Quote:
Originally Posted by
tagutcow 
You write this as if you expect me to be entirely satisfied with your explanation. In fact, I take issue with just about everything in it:
Ah no, you ignored it the first time, so I was not about to spend a lot of time rephrasing when I had already addressed the issues. Take issue with whatever you want.
Quote:
Again, you're arguing from a false equivalency between mythical creatures that are supposed to exist
in the world, and a transcendent God and primary mover. Questions concerning their existence are different because
how they exist is different. Pretty much everyone in this thread seems to take this equivalency as axiomatic, however.
They are either supernatural and involved in any way in our natural world, or not. If we are talking about some clockwork God that set all the rules but has no involvement in the universe, then it's an entirely different discussion. That is not the God we appear to be discussing however (not much good praying to a completely uninvolved God).
Quote:
If a person has a near death experience, they have a
rational basis for believing in God (assuming we're not just using "rational" as a code word for "naturalist" per the atheist argot.) Experiential evidence can and should be weighed when deciding our belief systems. You're arbitrarily putting up walls around what type of evidence you're willing to consider, and don't seem to be very critical about how and why you do so.
What walls precisely have I put up? Have I described them for you, or are you arguing against Generic Internet Atheist?
In fact, I have considered that particular concept and it does not particularly bother my understanding. If we examine the question without presupposing that "God" is the likely solution, that wouldn't be the most likely conclusion based on what we know about the brain. It is most likely to be simply a traumatized or altered brain processing signals in a certain way. You cannot
exclude "insight into the afterlife" (or whatever) as an explanation, but it is far from the most likely.
Quote:
Also, you seem to severely misapprehend what "faith" is. Contrary to what most atheists seem to think, it doesn't mean "reason takes a vacation".
Again, are you arguing against me or against Internet Atheists? I don't care to defend Internet Atheists.
I am using faith as the belief in something that is not testable or falsifiable. Followers of a religion may have a belief system that is itself logically consistent, but the core question comes back to "Do you have faith, or not?" If not, the whole belief system would not be convincing.
You have faith, it would appear. Would you still be a Christian if you did not?
Quote:
Well yes, Christians are in error when they look to the natural sciences and expect to find conclusive proof of God. I've often said that the new atheist backlash is in large part the result of mainsteam Christians putting too many of their eggs in the Intelligent Design basket.
Christians are in error when they look at the natural sciences to find
evidence of God, nevermind "conclusive proof."
Quote:
Why would a scientist-who-is-a-Christian have to compartmentalize his faith and his vocation if, in fact, these two areas are not in outright contradiction with one another? What about a plumber-who-is-a-Christian? He might have to compartmentalize his faith and his vocation as well, since they don't necessarily dovetail neatly into each other, though they don't contradict each other either. Is the compartmentalization performed by the scientist any different from the compartmentalization performed by the plumber?
This question really would be a discussion all of its own. As a general commentary, I would say that the thought processes encouraged by most Christian sects are not productive in scientific inquiry (the opposite, in fact), but do not have negative consequences in say, plumbing. It is possible, without any necessary internal contradiction, to separate the way you think about God from the way you think about nature. I could not do that, however.
Quote:
Well "not rational" certainly does come off as pejorative-- a small putt, in fact, from "irrational".
Ok? It is either the correct word to use for the situation, or not, I really don't care if you find it pejorative. That's your cross to bear, as it were.
Quote:
Even if we accept as givens that atheism is inherently rational, and religious belief inherently irrational (or arational, if you prefer,) we are still a far cry from the conclusion that atheists are
habitually more rational, or necessarily have some philosophical outlook grounded in rationality.
Are we arguing against those pesky Internet Atheists again? I certainly never made that argument. I actually said that atheism is
not always inherently rational.
