On October 17, ABC aired the episode "Whose God is it Anyway" which featured a case where an employer fired a Scientologist. You can view this section of the episode here. (I've already stated my reduction in television viewing on this blog. I've never actually watched an episode of Boston Legal, just never been interested, but when I came across this clip at Watchman Fellowship, I thought debunking its assertions could benefit many). I'm not interested in debunking Scientology here at this time, just the many stabs at religious freedom and religion in general. (I will break this into multiple posts for the sake of time and length).

1. Sally Heep states, "We never hold religion up to standards of reasonableness. If we did, what religion could pass?"

Is religion reasonable? Let's back that up even further... is theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods) reasonable?

Well, yes. There is the kalam cosmological argument (aka "first cause"): It is not possible that the universe has always existed. Reason with me. Add 1+1. You get 2. Add another 1. You get three... 999,999,999+1=1,000,000,000... etc. At which point do you reach infinity? Never. It's not possible to accumulate enough to equal infinity. Your number keeps getting bigger, but it is always a finite number. Now is future in relation to the past, right? Events have passed in progressive order from the past to the point where we now exist. Each moment that passes adds one more to the sum total of time. But you cannot accumulate infinity by adding one thing at a time. (Consider dominoes. One domino hits another until they all fall down. Pick any one of the dominoes, and you know that a certain number of dominoes must fall before that domino will fall. If there were an actual infinite of dominoes, that domino would never fall because the progression of dominoes would never reach it.) So we have this one moment in time. If the universe were eternal, we could never reach this moment in time by progression. So, if we were to go back one year, two years, etc., we could never reach a past infinity. There could only be found a finite number. So, the universe must be finite. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a Beginner who was infinite, self-existent, uncaused, and non-contingent. Someone who by definition would be a god.

There is the teleological argument, or argument from design: A watch has many moving parts which interact with each other in complex ways. A watch is obviously the work of a watchmaker. The "simplest" living cell has over one trillion molecules in it. Each molecule must be in exactly the right place at the right time or it simply will not work. Such intelligent design demands an Intelligent Designer -- a god.

The moral argument: Morality tells us what to do, or what not to do. So what is its source? There is an authority to morality and that authority is higher than human institutions. The source must be supernatural -- a god.

Morality implicitly has as its goal moral perfection. Yet no human has ever or can ever be perfect. Morality, to be moral, cannot demand perfection without a provision for the attainment of that perfection. As humankind cannot become perfect on its own, there must be something beyond humankind to aid mankind in perfection -- a god.

Morality suggests that it is in man's best interest to be moral. Yet immoral behavior is often rewarded in this life. If morality is true, then there must be a just judge who will set all things right in an afterlife -- a god.

Atheists often argue that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God is logically incompatible with the presence of evil in the world. How does this deny theism? If, for example, I know that Mike is a Carolinian, the vast majority of Carolinians do not finish high school, and Mike is a college graduate. I can certainly accept that Mike is a Carolinian. I can also accept that most Carolinians do not finish high school. So how could accepting both of those statements as true, completely rule out Mike being a college graduate? That something is improbable does not make it untrue.

Yet, there is still more evidence that God exists. Theism offers something that atheism cannot -- explanations. Evolution states that in the beginning was the Big Bang. Suddenly all matter came into existence from nothing. But where did the matter come from? Theism explains that God created all matter out of nothing. Theism explains that we see intelligent design everywhere because God is the Intelligent Designer. Theism explains that we sense right and wrong because there are moral absolutes. Theism explains that we feel morally inadequate because we are morally inadequate. Theism explains that we sense moral injustice because there is a Just Judge who will set all things aright.

Is theism reasonable? I believe I have shown that it will definitely pass.

Next time I hope to show the reasonableness of Christianity specifically.