What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 15:47 (4834 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Kind of a common-sense "Practicality" approach. "How do we move forward?" I ask the question, "Why move at all?" In my own case, I agree to a large extent that if life didn't arrive by a creator, than the only recourse is by chance, but belief in such a staggering lottery is precisely why dhw calls this "faith in chance." It is precisely this fence that is one of several that I sit on--however prickly the post is. We need more of the story before I accept the result. -Matt and I have many areas of disagreement, but I can only express absolute solidarity here! Matt, you go on to reproduce various exchanges between Kent and myself, and it would be very helpful if you would indicate who says what in such dialogues.-DHW: 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.-KENT: Agreed, but I don't necessarily extend that respect to their beliefs.-MATT: Here is one place where we part: it matters not to me if someone still believes in Thor or Yaweh; at the end of the day each of us chooses some kind of mythology to fill our answers, whether its agreed upon by experiment or by personal experience alone. (The two extremes.) I'm enough of a materialist to subject my views to strict criteria, but enough of a mystic to realize that emotive responses are as real as physical responses. Because I can't reproduce a feeling, doesn't mean that there isn't a reality there. We're as hard-wired for religion as we are for vision. It makes no difference to me, what form a person chooses. To quote from Sextus Empiricus, "Moreover, we cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal. For the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which presupposes the ability to know about some aspects of the environment." That which was good for "primitive" man is just as valid now.-I think this is a very important point to which perhaps we have not given full value. Earlier, Kent raised the question of what constitutes evidence. We agreed that "I can't explain X is not evidence for Y", which of course cuts both ways, since it applies equally to the theories of chance and design, but in terms of belief (as opposed to knowledge) the inexplicable takes on a very different role. Since absolute knowledge is almost certainly impossible in the God versus Chance conflict, all of us ultimately have to operate on the level of belief, and the hard evidence of science is absolutely not the only form of reality. I applaud Matt's subjection of his views to strict criteria (I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden either), and I also applaud his openness to experiences that are not governed by reason. If we went by reason alone, I suspect we would have to forego nearly all the most enriching experiences of our lives. As for respecting other people's beliefs, again I agree with Matt, always with the proviso that their beliefs do not impinge on the rights of others to follow their own "mythology".