(January 12, 2017 at 11:16 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Those who compare God to the tooth fairy are douchebags. I’m sorry but that is truly how I feel. Without even an ounce of shame they ridicule some of the best and brightest thinkers who take up a problem serious and came to serious conclusion. Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, Buber, Kripke, Plantinga, Newton, Leibnitz, Putman, and Godel are/were theists. That list doesn’t even include theologians, like David Bentley Hart, or physicists, like, Francis Collins or Max Planck. All brilliant.
Maybe you don’t realize this but it is possible to be an atheist without acting like an infantile little snark. It’s astonishing to me how such ass-wipes will disrespect the legacies of truly great men and women like Dr. King, Bonhoeffer, and Catherine Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) by pretending that their religious convictions did nothing to motivate and inspire them to change the world.
How can anyone seriously believe that the motivating force to build the very first hospitals is in any way comparable to believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Here in Chicago we have Mount Siani, Rush Presbyterian, Illinois Masonic, Loyola, Mercy, Saints Mary and Elizabeth, Saint Anthony...that’s just a start. They came to be because of religious convictions for which you have no respect.
I do think that this type of claim concerning the tooth fairy is due to a number of deficiencies in thinking, and is a pretty weak comparison. I find a lot of similarities in discussing with such people, to having a discussion with those involved in a cult organization. In the end, they will always find a way around reason, if nothing else, then resulting to attacking the source of the reason.
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...fairy.html
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...art-2.html
http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2...-pt-3.html
I do agree, that the Judeo/Christian worldview has contributed a lot to Western culture. I think it is silly for those who seek to deny it. However I do think that some caution should be used when discussing that good things followed from a particular motivation or belief. At best it is a secondary support, and in no way directly follows in support of the belief in question. I don't think this is what you are saying, but it may be construed that way.