What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, August 04, 2011, 20:15 (4860 days ago) @ broken_cynic

KENT: I would agree that science does not support atheism in the sense of 'proving it right.' However, it offers indirect support in the sense that it has chewed over vast amounts of territory where people believed in non-material causes and shown no need for them. So far it hasn't yet uncovered a case where a non-material cause was necessary. [...] There will always be more questions (and some of the big ones will remain unanswered for a long time, if we ever find answers at all.) How long do we have to go on eliminating the need for non-material causes before you stop proposing them? Is there a point at which you concede the game or is this a matter of perpetual-motion goalposts?-Your parenthesis provides the answer to your own questions: the big ones that will remain unanswered for a long time, if we ever find answers at all, are the ones that underlie this whole discussion: e.g. the origin of life; the mystery of consciousness; psychic and mystic experiences. You believe they have material causes, though this may never be proven (= "if we ever find answers at all"). David, our resident panentheist, believes that they go back to a universal intelligence. I propose nothing. I will "concede the game" when one side or the other provides answers to the "big ones", and till then I'll sit on my fence.
 
Dhw (on the neither-believe-nor-disbelieve definition of agnosticism): You have rightly said that it is "common", but I would argue that it is now indeed the middle ground and this is no longer a misperception.-KENT: Your forum, your terms I suppose, but in that case I'm really confused about the tone around here as to me a gathering of folks who claim the middle ground ought to be sceptical of both sides equally and it seems 'sceptical' in the same sense that creationists are 'sceptical' ...a very loaded sense. The fact that some folks around here seem to find creationist arguments reasonable and compelling makes me leery.-This is an open forum, on which we welcome the views of theists and atheists and agnostics. I've made it plain that I personally am as sceptical of the theist faith in a "supernatural" power as I am of the atheist faith in chance. Since George Jelliss's heyday, however, we have attracted more theists and agnostics than atheists, which is why I'm delighted that Matt has introduced you! However, you cannot expect even those who occupy the middle ground simply to cave in when you claim that although we don't know and may never know the answers to the big questions, you yourself believe that they will prove to be material.-Dhw: Once again, it is dangerous to talk of "knowledge". You do not "know" that the Jewish God does not exist or that, say, Joshua did not exist, or that the Jewish God did not help Joshua to settle the land of Canaan.-KENT: I do indeed know that the Jewish god (as described in the Torah) does not exist. For the very same reasons you concede that Thor and FSM (and I will presume, Santa Claus) don't exist. In your mind, what makes the story of Yahweh (and others I presume?) distinctly untouchable?-I have not said that the story of Yahweh is untouchable. Yahweh, as you say, is simply the Jewish name for God (call him/her/it Jehovah, or Allah, or a UI, or whatever you like), and although I do not believe in him/her/it, unlike yourself I do not KNOW whether some such God exists or not. And since I have no answers of my own to the big questions, I respect those who think they have, so long as they show the same respect to others who do not share their beliefs.