Mel Wild at In My Father’s House spends a fair amount of effort debating Atheists. His focus is demonstrating that we can logically prove the existence of God. ColorStorm also spends a lot of time debating Atheists. His approach. defends the veracity Word of God, the Bible.
What is the correct approach? Both. Both have their place.
Myself? I don’t spend nearly as much time debating Atheists, at least not on my own blog. However, when I do, I tend to focus on our lack of understanding. Here is an example (from the comments at The classical arguments for God – Part One).
violetwisp considers ‘s efforts to provide logical proof for the existence of God “word games”.
violetwispsays:There is something absurd about trying to deduce an invisible creator using word games in the guise of ‘logic’. Fair enough confused humans in times of relative ignorance trying to piece emerging natural facts together with lingering religious nonsense. But in 2018, seriously? We can study it as a matter of curiosity but not for one minute to suggest it proves creator gods.
Since we use words to convey our ideas and beliefs, we cannot avoid what calls “word games”. However, what observed next demonstrated an even greater misunderstanding.
‘Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.’
Wee Hawkins quote for you.
Most people would no doubt read what wrote and agree. However, it is not true. So here is how I responded.
Are Atheists especially stupid? No. The problem that Atheists and most of us have is to that we think to highly of our own point-of-view. We think we are wise. We think we are so wise we don’t need to study Philosophy, especially that part we call wisdom. The Bible, as unrelentingly asserts, is worthy of our study, and it contains much philosophical wisdom. Philosophy is also worthy of our study. Philosophy, because it contains many ideas borrowed from the ancients and the Bible helps us put all other knowledge in its proper perspective.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing — (meaning and origin here)
Do we truly wish to fill our children with scientific knowledge without also teaching the wisdom to make proper use of that knowledge?