Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> GEORGE: [i]To believe that life and heredity were fashioned by chance and natural processes does not require faith, it is apparent from the evidence. Because the exact mechanisms are not known and have not yet been reproduced synthetically is irrelevant. To suppose that there was some sort of supernatural intervention in the process is what requires faith.[/i]-[b]Exact [/b]mechanisms....not [b]yet [/b]been reproduced...George, you are a master of subtly misleading nuances. I&apos;m surprised that our ignorance of the mechanisms and our inability to reproduce them should be regarded as irrelevant. I&apos;d say it&apos;s precisely because of our ignorance that belief requires faith. However, congratulations on your discovery of evidence that chance is capable of assembling these mind-bogglingly complex mechanisms (even though we are not). This should be reported at once to the Nobel committee. Meanwhile, you are quite right that belief in supernatural intervention requires faith. I don&apos;t see the relevance of that to your own creed.-Rosenbaum says (erroneously in my view) that atheists are certain they will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. George doesn&apos;t understand what he means by "universe" or "came into existence" because R. "[i]raises it as a problem in philosophy not physics[/i]". Why does the origin of the universe become an incomprehensible term in a philosophical context? In any case, what makes you think he is using "how" (and even "why") philosophically? I took this as a reference to the whole process of cause and effect.-Rosenbaum accepts most of New Atheism&apos;s criticism of religious bad behaviour over the centuries, and of theology. George thinks that makes him an atheist. I have pointed out that even religious bodies have criticized their own bad behaviour and can&apos;t agree on many theological issues.  GEORGE: [i]The New Atheists maintain that theology is a vacuous subject[/i].  Rosenbaum said that as an agnostic he accepts " [i]MOST of the New Atheist&apos;s criticism[/i]". Maybe he wouldn&apos;t go so far as to accept "vacuous". Only he can tell us. But his acceptance of the rest still doesn&apos;t make him an atheist.-GEORGE: [i]There is pretty general consensus that Thor and Eros don&apos;t exist except as personifications of natural forces. So why can we not also come to the same conclusions about Jehovah and Vishnu?[/i]-You wrote this in response to my claim that "reasonable" certainty cannot be attained as regards the existence or non-existence of God, since there is no consensus. As an atheist, you believe that Jehovah / Vishnu do not exist; Jews and Hindus believe that they do. I can&apos;t answer your question, but the very fact that you ask it confirms that there is no such thing as reasonable certainty on the subject.