Re: Ch. 5: The Assumption of a God
Religious assumptions are far less justifiable than objective scientific assumptions. An assumption is justified by its consequences. If an assumption leads to a result that differs from what we know to be the case, the assumption is wrong. Newton assumed that Euclid’s axioms about lines describe the path of a beam of light. Newton was proved wrong by Einstein’s discovery that light bends in a gravitational field. The religious assumption that the God of the Bible exists as literally described in Genesis is disproved by scientific discoveries in physics, evolution and geology. But Euclid and Genesis still have a sort of ideal validity, even if they don’t literally describe our material universe.
If we assume that Christ was born of a virgin, it means that major premises of scientific biology are incorrect. But as Hume explained, it makes far more sense to say the belief in the miracle is wrong than that all our related scientific knowledge is wrong. With this either/or, we have a basis to accept the logical justification of the existence of matter and the non-existence of supernatural entities as a coherent and systematic foundational principle for logical explanation of objective reality.