On "tolerance"

A response I made on a blog post regarding Ravi Zacharias. You can read the post here.

Hari,

You have voiced some legitimate concerns here, and I believe you have some valid points, but allow me to outline a few issues that came to mind.

In my mind, the problem arises because the word "tolerance" itself has been perverted to mean something completely different from what it actually means. The word itself implies that there IS a difference or disagreement between two or more individuals. I cannot be "tolerant" of someone with whom I have no difference in worldview. The very concept of pluralism or tolerance is relevant only when it is properly defined and contextualized; that is to say, it is relevant ONLY in a framework in which there co-exist differing worldviews. This is the very purpose of tolerance; to ensure the peaceful co-existence of those who adhere to differing perspectives. This does NOT imply that one should be inclined to agree completely with other worldviews, nor embrace "everything as equally true." Bygone generations knew this, and advocated tolerance as respectful disagreement, with the added notion of love for all human beings.

If Ravi Zacharias defames Mahatma Gandhi, or slanders other religions (I don't think I've heard him doing this), I surely don't condone it, and I believe you may have a valid point if he does. But if by "criticism" you mean that he points out the logical contradictions that he sees in those worldviews, then I believe you're missing the point. No worldview, including Christianity, should be granted immunity from careful examination.

I do not believe that as a Christian, I have a guaranteed one-way ticket to heaven. Neither do I believe that all others are instantly condemned. But I have nothing but pity for those who claim that all religions are "equally true." This stems from a lack of critical thinking. Whatever became of the law of non-contradiction? Why are we killing logic in the streets? Truth by it's very nature is exclusive - it excludes the opposite. My question to the culture of postmodernism is ultimately this: Why can't I firmly believe in the truth of my worldview, and point out why I don't subscribe to other worldviews, as long as I do it respectfully and while expressing a love for all human beings?

Christian Apologetics isn't dead

Below is a comment I made in response to a post regarding the death of Christian Apologetics made by an atheist blogger. You can read the post here. For some reason, the comment didn't end up being posted on his page, so I'm reproducing it here.

1.) Since Methodological naturalism (science) is strictly confined to the acquisition of knowledge regarding the natural world, ie., that which is empirically verifiable, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural(in this case,God.) As the supernatural by definition is beyond the natural world, it is therefore beyond the ability of science to observe.

In light of this, your statement that "it should be common knowledge that the atheistic view is the scientific viewpoint because that is where the overwhelming majority of evidence points – toward an atheistic universe.." is incorrect.

Science can't take either side. It must remain agnostic.


2.) You have conceded that there is more than abundant scientific evidence for the big bang. Assuming the big bang, one must also assume the singularity, before which, space and time didn't exist.This being the case, whatever caused the big bang must be immaterial (non-physical) and timeless. Since time as a dimension did not exist before the singularity, whatever caused the big bang could not have been accidental or a random event, since any event that occurs must happen within the dimension of time. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that since the cause of the big bang was not a random event, it must have been a cause that freely CHOSE to cause the big bang, ie, an agent. In summary, the cause of the big bang was an immaterial, atemporal, agent with free will.


3.) Morality as you define it is nothing more than a set of highly evolved survival instincts; instincts that ensure the survival of Homosapiens as a species. If we had evolved under different circumstances or in different environments, we may have evolved different survival instincts that would then constitute "morality." On this view, there is no objective "Good" or "Evil." There was nothing really objectively "evil" or "wrong" with Hitler's extermination of 14 million human beings. It should merely be frowned upon because it was "maladaptive to the survival of our species" as you stated. This worldview utterly fails to account for why anyone, given a lapse of "normal" instincts, SHOULD desire the survival of our species. What can be said to an individual who either feels no such innate urge for self-preservation or for the preservation of his species? Why is he ultimately "wrong" in murdering another person? Metaphysical naturalism cannot give human beings any intrinsic value. On Metaphysical naturalism, Human beings, like all other living organisms, are merely the product of primordial slime. It is therefore no more "immoral" to kill a
human being than it is to kill a cow, or a cockroach. Science cannot prove that a human being has anymore intrinsic value than an insect, or a quadruped. The reason for this, as mentioned above, is because methodological naturalism deals only with the natural world.

Questions of morality and intrinsic worth are metaphysical, not naturalistic.