Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: I will bite
And here I thought my presentation was so complete that no dispute was possible.
You start with an incredibly provocative statement without the least evidentiary or argumentative support; you've begged the entire issue. Where is the ample evidence of 'entities without scientific basis' e.g., angels, demons, etc.? Either they exist and you have some means by which you know it, in which case the scientific basis is given by the fact of your knowing, or they are speculative, in which case Occam's Razor would tend to dispense with said entities.
Your further assumptions about the nature of spiritual disputants and there necessarily only being two sides in the conflict [the existence of which you've begged] is similarly lacking in any evidence or argumentative weight whatsoever.
Next, if you believe that some metaphysical problem exists with matter existing eternally, you've failed to state what that problem is and why it wouldn't apply to any given deity. I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.
The fact that your argument re: first causes leads to an infinite regression of proof should also sound an alarm to you. If the nature of existence is such that existing things must be created, your point is not merely about physics, but about all which exists, including a deity. If at least one thing can exist which is not created, the burden lies upon you to prove why matter is not one such thing. You have proof that subatomic particles must be created and must be created by a sentient being? What is that proof?
The regress is the hallmark of invalid logic, while the utter lack of evidence is a hallmark of an unsound starting premise.
It is not faith which leads me to doubt the supernatural, it is the purported definition of the term 'supernatural' and the utter inability of anyone who advocates the existence of such to be able to produce it. I'll take a pragmatic stance here ala Charles Peirce. I need a reason for a radical program of disbelief as much as I would need one for a radical set of beliefs. My reason for disbelieving the supernatural is lack of experience, the inability of others to reproduce their experience and my own experience of people who tell untruths.
Finally, you misunderstood my claims about religion and ethics. They hold true even for a Christianity unconcerned with good works. The source of moral authority still lies in God in such a metaphysical scheme whether or not you include the concept of divine grace and asking sincerely for forgiveness of sins. In fact, moral authority inheres all the more strongly in the deity in such a setup as only the deity's 'grace' allows us to overcome our inherent sinfulness and to redeem our naughty ways.
How would you differentiate a faith in that kind of deity vs. faith in a deity who will reward you for killing a busload of nuns and yourself? How do you weigh the dichotomous moral commands if your standard of proof for a moral authority amounts to belief in the absence of any evidence?
RSS
I will bite
I identify two strong considerations:
First, There is ample evidence to suggest there are entities which have no real scientific basis (at least not yet). Ghosts, aliens, demons, angels, and the like are all well documented by people who have experienced them directly or indirectly. Perhaps there are just millions and millions of gullible people. Perhaps such entities are just another branch of our kingdoms in biological taxonomy but we have difficulty harnessing evidence. The safest assumption we can make at this point is the one they already imply: a spiritual one. Further, there is evidence that there is conflict between these entities (take exorcisms for example) suggesting that there probably is a head of either side (God and Satan) (otherwise, why would there be conflict? How do they know what side they identify with?)
Second, and more strongly I believe, we have evidence that everything that exists in the universe has a first cause. The big bang explains how everything got here, but there is nothing to explain how these sub-atomic particles have reached their "at big bang" state. I suggest that a god of some sort put them there, but everyone argues "who put God there?" My response is that we have no evidence to suggest that God (if there is one) is subject to the same rules we observe on matter.
On these points (and a few others), I identify my religious grounds, but they will not work for everyone. Certainly my faith cannot, in any way, be considered superior to any other school of thought. Do bear in mind that failure to agree with either rationality above implies you already have a faith (religion perhaps?) in the opposite. That is, that these things have more correct reasoning (say through science and observation), but we as humans have not found it yet. These people believe religion is not sufficient to reconcile them. In either case, the "believer" or "non-believer" both have faith in something that cannot be proved with no level of rationality. That is: "Religion can explain it" or "Science will explain it". Neither side can say with any absolute truth that their position is more correct. The suggestion that science will somehow explain what we don't know is just as valid as religion does explain what we don't know. Both are rather volatile positions. For all we know, the truth can swing either way.
At any rate, I do want to address this sentence:
All religions I have encountered basically boil down to a system of authoritarian ethics mainly relying upon the commandments of some deity for the grounding of moral prescriptions.
Christianity, although often misrepresented in that way, actually teaches that salvation is yours whether you disobey (or disobeyed) the rules it defines or not. Rather it is a gift to you, and your response to this gift defines how committed you are to accepting it. This is the concept of grace. If you make a mistake, redemption is still yours as long as it was a mistake and you are sorry for it. If it's on purpose, it is clear you do not really accept the grace given to you - perhaps a clear rejection of it.
I recommend familiarizing yourself with the following concepts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas
before pawning off all religions as win or lose authoritarian ethic systems.
View Full Discussion