From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:59:35 -0400
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:50:47AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> -------Original Message------- From: Erik Reuter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Saying that > > for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a > repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, > therefore, for all practical purposes, god does not exist > > seems much closer to a scientific statement than a faith statement. > > > What about the "Divine Clockmaker" theory of God? i.e. that God > set the universe into motion with some kind of divine plan, but > essentially does not interfere in day-to-day existence on Earth. > I believe that this theory is also compatible with belief in > life-ever-after and salvation (but I'm sure Dan M. will correct me if > I am wrong.) > > I would characterize this theory of God as being "religious", and I > also believe that most atheists would disagree with this theory. Yet, > doesn't disagreement with this theory require a measure of faith, as > Jon has suggested?
Disagreement with that (I promised to be more precise in my word choice so I can't use theory here) hypothesis does not require faith. Saying the hypotheis is definitely wrong might, but since, as I said, no repeatable experiments are known to support the hypothesis, disagreement is reasonable.
So as long as it's not an absolute disagreement ("it could 'never' happen") versus an open-ended one ("i could be wrong but it's highly unlikely") it's not faith?
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
