Antiseptic,

As you know, I agree with much of what you are saying (and am grateful for your, sometimes quite original, insights). In particular, with

>> the sort of cognitive leaps that created all of the great paradigmatic changes in rationalist thought and in scientific endeavour are not explicable by any of the empirically grounded approaches<<

in its generality of “paradigmatic changes in rationalist thought”. However, I would rather not mix the epistemologically rather straightforward representation of physical reality through Einstein’s relativity theory (the case of quantum physics is much more complicated but still remaining within the scopes of philosophy of science, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#264007) with the problem of God which is certainly beyond the scopes of philosophy of science.

You mention empiricism. So may I suggest Bas C. Van Fraassen, considered the father of “constructive empiricism”, developed into what he now calls “empiricist structuralism” in his recent book "Scientific Representations: Paradoxes of Perspective" (Clarendon Press 2010). It looks like Van Fraasen understands recent physical theories and the epistemological perplexities associated with them, better than most other philosophers. I was fascinated by the apparent relevance of his “constructive empiricism” to the philosophically much less sophisticated “model-dependent realism” of Hawking and Mlodinow (see my www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464).

I own the book, and I can tell you, it is not an easy book to understand, but I guess you are much younger than I, with a philosophical background unlike myself, so you would have a better chance of understanding Van Fraassen.

Well these things are directly unrelated to the question of God, but it may be worth noting that here a prominent physicist, who is an atheist, seems to be finding common language with a prominent philosopher of science, an adult convert to Catholicism.

Antiseptic,

I suspect you've had relatively little experience with theists.

<<I think you're generalising from extremes and you're also projecting.>>

I was a theist for half my life. I attended your average, run-of-the-mill church; surrounding myself with my fellow theists, and let me tell you, you don't have morning tea after church every Sunday, and attend Bible study every Tuesday night, for years on end, then debate them for just as many, without gaining some insight into how your average theist thinks. So I don't appreciate these suggestions that are levied at me from time-to-time here that I'm attacking some sort of a caricature.

<<The point about cognitive leaps is that they are rarely evidently true to those who don't experience them.>>

Maybe so, but your analogy comparing religious belief with the journeys of Einstein et al, when they made their discoveries, was still entirely false. Further to what I said before, too, is the fact that a theist's conclusion is usually arrived at in the same step that the leap is taken.

<<I have moved recently from a confirmed atheist position to a provisional theist one due to some experiences that I have had.>>

I'd believe that. The way you say, "confirmed atheist" is reminiscent of Kirk Cameron's absurd, "devout atheist".

<<...what makes you believe I am prone to hallucination?>>

The very fact that you're human. Our brains are prone to hallucination. You may have developed temporal lobe epilepsy for all you know. There are many rational explanations, so why would you jump to the supernatural one before you rule them out?

<<...I was equipped with a different sensorium, cognitive and perceptive capacity...>>

Which is exactly why we use evidence and reasoned argument, based on logical absolutes, to determine the truth of what we perceive. It's the only reliable method we have given what we currently know. And even if you were to discover another method, how would you demonstrate its reliability without evidence? It all comes back to evidence.

<<Not all things are empirically determinable.>>

Sure, but that's not a licence to just make things up.

Antiseptic,

"The evolutionary psychological approach begs the question, mac. It doesn't examine whether there may be a God,"

It doesn't actually "beg the question", the evolutionary approach explains why the human search for "explanations" and acceptance of authority, leads to religious belief i.e we assume the existence of entities for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. For thousands of years people "knew" that the weather was controlled by gods and that the only possible explanation for speciation was divine intervention, we now know better.

"However, whether religious belief has independent validity is a separate issue which the evolutionary psychological approach doesn't address as far as I can tell."

Of course that's not the business of science.

"I have lived a different life to you and I was equipped with a different sensorium, cognitive and perceptive capacity to you."

That's a significant observation, perhaps it would help if I explained my own experience. I was educated at a Presbyterian Grammar school, however, despite 6 years of Christian education, I can't remember ever, as an adult, being a believer, I just don't have the "genes" for religion. There was no long, arduous, intellectual path to atheism in my case.

I've had a "numinous" experience, however I attribute it to brain chemistry when I was recovering from a severe migraine.You're entitled to undertake any spiritual journey you chose, I only object when believers try to impose their beliefs on the infidels. If there is a God, he/she/or it, must be either a total sadistic bastard or completely uninterested in humanity.

"God meets a different standard of proof"

Not in my universe...

But, being generous, I am prepared to say that God avoids any standards of proof bar one.

That is, a proof which is wholly intrinsic to the individual who believes it acceptable.

Just ask a religious monomaniac. After all, there are no shortages of Jesus's alive - some of whom are still taking their medication.

Upon my soul I can't think of any proof of god(s) which is extrinsic.

mac's quote<<..If there is a God, he/she/or it, must be either a total sadistic bastard or completely uninterested in humanity..>> shows that teaching creed..is a dis-service to god.[the blind leading the blinded]

im thus perhaps fortunate..that i was raised atheist
that my first teachings..was of the science..that when i validated for myself..science decietes..i was prepared to search thus for..*the true cause.

and saw by my own efforts..through the veil of ignorance
the vile-fruits of blind faith..in peers..that i thus too saw through the peers of faith..not as if they..lol..were the god head [end] not way to god

thus when i applied science rigor in reading the many holy texts..of the many of gods messengers..i did so knowing i have their works plus words of their experience of the great god

eg if jesus..doing miracles/peter/the pope
mary baker eddie swedenberg/luther etc and all xtians..would be doing..'as they saw christ do..

but the true miracle..is life/living..
earth/heavens nature/emotion love selflessness/service to other..

and so many other goods..we can give to other..
either too ignorant..or deaf/dumb/blind dead of mind's
that simply dont have awareness of thoughts that will occur to UN-selfish minds

jesus said the mind of a servant is key
he himself denied 'miracles'..]ie any serv-ant..*when told [by a guest]..to serve their masters GUESS..handwash/toilet water..would ignore that suggestion..and serve the masters..'best wine'..rather than..loose face*..[the canna wedding 'mirtacle'

ditto the 2 de miracle..[a teaching re the dangers of blind faith]
where the key is to sit the creed deceived opposite each-other..

*ENSURING none would eat..
lest they get dobbed on..to the priest
lest they get cast out as 'unclean'..

[at the time a skin blemish was considered unclean..[many of jesus miracles were simply him..stating the bleeding obvious..that bruise isnt leprosy..that man isnt dead..god is love..love god by loving[not judging]..neighbor

[at the time the creed of eating REQUIRED..7 handwash jars..one then*..didnt eat with unclean hands..thus did 4000..'eat all they wished..[ps the increase came via others giving food

MY athiest/SCIENCE BASE..saw through the creed
helped my find the prime causer.,.the collective good...G_D

Richard claims to be promoting "serious" philosophy. In Truth & Reality Richard and his fellow travelers at the Centre for Pubic Christianity havent even begun to do or practice serious philosophy and serious adult necessarily Spiritual Religion.

The proposing of traditional "religious" myths and illusions may have a limited function in the nursery-room domain of childhood - but the world of truly and responsibly adult life requires a mature and truly civilized culture, founded in Reality Itself.
The fear based ego-bound fixed ideas of "creationist" religionists are direct projections/extensions of a childish, even infantile, state of mind and emotion. A state of mind/emotion that appeals to its moomy-daddy-good-luck Santa Klaus parental deity to provide it with a constant supply of "goodies" and to protect it from the ever present threat of the big-bad-wolf, better known as death.

That having been said the various references available at this site provide a radical critique of conventional philosophy whether secular or so called religious.
http://www.beezone.com/verbal_mind.html
http://www.beezone.com/whiteandorangeproject/index.html

Richard also claims/pretends that there is ample "proof" for the "truth" claims of Christian-ISM. In Truth & Reality there are none, as this essay points. It describes the fabricated origins and institutional power-and-control-seeking POLITICAL purposes of "official" Christian-ISM
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
Also
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
http://global.adidam.org/truth-book/true-spiritual-practice-4.html