More logical proof that Noah's Ark is just another Bible Lie Jan 3, 2017 17:02:05 GMT 10
Post by pim on Jan 3, 2017 17:02:05 GMT 10
Now, obviously it is a common delusion, spanning tens of thousands of years.
I shared the Christian delusion myself for some years.
Many people have decided, given all the available evidence for and against, that "gods" are not real. I'm one of those who have decided that all gods, including the "one" I used to believe in are in fact false.
But again, this "argument" will never end ... there is no "proof" either way. All I can offer is that the weight of evidence is in favour of gods being an invention of humans.
I am convinced that evolution is real, hence humans are not in my view, a "special" animal that is the only animal "designed" for the sole purpose of having a conversation with an imagined "creator" being.
Will atheism eventually dominate within the human species? Who knows?
We can look back over history and see numerous "gods" come and go ... how long will the "god" of Christianity / Islam remain in the belief system of humans? Who knows?
Perhaps that belief will remain until human extinction. Perhaps other gods will be invented, or perhaps theism will die out completely.
I do think human extinction is inevitable, so perhaps theism will end at that time.
I think you've answered Occam's challenge to provide a "defensible" reason for atheism in the sense that you could "defend" the case that you make in your post. Mind you I don't think you've made the definitive knock-'em-out-of-the-ballpark case for atheism that would win you a Nobel prize for philosophy (is there such an award?) but that wasn't Occam's challenge. I agree with you - what agnostic wouldn't! - that nothing can be proved either way and I think that your implied argument that if you're going to talk about "proof" then the onus of proof lies with the theists is a fair debating point. Providing you don't just leave it at that! I hate the word "theist" and I try to avoid it as much as possible. But that's another debate. Back to the "onus of proof" argument: personally I think it shares the same weakness as Occam's "first cause" argument for the existence of God. Just as Occam's "first cause" (actually it was Thomas Aquinas who first put forward that argument but let's not quibble) is really an argument for a "God of the (scientific) gaps", the "onus of proof" argument against the existence of God is essentially the same argument in reverse. The one is the flip side of the other. Where both arguments end up being sterile and fruitless for me is that each one assumes that it's a scientific question and I think it goes far far deeper. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - or mine for that matter, or anyone's.
Having said that, I reject utterly the notion that religious faith is "delusional". You're entitled to disagree with religious faith and indeed to reject it out of hand. But that doesn't entitle you to sneer at people of faith that they are "delusional". Was Martin Luther King Jr "delusional"? Desmond Tutu? Friedrich Bonhoeffer? Sophie Scholl? Mahatma Gandhi? Cardinal Mindszenty? Or for that matter Pope John Paul 2? Billy Graham? I don't necessarily agree with all of these people or even admire them. The last two in particular I have decidedly mixed feelings about! But they were/are (I think two of them are still alive) all people of great intelligence and depth. All of them exercised a lot of influence over their fellow human beings - in a good way - and the wellspring of this power and influence was their religious faith. In several of the above cases their faith necessitated suffering - even death. You don't have to agree with them. And no their lives don't provide the type of testimony that would make an atheist change his mind. But don't call them "delusional". That’s hubris of the worst sort.