Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boogster
You and others seem preoccupied with this misinterpretation of 'faith', and persist in placing it in opposition to 'empirical reasoning', 'evidence', 'proof'. I would argue that you misuse the word 'proof' in this context. For example, empirical reasoning in science is based upon judgements of probability rather than certainty: 'scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain' (McGrath, Dawkins' God, 2005). And science is clearly not infallible. I mean, what was all that stuff with ether about? At the end of the 19th century phycisists were insisting that there was nothing more to be done in their field.
Religious belief is a essentially akin to a moral judgement. The question of whether God exists lies beyond demonstrative proof. It is more like the question of whether democracy is better than totalitarianism. This is itself no reason to dismiss any conclusion. It is still possible to make a rational judgement.
Do you ever question the things you believe in? You cannot disprove the existance of God. Nor can you explain the origin of the universe. How is faith in a God any more irrational than atheism, for example? To pass from agnosticism to aetheism is as much a leap of faith as religious belief.
|
I find it disturbing how you can misuse so many perfectly rational ideas in a few poorly written paragraphs.
the keystone answer to your house of cards is "what's wrong with agnosticism?" and it's cousin "why aren't you an agnostic?"