Source Entry #2 & #3

Source Entry #2
Ahmed, Subboor, et al., directors. Call in Live – Is Atheism Rational? 2.0 | Hamza Tzortzis, Mohammed Hijab , Imran &Subboor, 10 June 2020, m.youtube.com/watch?v=R41KwQs0S44.
The video is titled “Is Atheism Rational?”, the format of the discussion is that 3 speakers will speak on this topic for twenty minutes and then for the rest hour and ten minutes callers can call in, ask questions and further discuss their stance on rejecting a creator. In the first twenty minutes the speakers discuss briefly about atheism leading to Nihilism and how atheism is irrational. The topics discussed by the callers and speakers were as follows: finding meaning in life, reasons for denying a Creator, suffering in life, having faith and empirical evidence for God. The main point of the discussion is that atheism doesn’t make any sense and there are many contradictions in this worldview, the most important points were responses to the questions the callers had which was about having a purpose in their lives, why people suffer? And is there empirical evidence for God.
Throughout the whole discussion, the speakers thoroughly broke down the arguments brought forth by the callers for their disbelief in a Creator. They analyzed the questions and tried to evoke curiousity within the callers to rethink their stances and whether their questions are a justification of their disbelief in a Creator. I agree with the views of the three speakers because of how they responded to the questions put forth by the atheist callers. For example one of the discussions about empirical evidence for God went like this:                                                          Karlos Jeffers: “I consider myself an atheist because I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence for a God… I think for me empirical data is definitely the most reliable method we have at getting at reality and getting at the truth for the natural world.”                       Subboor Ahmed: “You said the most important type of evidence to you is empirical, but that is very problematic because obviously you value truth and you came here and you want to know the truth but there is no empirical verification for truth, that’s actually a value judgement that has nothing to do with empirical data.”      Yusuf Ponders: “There is just a really quick example for the issue of asking empirical evidence for God, so imagine you create a computer game and there is intelligent life and they live in this virtual world and one of them asks for evidence that they were created by something but they are demanding that the only evidence that you give them is stuff found within the computer game, how will the find the one that made the computer game within the computer?… There is an issue with the assumption that if there is a creator of the universe the evidence would necessarily have to be empirical.”

What I don’t understand is why do atheists reject a creator and the resons they provide are not worthy of being reasons to deny a Creator. While I was doing research for a second source most of the videos I came across had atheists denying God because of emotional reasons or because of what their faith teaches to them, I couldn’t find atheists that had a problem with believing in a Creator without alluding to certain practices of their religion. I wish I could find a source that says “belief in a Creator is unnatural” or a study done on children who do not believe in a Creator from their birth onwards and live that way in denial of a creator. This livestream footage from Youtube tells me that people do deny a Creator and the reasons are that they have been let down by God at some point and time, they need clear cut evidence for a Creator or they have suffered in life and this should not happen to them because the Creator should not let them suffer. Also the source tells me that there are responses to these questions and sometimes there are rebuttals sometimes there aren’t any. The genre is an educational one where neither side is attacking the other side, but each side is presenting their point of view on wheter a creator exists or not. This is a good genre for presenting both the theists and atheists viewpoints because everyone can share their thought after each point is made. Whereas in debates the other side might avoid answering certain questions. The only issue with the source is that somewhat could argue that the atheist callers are random people or lay atheists who have not studied atheism or philosophy and are not credible people on the subject. The credentials of the speakers are as follows: Yusuf Ponders: 1st class BA in Philosophy Subboor Ahmed: MA Philosophy, PHD Candidate Hamza Tzortzis: MRes,MA and a PgCert in Philosophy
One of the quotes that exemplified the whole discussion was “This is why in my view, atheism by its default is something that will always contradict itself.”~Hamza Tzortzis. This is what the speakers were trying to do throughout the discussion, which was to point out contradictions in the concept that the universe did not have a creator.

Source Entry #3
Tzortzis, Hamza Andreas. The Divine Reality: God, Islam & the Mirage of Atheism. Lion Rock Publishing, 2019.
In the fourth chapter of this book titled, Self-Evident – Why Atheism Is Unnatural the author writes about why belief in a Creator is self evident and disbelief in a Creator is unnatural. He starts by giving an example of a person who disbelieves in the past, he compares the reality of the past to belief in a Creator. He outlines characteristics of self evident truths, explains them and connects them with belief in a Creator. He also explores the counterargument of atheism being a self evident truth. He finishes the chapter by delving into Islamic beliefs about God being self evident. The main point of the chapter was to prove that belief in a Creator is self evident and rooted in every person. The most important points were when the author connected the four characteristics of self-evident truths which are universal, untaught, natural and intuitive to belief in a Creator. The author expands on these characteristics and provides evidence to support his claim. The author uses the following studies to support his claim: Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Professor Deborah Kelemen, research by Elisa Järnefelt, Caitlin F. Canfield and Deborah Kelemen, titled The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults and Justin Barrett’s research in his book, Born believers: the science of children’s religious belief. The author uses evidence from these studies and explains that belief in a creator is universal, untaught, natural and intuitive. Hence he concludes that belief in a Creator is self-evident and natural.
The evidence the author presents is thoroughly explained and he successfully points out the similarties between belief in a Creator and a self-evident truth. I agree with everything the author has to say as he does not hold this belief on mere assumption but also provides evidences for it. For example when explaining that belief in a Creator is natural the author uses a study done by Justin Barrett who has done looked at the behavior and claims of children. The author quotes from his book “Born believers: the science of children’s religious belief”, “This tendency to see function and purpose, plus an understanding that purpose and order come from minded beings, makes children likely to see natural phenomena as intentionally created. Who is the Creator? Children know people are not good candidates. It must have been a God… children are born believers of what I call natural religion…” The question I have after reading the chapter is, what responses do atheists have when presented with these evidences? This chapter has been clear and concise in explaining how belief in a Creator is self evident. If I could say something to the author it would be to provide arguments from the atheists about the claims the author makes and the evidences he has brought forth.

When the author presented the atheists’ perspective he states “Some atheists argue that atheism is true by default. However, the rejection of a cause or a creator is not self-evident. Although atheism is now also a universal position (and may have been since the beginning of recorded history), it is taught and is counter-intuitive. People have to learn to reject the concept of a creator or cause for things” the author did not delve very deep into the atheists claim that atheism is self-evidently true, but he just scratched the surface and explained that people need information transfer to deny a creator. This document says that atheists deny a Creator for different reasons but not by being born into disbelieving in a Creator, they have to learn in order to disbelieve in a Creator. The author is appealing to both theists and atheists, he aims to educate both parties on how the belief in a Creator is self evident. He provides examples and evidences while explaining his position. He also provides reasoning and shows the similarities between the characteristics of self-evident truth and belief in a Creator. The author has MRes,MA and a PgCert in Philosophy. He has also debated prominent atheists like Lawrence Krauss, Professor Peter Simons, Dan Barker and Professor Simon Blackburn.
This quote statement by the author exemplifies the documents claims that belief in a creator is something that is self-evident and disbelieve in a Creator is a position that is taken up later on because of further information acquired by a person.“The atheist may respond by saying that there are alternative explanations for the origins and nature of the universe. This is true. However, these explanations are not self-evident. They are not the default; they are acquired positions. As mentioned previously, in order to reject what is considered self-evident, one must provide evidence. I am not dismissing alternative explanations for the existence of the cosmos, I am merely pointing out what is the default position. Since the basic idea of a creator is true by default, the first question we should ask is: What evidence do we have to reject the existence of a creator?” (Page 91)