| BookTalk.org News |
| • Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim! |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| BookTalk.org Store |
All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.


|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Jeremy1952  Doctorate Bronze Contributor

Usergroups: None
Joined: 27 Oct 2002
     
Posts: 583
Thanks Given: 0 Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: Saint Louis
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:52 am Post subject: Proofs of God
|
|
|
I must protest again. Shermer offers the various "proofs" of "god" (whatever THAT is), countering each argument, as though that is as far as understanding the truth of the question can go. But it is not necessary to counter each and every purported proof; in fact, doing so is yielding the field to the theists. The great negotiators win before they begin by framing the question their way, and Shermer is allowing the theists to frame the question as though there were a deity to be researched. In a hypothetical, philosophical, not-very-useful, solipsistic way, it is impossible to prove a negative; in the real world we do it all the time, and frankly, disproving "god" to any reasonable standard of proof is not only not impossible, it isn't even all that difficult.
It is no surprise that Shermer dedicates his book to S. J. Gould, the great apologist for religion, with his "separate magesteria". But it is no good in real life. It is no good because, if we allow for the possibility of religious "truth", then we open the door to religious authority…. I KNOW it is right to (rape, murder, propagate irresponsibly) because "god said so". End of discussion.
God may not be dead in the minds of 20th century Americans, but Shermer's assertion that it is hopeless to try to ever get over this childish delusion is unfounded pessimism. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NaddiaAoC  Freshman Bronze Contributor

Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 May 2002
     
Posts: 240
Thanks Given: 0 Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: Proofs of God
|
|
|
Jeremy said:
Quote: God may not be dead in the minds of 20th century Americans, but Shermer's assertion that it is hopeless to try to ever get over this childish delusion is unfounded pessimism.
I hardly agree with your assertion that belief in god is a "childish delusion." To make such a claim is to ignore the evolution of human civilization. "God" was not a fairy tale dreamed up by some senile old grandfather to put a goofy grin on his grandchild's face. God's origin, as an explanation of the unknown, is deeply rooted in anthropological evolution. The problem is that, as a species, we have become emotionally dependent on the concept despite the declining intellectual satisfaction derived from it. God is a part of our culture, our art, our history.
The god concept has changed vastly as societies have evolved. Likely it will continue to be a part of our species' evolution for a long time to come. I do think that as science gains momentum and answers more and more of our questions there will be less dependence on god. I foresee the absolutism of monotheism gradually dying to philosophy and science, but the emotional dependence on a supernatural savior will probably be with our species for millennia.
While this may be a delusion indeed, I would hardly consider it a childish delusion. This life is tough for a lot of people. Some would rather not even live it. For many people, including very intelligent people, coping mechanisms are necessary just to get through life. Whether it's drugs, alcohol, video games, or Jesus, most of us need a diversion from reality. Some of us need a delusion, a purpose. Especially if we have difficulty giving our lives internal purpose, we may need that purpose to come from an external source.
I'm not saying that I think religion is healthy. I think it's detrimental to society because it promotes a low standard of morality, exhibits too much control, and strips people of their ability to think independently. However, merely believing in a god for the emotional comfort it brings, while perhaps not optimal for society, is not detrimental to society. We, as a species, have believed in deities entirely too long to simply "get over it." While I hope that fundamentalism and monotheism die within the next few centuries, I think that a belief in gods and the supernatural will be an enduring part of human evolution, perhaps even a permanent part of it.
Cheryl Thank god I'm an atheist. Edited by: NaddiaAoC at: 4/12/04 12:43 am
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|