Clownfish,

Very interesting paper I read it last year, however it's useful to read it again. His last paragraph says it all, really.
I wouldn't bother with either hypothesis until the theists establish the existence of 'God'.


weareunique,

Well it's a free country,so people's belief systems are fair game,otherwise we would still be under the long night of Christian theocracy wouldn't we?

If only atheism didn't have a name,it's often pointed out that no one is 'a-Roman gods' or 'a-Greek gods' or 'a-scientology'.

Crabsy,

You are simply attacking strawman after strawman.

You wrongly attribute “Scientism” to me when I have made no absolutist statements; I have not demanded that logical-empiricism be the sole arbiter of truth and decisions of any importance.

All I have said is that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is [so far] the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth given what we currently know (“...given what we currently know”, being the operative words.) and that anyone who rejects this, or bases a belief so life changing and influential to how we perceive reality as a religious belief, has no respect for their beliefs being as close to the truth as possible.

You have not yet provided me with any reasoning as to why I am wrong.

You introduce red herrings such as “values”, “relationships” and “emotions” into the discussion as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, when you know we’re talking about the existence/non-existence of god.

God may be “values”, “relationships”, “emotions” or “imagination” to you, and if he is, then great, but we already have words for these things.

If you see these things as just a pathway to the truth, then sure, like a lucky guess, a suspicion or the toss of a coin, it may get you there. But these methods have not proven themselves to be the most reliable pathway.

Now of course, like anyone, there are going to be some beliefs I hold that are not based empirical observation and in most cases, these beliefs won’t have any great effect on me or distort how I view reality. But in any situation where I can exercise a choice as to whether or not I accept a claim - particularly claims that alter my perception of reality - then I will acknowledge the fact that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the most reliable pathway to making that decision.

You’re suggestion that Scientism could actually be capable of turning the world’s population into emotionless, unimaginative drones with no values, is pure hyperbole.

No amount of indoctrination could do that.

David,

<You are postulating a god exists>

Incorrect- I have not postulated that here.

<There is no point going off into waffle-land about absence of evidence etc because that is only a defensive position, not an affirmative one>

You are talking about evidence where it suits you and avoiding the discussion where it suits you. If you are not willing to consider what type of evidence you would expect to see in the case that God does exist, then that’s fine, the discussion will end there because that suggests to me that you aren’t willing to reflect deeply and thoughtfully about these issues. It suggests an unwillingness to critically think about the subject.

I am willing to talk about evidence but only after establishing what kind of evidence should be expected- that is the foundation on which the whole discussion takes place.

<These other diversions you bring up are a result of a closeted religious mind>

Baseless! I have a closeted mind? That’s a baseless assertion if ever I heard one! I have been listening, considering and responding to every point you’ve been making. Have you done the same?

<That’s ok to think that way if you will, but don’t expect others to go down that road without evidence>

That’s OK David, I am in the majority. The vast majority of humanity accepts the existence of a God or Gods and thus affirms that something supernatural exists. And may I suggest that it is arrogant of you to argue that none of them have any evidence for that?

(tbc)

<BTW, universally accepted evidence is somewhat similar to the law of gravity where every one on the planet who understands it has the same view>

But there is very little evidence about anything that everyone interprets in exactly the same way. If you chose to base your life on “universally accepted evidence”, using your definition then your life would become unliveable. There is no universally accepted evidence for which insurance policy you take out, there’s no universally accepted evidence for where you should take a holiday and there’s no universally accepted evidence which makes it clear who you should marry. Everyone on the planet who understands the evidences on these issues do not always agree about these things. Someone might see the same evidence and get a different insurance policy, or visit a different place, or someone might be in an almost identical relationship and choose not to get married because they are less willing to commit. So if most things in life come without universally accepted evidence, then why should worldviews and religious beliefs be any different?

In other words, it sounds to me like you want certainty, but uncertainty is an inevitable part of being human

Hi Peter King, thanks for joining the conversation.

One thing you said is particularly thought provoking to both myself and a lot of other people so I’d like to comment on it.

<If a God can:

* allow endless suffering amongst the poor of the world where millions die from famine, war and disease>

<then this is a God with an evil streak that I have no real interest in worshiping.>

I have a question for you- does God allow billions of people to be in poverty and famine in 3rd world countries, or do humans allow poverty and famine in 3rd world countries?

There are enough resources in the world that if we all acted with compassion towards the poorest of the poor as God commands us to do, then there would hardly be any poor at all.

I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet but this is relevant to my point so I’ll share it- I’ve been personally sponsoring 2 children for a number of years. Well, 1.5- one on my own for a long time and more recently another together with my partner. If everyone in Australia sponsored 1.5 children on average, there would be about 30 million less famined children in the world. If everyone in the United States sponsored 1.5 children on average there’d be 450 million less famined children in the world.

God has created a world where there are enough resources for everyone, so perhaps it’s human selfishness which is to blame. Is it really fair to blame God for poverty if God has endowed us with the ability to do something about it, and yet we refuse to do so?

(to be continued)

Regarding the more general issue of evil and natural disasters and the like, I do have some thoughts on the issue. I don’t claim to have a completely satisfactory response for you (I don’t claim to have slam dunk answers to each and every issue, I am simply an ordinary person who maintains that it is possible to be a rational, reflective person and reasonably believe in God and that there are people in this boat). My thoughts are- I’m skeptical of our ability to know God’s intentions and to completely understand God’s nature (as opposed to having knowledge of his existence), I’m comforted by the fact that God (The Christian one), if he exists which I believe he does, understands suffering more than anyone else because he suffered a humiliating and excruciating death on the cross, and I wonder whether the existence of evil actually shows us that there is a moral realm.

AJ Phillips, I just noticed your two posts today, after I’d already written my above two posts. Not sure how I missed them! You’ve raised some good points so I do think it likely you’ll hear from me shortly