Most debates in universities about God's existence face atheist scholars against Christian scholars. The above debate is an interesting exception.
According to wikipedia, Sivarama Swami is "a Vaishnava guru and a religious leader for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)", hence he's not a Christian philosopher or theologian. You can visit Sivarama Swami's website here.
Sivarama Swami is faced against atheist philosopher Stephen Law (who recently debated, and in my opinion was defeated, by William Lane Craig).
Contrary to popular opinions, Christian theology has been mainly rationalistic and argumentative regarding its core doctrines. Christian scholars present a straighforward rational case both for God's existence and Jesus' Resurrection based on scientific, historical and philosophical evidence and argumentation.
In contrast with that Christian approach, we find a lot of Eastern and Asian philosophical systems which are irrationalistic (or rather, a-rationalistic) in the sense that for them "reason" is part of the illusion of existence, or is the wrong tool to spiritual liberation and evolution. Reason cannot grasp correctly the mysteries of life, which stands beyond logic, rationality or science. Mystical experiences, subjective insights into our own minds, meditation, etc. provide (for these thinkers) the actual path to discover the "truth".
I remember reading the book of a Zen master who argued that the Christian attempt to prove God's existence through reason is impossible, because God (if exists) is far beyond of our capabilities of understanding (a similar approach is seen in some leading members of the Jesus Seminar, for example in Marcus Borg, who based on his own personal mystical experiences, appeals to metaphors, meaning and words each time he's confronted with rational arguments for God's or historical arguments for Jesus' Resurrection. Hear Borg's poor performance and evasive and misleading arguments in his debate with William Lane Craig here).
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some Eastern and Asian thinkers/philosophers/spiritual masters tend to avoid public debates with Western thinkers. They're not interested in winning arguments or convincing people through the use of logic and reason.
For the record: all Christians concede that God is beyond our capabilities of understanding in the sense that we cannot grap fully what God's infinite power is through our finite and fallible minds. Always will exist a gap between our knowledge and God' infinite knowledge, power and perfect nature. But it doesn't mean that some properties of God cannot be known and understood. So, the Zen master's conclusion (in the book that I read) is actually a non-sequitur.
I mention all of this because the above video is one of the few cases in which you'll watch a non-Christian religious thinker debating with an atheist philosopher.
Enjoy.
According to wikipedia, Sivarama Swami is "a Vaishnava guru and a religious leader for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)", hence he's not a Christian philosopher or theologian. You can visit Sivarama Swami's website here.
Sivarama Swami is faced against atheist philosopher Stephen Law (who recently debated, and in my opinion was defeated, by William Lane Craig).
Contrary to popular opinions, Christian theology has been mainly rationalistic and argumentative regarding its core doctrines. Christian scholars present a straighforward rational case both for God's existence and Jesus' Resurrection based on scientific, historical and philosophical evidence and argumentation.
In contrast with that Christian approach, we find a lot of Eastern and Asian philosophical systems which are irrationalistic (or rather, a-rationalistic) in the sense that for them "reason" is part of the illusion of existence, or is the wrong tool to spiritual liberation and evolution. Reason cannot grasp correctly the mysteries of life, which stands beyond logic, rationality or science. Mystical experiences, subjective insights into our own minds, meditation, etc. provide (for these thinkers) the actual path to discover the "truth".
I remember reading the book of a Zen master who argued that the Christian attempt to prove God's existence through reason is impossible, because God (if exists) is far beyond of our capabilities of understanding (a similar approach is seen in some leading members of the Jesus Seminar, for example in Marcus Borg, who based on his own personal mystical experiences, appeals to metaphors, meaning and words each time he's confronted with rational arguments for God's or historical arguments for Jesus' Resurrection. Hear Borg's poor performance and evasive and misleading arguments in his debate with William Lane Craig here).
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some Eastern and Asian thinkers/philosophers/spiritual masters tend to avoid public debates with Western thinkers. They're not interested in winning arguments or convincing people through the use of logic and reason.
For the record: all Christians concede that God is beyond our capabilities of understanding in the sense that we cannot grap fully what God's infinite power is through our finite and fallible minds. Always will exist a gap between our knowledge and God' infinite knowledge, power and perfect nature. But it doesn't mean that some properties of God cannot be known and understood. So, the Zen master's conclusion (in the book that I read) is actually a non-sequitur.
I mention all of this because the above video is one of the few cases in which you'll watch a non-Christian religious thinker debating with an atheist philosopher.
Enjoy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment