I came across this video from a blog entry in this blog titled "the respectful atheist". It is quite a beautiful video featuring the diversity of religions across geography and cultures. When I observe the many religions around me in society, I have the same intuitive sentiment that is highlighted in this video about how one can believe that there is any substantive truth to any religion, or if one's adherence to his religion is simply a product of his cultural background. What would make my belief in Christianity any more unique as a Muslim person in Islam? I think the christian apologetic Alister McGrath gives a insightful answer to this line argument by the atheist in a book of his I read titled "The Dawkin's Delusion". McGrath acknowledges that group-based affiliation due to one's cultural background is a characteristic feature in the way religions are sustained and propagated. But it begs the question to then allege that Christians are deluded in their beliefs. To be rational in one's evaluation of the veracity of Christianity, it is important to consider the evidence in favor of Christianity, and the complex beliefs and practices of actual Christians. Indeed, one part in which this video has failed to take into account is the substantive quality of the argument in support of the veracity of a religion. In my opinion, the argument for the truth behind Christianity is more compelling than theistic versions of other religions. I chuckled when I saw an short excerpt of William Lane Craig featuring shortly in the video and the narrator saying that one of the characteristics of religion is that it has its apologists arguing for the veracity of its religion. But this would be begging the question and be too convenient a way of dismissing the substantive quality of a religion by simply labelling arguments for the truth of a religion as a cultural phenomenon. There is an extent to which this argument of construing features of religion as cultural construct becomes incredible. It oversimplifies the background for the existence of that religion. And for Christianity, which is one of the few theistic religions, the basis for its existence is founded upon empirical premises such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the veracity of which would qualify or disqualify the religion.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Youtube Video - Dear Believer Why Do You Believe
I came across this video from a blog entry in this blog titled "the respectful atheist". It is quite a beautiful video featuring the diversity of religions across geography and cultures. When I observe the many religions around me in society, I have the same intuitive sentiment that is highlighted in this video about how one can believe that there is any substantive truth to any religion, or if one's adherence to his religion is simply a product of his cultural background. What would make my belief in Christianity any more unique as a Muslim person in Islam? I think the christian apologetic Alister McGrath gives a insightful answer to this line argument by the atheist in a book of his I read titled "The Dawkin's Delusion". McGrath acknowledges that group-based affiliation due to one's cultural background is a characteristic feature in the way religions are sustained and propagated. But it begs the question to then allege that Christians are deluded in their beliefs. To be rational in one's evaluation of the veracity of Christianity, it is important to consider the evidence in favor of Christianity, and the complex beliefs and practices of actual Christians. Indeed, one part in which this video has failed to take into account is the substantive quality of the argument in support of the veracity of a religion. In my opinion, the argument for the truth behind Christianity is more compelling than theistic versions of other religions. I chuckled when I saw an short excerpt of William Lane Craig featuring shortly in the video and the narrator saying that one of the characteristics of religion is that it has its apologists arguing for the veracity of its religion. But this would be begging the question and be too convenient a way of dismissing the substantive quality of a religion by simply labelling arguments for the truth of a religion as a cultural phenomenon. There is an extent to which this argument of construing features of religion as cultural construct becomes incredible. It oversimplifies the background for the existence of that religion. And for Christianity, which is one of the few theistic religions, the basis for its existence is founded upon empirical premises such as the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the veracity of which would qualify or disqualify the religion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment