Tomáš Halík speaks on the Big Questions (full version), Templeton Prize 2014
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 03. 2014
- The 2014 Templeton Prize Laureate, Msgr. Prof. Tomáš Halík, speaks on the Big Questions:
1) How do we protect the dignity and unlimited potential of each man, woman and child, since all humans are created in the image of God?
2) How can atheists be embraced by those with faith?
3) Why is it so difficult for people to believe in eternal life?
4) Doesn't all the evil in the world show that there is no God?
5) Is God the answer or rather a question?
Amazing video. Such a smart person!
:-) Tak tohle video si založím a budu pouštět známým, ať se také pobaví. Nádherné číslo hahaha :-)
Do you notice Thing from the Addams family?!
I posted several comments about the inadequacy of Halik's response to Question #4, and now I see that somebody has removed my comments. Was this censorship by Templeton, CZcams, or both?
I don't know if the dislikes come from Creationists or Atheists.
Myslím, že to natočil někdo, kdo je mu podobnej, jako parodii... :-) Vyšlo to dokonale.
Comic voice from inferno.
I can make all statements as Halik without the need of existence of God :DDDDD
(except those ones saying god exists and god creatred world)
Hello Peter...I would like to say that the existence of God and His commandments are intertwined..literelly it means that to speak ABOUT God equalls to speak God himself..you cannot have one without the other...Gog has put His name into everything He says..try to speak anything without the fact that its you Who is speaking it...thats impossible!
I am here for the voice. Everything else is wank
Saaaame. Gud ASMR. Everything else is bullcrap.
Pánbůh s námi a zlé pryč., 🤨
"When I commit" - in other words "When I blindly believe" .... but you still desperately fail to stay out of field science (well it is impossible to have a religion that states nothing objective about the outer world: and when it does, it plays on a field of science or at least scientific ignorance).
I've presented a rebuttal of Halik's views which imply that God, if he existed, would cause or allow natural disasters to occur (see my long post on this). Will nobody come to his defense here? Will a Templeton official not come to his defense? Will Halik not come to his own defense?
GW: In the segment of this video beginning at 15:51, Tomas Halik (TH) valiantly tries but ultimately fails to provide any good rebuttal of an argument which can be called “The Argument from Natural Disasters Against the Existence of God” or more simply “The Argument from Natural Disasters.” Here is one example of this kind of argument:
1) If God did exist, then the 2014 Oso Mudslide would not have occurred.
2) But the 2014 Oso Mudslide did occur.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
For more information on the 2014 Oso Mudslide which killed at least 26 people with at least 70 still missing near Oso, Washington, go to: www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/us-usa-mudslide-washingtonstate-idUSBREA2L0R020140328?feedType=RSS
GW: Instead of presenting a good rebuttal of the argument, Halik engages in a lot of hand waving, both literally and figuratively. Let us carefully examine his points.
TH: For many people the existence of evil in the world is the main obstacle to belief in a good and all-powerful God.
GW: I agree.
TH: I personally do not regard evil in the world as a convincing argument against God. The contrary, rather.
GW: I personally do regard evil in the world, especially harm from natural disasters, as a very convincing argument against the existence of God, as this entity is commonly conceived.
TH: If the world was perfect and there was no evil in it, then the world itself would be God. Then I would see no reason to raise the question of God. Then I would not have the motivation or courage to go on asking questions, searching even beyond the horizon of the answers the world offers me.
GW: The world itself could not possibly be God, even if it were perfect and there was no evil in it. By definition, God is a person, and the world is not a person. Also, there would still be reason to raise the question of God - “Did a super person create all of this?” and curiosity would be the motivation to go on asking questions.
TH: It is precisely when we confront evil that we realise how limited is our capacity to comprehend and understand. Our lives and our world are just a fragment. To discover the meaning of a fragment - such as the meaning of a fragment of some text - it is necessary to know the context. We are a fragment, the world is a fragment, our story is a fragment. God is the context. The meaning and the significance of the world and of life, including its darker pages, can only be found in context, in a wider context, only in God. The trouble is we don’t have that context - God - easily available here. God remains a mystery for us.
GW: Limitations on our capacity to comprehend and understand do not constitute good evidence, reasons, or arguments to believe at this time that God exists.
GW: Of course our lives and our world are just a fragment of the cosmos. Halik assumes that there is a “meaning” of the cosmos to be discovered. This amounts to question begging since the assumption that there is a meaning of the cosmos rests on the assumption that there is a God which is refuted by any well constructed Argument from Natural Disasters. Therefore, Halik’s analogy to texts, stories, and context does not work.
TH: ‘Si comprehendis, non est Deus.’ If you have understood it, or think you have understood it, then you can be sure that it is not God, St. Augustine teaches us.
GW: If God did exist, he would relish our understanding, and so St. Augustine was surely mistaken.
TH: When I open the Bible, I cannot find any simple answers there. The Bible offers not theories and definitions, but stories. In the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, we find stories about people who have the same problems with evil as we do. Abraham bargains with God, Job argues with God and Jacob actually wrestles with God. God would seem to like those who wrestle with Him. It is a difficult fight.
GW: Yes, the Bible provides stories from which no rebuttal to the Argument from Natural Disasters can be found or derived. The Bible begs the question of God’s existence; it simply makes the assumption without examining it.
TH: Some experiences of evil and suffering are a great test of faith.
GW: Most experiences of evil and suffering are a great test of reason vs. faith. Will a person cope with evil and suffering by turning to reason or to faith?
TH: There are also for us believers moments when God is silent or hidden. One answer suggests itself at that point: God is dead. God doesn’t exist. But isn’t this answer too simple?
GW: God cannot be silent or hidden, if he does not exist. God cannot be dead, if he never existed. The conclusion that God doesn’t exist or that he very probably does not exist is simple, but not too simple. When applied to the current case, Occam’s Razor leads us to the simple conclusion.
TH: Isn’t this answer an expression of impatience?
GW: No, the answer “God doesn’t exist or very probably doesn’t exist” is not an expression of impatience. To the contrary. The answer “God does exist or very probably exists” is an expression of impatience. Theists are impatient to reach the conclusion without waiting for good evidence, reasons, or arguments and without a good rebuttal to the Argument from Natural Disasters.
TH: I don’t tell atheists that they are wrong.
GW: I don’t tell theists that they are wrong, but that they are probably mistaken because they are relying on faith rather than reason to think through the questions and problems.
TH: I tell them that they don’t have enough patience.
GW: I will now tell theists that they don’t have enough patience.
TH: Also religious fundamentalists have no feeling for the quiet music of God’s silence, but simply go on repeating their old phrases.
GW: If God does not exist, then there is no “quiet music of God’s silence.” And Halik still provides no good rebuttal to the Argument from Natural Disasters.
TH: Evil, suffering, and tragedy present our faith with hard questions. But we, people of faith, must not be afraid of hard questions, even those for which we don’t know all the answers now.
GW: We the people have a good answer for right now - God very probably does not exist. People of faith need not be afraid of using reason to tackle the hard questions. Ultimately it will pay great dividends.
TH: Our faith does not provide us with final answers at the present time. But it gives life to hope and patience. It teaches us the art of living with mystery and enduring paradoxes of life.
GW: We don’t need final answers at the present time; we just need good tentative answers. And the good tentative answer to the question “Does God exist?” is “very probably not!” If God does not exist, then there is no mystery or paradox to the question “Why do natural disasters occur?” Good answers are already available through science.
TH: I know three expressions of patience in the face of God’s silence and hiddenness, and they are faith, hope, and love.
GW: If God does not exist, there is no silence or hiddenness of God. I know at least three expressions of patience in the face of natural disaster, and they are reason, hope, and love.
TH: Even in the darkest moments of history God is with us.
GW: Halik claims that in the darkest moments of history God is with us, but the evidence shows otherwise. He has provided no good refutation to the Argument from Natural Disasters.
TH: He is present in the patient faith of those who do not give up in such moments, who retain their hope and bear testimony to love.
GW: For those who experience dark moments, patience, reason, hope, and love are helpful, especially because God probably doesn’t exist. If God doesn’t exist, then we need to rely on each other.
Thank you for the opportunity to reply,
Gary Whittenberger Ph.D.
For a few minutes I believed your text under "GW" is citation of parts of the video (I watched it after reading the comments) and I was surprised someone would interview Tomas Halik in such a primitive manner.
I have plenty of points to make ("God is a person"?), but I will cut it short - there is probably no evidence for God's existence, thats why christians are talking about faith (although Descartes' proof for the existence of God is still very interesting), but thinking that natural disasters proove God does not exist is a bit arrogant and lacks basic understanding of Christianity as a religion.
If you define the God as a person that grants wishes, then yes, you can argue that such person does not exist because otherwise there would be no natural disasters. But this is simplistic thinking. In my hubmble opinion you should first read some of Tomas Halik's work, before you start to argue with him against God's existence on this cheap basis.
Tomas Novotny Yes, God is defined as a person, not a human person, but a divine or supernatural person.
There is evidence for God’s existence, but it is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that he probably or definitely exists.
To claim I am being arrogant or lack understanding is not an argument; it is more like an ad hominem attack. If you think you have a rebuttal to my argument, then please present it.
It’s not merely about granting wishes. If God did exist, he would NOT grant wishes that he act in an unethical manner, but he WOULD grant wishes that he act in an ethical manner. If fact, he would act ethically even without being asked to do so.
I’ve just read some of Tomas Halik’s work - his responses to questions in the video! Cheap basis? So far, you haven’t presented any rebuttal of my argument and have only cast aspersions. If you wish to defend Halik’s position, then try to rebut my argument, and we can go from there. But please don’t waste peoples’ time with this kind of “hit and run” behavior.
1. Sorry for claiming your opinion was arrogant. I should be more polite.
2. Please provide source for your satement that God is defined as a person.
3. Why do you think you know what God would do? (See, this approach is where I saw arrogancy in your orignal post, and it also is 100% rebuttal of your argument).
Disclaimer: Im not a fanatical christian and I dont even visit church. Im more fond of philosophy than religion. I just had to argue with you at least this briefly, because the obvious oversimplification of your argument provoked me to it.
Tomas Novotny 1. Thank you for being sorry.
2. There are many sources for my statement that God is defined as a person, but here are a few: 1) the Bible, 2) the Quran, 3) Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. 4) Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. 5) Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. 6) Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. All of these sources either explicitly or implicitly define God as a person. Or just go ask a hundred randomly selected people off the street to define God. Most will specifically say or imply that God is a person.
3. I think I know what God would do by thinking seriously and rationally about what would be the case or what would not be the case (i.e. what we would observe or not observe in the world), if something existed which corresponded to the modal definition of God. According to the argument I presented, if God existed, he would have PREVENTED the 2014 Oso Mudslide from occurring. If you think otherwise, then explain and defend.
Thanks for your disclaimer. I presented my argument in the simplest possible form. I can make it more complex if anyone offers a promising rebuttal. So far, nobody has, and I have read a lot of attempts.
If you believe that God exists, then you should really relinquish that belief if you are unable to provide a good rebuttal of my argument. Please try. I might learn something new.
"If God existed, he would have PREVENTED the 2014 Oso Mudslide from occurring."
Sorry, but repeating this sentence over and over in different variations can hardly be called an argument. There were much deeper and more intelligent analysis regarding God's existence or inexistence that are way more worth discussing than this childish "God would not allow that" type of talks (no offence intended, honestly). Not a single one closed the case, and therefore the existence or inexistence of God is as of now a matter of belief, not a matter of proof.
I'm fond of philosophy and I always enjoy a good discussion, this is not one though. We both presented our opinions and any independent reader may decide what he thinks, but there is no progress toward consensus so far and I don't expect it, so we should just end it right there.
Btw. there is one question that I have trouble with and that might be related: "Why anything at all exists in the first place?"
Best regards.
This guy is one of the most insufferable self satisfied passive agressive pseudointellectuals out there...
Have you read him? Or your opinion is based on this 'interview' only and his particular way of speaking in english? I wouldn't consider him a pseudointellectual at all.
This man is a horrible liar...
This 'philosopher' tells atheists he speaks to that they are not interacting with his notion of God (implying that it is a better notion of God) and then presumes to argue with big philosophical arguments like the argument from evil and the argument fron Devine hiddenness without engaging with the strongest versions of it. After that he speaks about the importance of being consistent.... Does this man not have any ability to reflect on his own statements?