When there are a whole host of others ways to interpret ourselves and the world around us.
I believe Shapiro makes this mistake of limiting the importance of other evidences for God’s existence. Until one is willing to remove the box that limits your scope, you will not be able to fully take advantage of the evidences around you, and see what is in plain sight….
For more of my blogs visit my site @ http://vachelle.wixsite.com/journey