After reading the synopsis, I’d hoped young Josh Wheaton, played by Shane Harper, would present his challenge to Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) slowly enough that I could take notes, but as the theater was dark, legible notes wouldn’t have been very practical. Practically speaking, though, Josh didn’t present any arguments that I hadn’t already heard. I only wish I could have presence of mind to face opposition with such clarity and forthrightness.
Sorbo’s accurate portrayal of atheists’ typical, condescending attitude toward people of faith revealed a lot about their claims of open-mindedness and free-thinking. Of course, all academic atheists aren’t as elitist as those portrayed in the movie. On the ledger’s other side, Professor Radisson’s convenient confession of God-hatred offered Josh an easy summation for his persuasive case. In fiction-writing practice, that’s called, “the hand-of-God” escape for an otherwise hopeless situation. But, I guess, expecting anything more realistic would be unrealistic.
That leads me to an interesting contrast between bitterly militant atheists, and those who honestly have no hatred for God because they don’t acknowledge the possibility of his existence. They simply can’t see any compelling reason to accept it. Typically, they refuse to consider even the remotest possibility of a supernatural component in life, preferring rather to place their faith in Science to ultimately provide natural explanations for everything. That, however, begs the question of what is “natural,” and what transcends it as “supernatural.”
There’s nothing “scientific” about all those so-called scientific proofs for God’s non-existence. Though I seldom take the liberty of making absolute statements that I cannot prove, I will venture to label all such “proofs” as pseudo-science. By contrast, true science is simply the process of inquiry that seeks repeatable observations of phenomena, to establish reliable conclusions about them. Interpretation of such conclusions is another matter entirely.
If we look into the scientifically regrettable history of scientific inquiry, we can find innumerable examples of “scientific law” that new discoveries rescinded. In view of the fact that such “new discoveries” materialized through the application of new observational technologies, how can any reasonable scientist presume that future technological developments will not render the “supernatural,” perfectly natural. In other words, what atheists call “magical hocus-pocus,” will eventually become mundane.
God’s Not Dead is anything but a comprehensive proof that God is, though it makes a competent stab at establishing the reasonable possibility that he exists. And once established, can anyone afford to ignore it?