Get E-Mail Updates

willbus

History

Member for
18 weeks 4 days

Comments

Date Comment Source View
01/24/2012 - 12:32pm

The quote you chose (and hopefully the entirety of my posts) presumes that truth is NOT relative. Some truths are difficult to find, and not every question that is asked is a useful or answerable question, but truth is certainly not arbitrarily relative. If you believe the term "Kingdom of God" means the gradual rise of something like greater empathy, liberal enlightenment values, and representative government, then I hope the "Kingdom of God" comes soon (in your sense). You are using the phrase "Kingdom of God" in a very particular way, however.

I think it's safe to say that most Americans do not believe that's what it means. Or they believe that the implementation of those things is necessarily accompanied by a belief in the supernatural claims of the Bible. For the sake of clarity, wouldn't the phrases "social justice" or "advancement of human rights" work better? They're not as tangled up with problematic and divisive supernatural beliefs.

 Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God view
01/19/2012 - 1:05pm

Glad to hear that your choice has led to those positive social outcomes. And while I would NEVER denigrate that, the fact that you behave a particular way because of a belief is not evidence that the belief is true. I may be a moral person because I believe in the revelation of Muhammad, but that's not evidence that the revelation is true. It is only evidence that a particular belief has particular effects on my behavior.

 Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God view
01/18/2012 - 12:25pm

Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it and I'd like to respectfully disagree:

The sort of fundamentalist, strong atheism that you reject in this article seems to be a straw-man. Technically everyone is necessarily agnostic about the "God hypothesis." One reason for this (and a problem with the hypothesis itself) is that an operational definition of the term "God" is rarely provided. What does God do? What is its proposed function? What would we expect to see if the God hypothesis is correct? What would we see if the hypothesis is incorrect? In proposing a concept, the terms must be defined as rigorously as possible.

It seems safe to say that, at best, there is no evidence for the God that most typically religious people believe in: an anthropomorphic, moralistic, interventionist creator (ie, God of the Bible). There are plenty of problems in reconciling that God to the current state of knowledge about the world (theodicy, incompetence of biological design, lack of narrative structure to life, etc.) But, I acknowledge that just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What the lack of evidence does mean is that its on the same footing as Thor, Mithra, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Any of which MIGHT exist, despite the lack of evidence. It's a concept that doesn't help explain anything and is therefore useless (at least right now) in expanding, or even sustaining, the human knowledge base.

Lastly, Caputo's definition of "God" is so vague that even completely non-religious people can believe in something close to it. It seems that the terms "Universe," "Reality," or "Existence" would also work just fine in that context. If people want to call Reality "God," that's great. But they should be perfectly clear that that use of the word has no relation to the popular use of the word. Depending on your definition of "God," the God hypothesis' truth value can change. If I define "God" as love, then God obviously exists. But then there's no reason to believe that it hears my prayers, created the universe, or can break the laws of physics.

I enjoyed your article and appreciate your openness to discussion. Hopefully this can contribute to the conversation.

 Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God view
Election 2012