Image courtesy of The Telegraph
Outspoken atheist Stephen Fry created headlines this week as he described God as 'evil, capricious, monstrous maniac' on an Irish TV interview:
This has echoes of the 18th century atheist David Hume who claimed evil and suffering as "the rock of atheism".
However the response from Christians has already begun....
Giles Fraser wrote a response to Fry. He concludes:
Simply put: there is no such thing as the God he imagines. It is the flying teapot orbiting a distant planet about which nothing can be said. Such a God doesn’t exist. Nilch. Nada. It’s a nonsense. Indeed, as no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas rightly insists, existence itself is a questionable predicate to use of God. For God is the story of human dreams and fears. God is the shape we try to make of our lives. God is the name of the respect we owe the planet. God is the poetry of our lives. Of course this is real. Frighteningly real. Real enough to live and die for even. But this is not the same as saying that God is a command and control astronaut responsible for some wicked hunger game experiment on planet earth. Such a being does not exist. And for the precisely the reasons Fry expounds, thank God for that. [Read more <here>]
Giles Fraser wrote a response to Fry. He concludes:
Simply put: there is no such thing as the God he imagines. It is the flying teapot orbiting a distant planet about which nothing can be said. Such a God doesn’t exist. Nilch. Nada. It’s a nonsense. Indeed, as no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas rightly insists, existence itself is a questionable predicate to use of God. For God is the story of human dreams and fears. God is the shape we try to make of our lives. God is the name of the respect we owe the planet. God is the poetry of our lives. Of course this is real. Frighteningly real. Real enough to live and die for even. But this is not the same as saying that God is a command and control astronaut responsible for some wicked hunger game experiment on planet earth. Such a being does not exist. And for the precisely the reasons Fry expounds, thank God for that. [Read more <here>]
Russell Brand has uploaded this:
Fr Ed Tomlinson has written an extensive post on his blog:
For it is obvious from your emotional response that you actually hold life to be precious. Your rage at the worm suggests you see something infinitely precious in humanity that makes it worthy of dignity, protection and care. Good for you! Christians agree and include you in that number. But Stephen….
…why rail against God if you don’t believe in him? I cannot imagine getting cross with a creature I believed mythical, say a unicorn or pixie! No, the emotion you display is only rationally, surely, if delivered to a living agent you do suspect might just be there.
Perhaps then it is not that you disbelieve in God, so much as feel anger towards him and what you think he has revealed? If so I urge you to look again and see not only our grot but also our glory. For there must clearly be something of value in a Catholic church that has lasted two thousand years, which comprises 1.4 billion members and which has outlived every regime that ever sought to destroy it. [Read more <here>]
Another response from Justin Brierley:
Do you think Stephen Fry has put forward a rational and balanced argument? Do you agree with Russell Brand that Stephen Fry has 'missed something'? How about Fr Ed Tomlinson's response, is Fry closer to theism than he realises? Did David Hume get it right several hundred years ago or is there a theodicy that allows suffering AND God to exist?
No comments:
Post a Comment