RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 149 CC Sir Bertrand Russell

 

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 149 CC Sir Bertrand Russell

Image result for bertrand russell

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

Image result for harry kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BatePatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan FeuchtwangDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Hermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George LakoffElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

In  the first video below in the 14th clip in this series are his words and I will be responding to them in the next few weeks since Sir Bertrand Russell is probably the most quoted skeptic of our time, unless it was someone like Carl Sagan or Antony Flew.  

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

__

Quote from Bertrand Russell:

Q: Why are you not a Christian?

Russell: Because I see no evidence whatever for any of the Christian dogmas. I’ve examined all the stock arguments in favor of the existence of God, and none of them seem to me to be logically valid.

Q: Do you think there’s a practical reason for having a religious belief, for many people?

Russell: Well, there can’t be a practical reason for believing what isn’t true. That’s quite… at least, I rule it out as impossible. Either the thing is true, or it isn’t. If it is true, you should believe it, and if it isn’t, you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But you can’t… it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful, and not because you think it’s true.

__

Why I’m not Bertrand Russell (or an atheist)

In 1957 Bertrand Russell published his essay Why I Am Not a Christian which is still cited to this day as a popular anti-Christian apologetic. Briefly here is why I, unlike Russell, am unwaveringly Christian.

I could make a plea to my supernatural experiences, which have certainly contributed to my stance. Yet for me rational reasons came first and continue to be the backbone behind my worldview.

1. Logic and math

Only monotheism makes sense of what logic and math is. Pleading evolutionary origins of logic reduces the use of logic to nonsensical. If logic and math are merely the result of naturalistic processes, then how can they be trusted to lead us to truth at all? Even truth itself becomes absurd. As Pilate said famously ‘What is truth?’

However I see that math is objective, it comes from outside of ourselves, and that is internally consistent. Gödel saw the same thing and noted that because numbers are uncountable (infinite) and well-ordered there must be an intelligence behind them that is not human.

Logic is intrinsically true, not because it works in practice (saying that is circular reasoning—logic works because it works) yet because it must have come from the author of truth outside of time and space. Merely assuming universal, invariant, immaterial laws is no explanation and they demand an explanation.

Instead of the God of the Gaps, God is inferred as the properties of God match these universal laws. Infinite, eternal, height of intelligence, constant, non-contradictory.

Logic and math contain His fingerprints all over them.

2. Morality as a system

The major arguments against God are often moral, yet I find morality existing in itself as a great argument for God. There must be some higher standard for humans to attain to—a Moral Law. A Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver.

If right and wrong are what we decide for ourselves as humans, then morality is reduced to mere whims and wishful thinking. Justice and injustice cannot exist in such a system, as what is unjust to one person (like robbing you) might not be unjust to someone else (as the robber I might legitimately feel I deserve your money). So who really is right without a higher moral standard than our own opinions?

When people say that God is immoral, what are they judging Him by? What standard? God cannot be immoral though if you factor in eternity. If there is an eternity wrongs will be righted and have a purpose. Proving the injustices in this world matter immensely to God. God being just can be seen not by what we observe in this world, but what happens in eternity.

The moral system in Christianity is undoubtedly the highest system of all. Being unique as it makes us accountable for our thoughts and intentions as well as what we do.

3. The inadequacy of other worldviews

Logic matters. Now that I’ve got that axiom to rest on, I can evaluate all other world systems as being logically consistent or inconsistent. Given that every touted inconsistency about the Bible has been answered by scholars as being due to cultural and linguistic misunderstandings, I can see that Christianity is logically coherent. But what about the other worldviews?

James Sire’s The Universe Next Door has long been the text for examining worldviews up against the Christian system. This book has shown the other views to be woefully inadequate. While it doesn’t assess the cults, there are numerous other materials out there defeating cultic writings.

Naturalism must necessarily lead to nihilism unless you become an existentialist or postmodernist and both those views take an illogical ‘upper story leap’ to use the words of Francis Schaeffer. No one can live consistently upbeat when noticing the lack of purpose and certain death they face. New Age is eclectic, it borrows from a vast range of ideas, which means that you can get no unified, coherent system.

Image result for francis schaeffer

Reason cannot be separated from God

Those three points are pretty solid reasons to believe. The coup de grace to Christianity has not been issued, and I can’t see that it ever will be based on the points above. If you must use logic to defeat God, you must make an ontological account for logic. If you can’t account for it your worldview falls apart.

If you have a worldview that says logic does not exist, then absolutely everything human falls apart—math, science, health, technology and all other human endeavours. The Christian God of love, justice and rationality allows us to keep our reason.

I prefer to be reasonable, hence I believe in God.

Bridget Brenton has been researching apologetics, philosophy and the paranormal for years. You can check her apologetic effort out at 101arguments.com

Bridget Brenton’s previous articles may be viewed at www.pressserviceinternational.org/bridget-brenton.html

Related posts:

 

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Pausing to take a look at the life of HARRY KROTO Part C (Kroto’s admiration of Bertrand Russell examined)

Today we look at the 3rd letter in the Kroto correspondence and his admiration of Bertrand Russell. (Below The Nobel chemistry laureates Harold Kroto, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley) It is with sadness that I write this post having learned of the death of Sir Harold Kroto on April 30, 2016 at the age of […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 52 The views of Hegel and Bertrand Russell influenced Gareth Stedman Jones of Cambridge!!

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975 and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of Dr. Harry Kroto:   Gareth Stedman […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were  atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 (More On) Woody Allen’s Atheism As I wrote in a previous post, I like Woody Allen. I have long admired his […]

John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!!

______ Top 10 Woody Allen Movies PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 01 PBS American Masters – Woody Allen A Documentary 02 __________ John Piippo makes the case that Bertrand Russell would have loved Woody Allen because they both were two atheists who don’t deny the ramifications of atheism!!! Monday, August 06, 2012 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Great debate Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 2)

Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of UK/BBC copyright. Pardon the hissy audio. It was recorded 51 […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript and audio (Part 1)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 4)

THE MORAL ARGUMENT     BERTRAND RUSSELL But aren’t you now saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Is that what you’re […]

Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston debate transcript (Part 3)

Fr. Frederick C. Copleston vs Bertrand Russell – Part 1 Uploaded by riversonthemoon on Jul 15, 2009 BBC Radio Third Programme Recording January 28, 1948. BBC Recording number T7324W. This is an excerpt from the full broadcast from cassette tape A303/5 Open University Course, Problems of Philosophy Units 7-8. Older than 50 years, out of […]

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: