Hmm. Things without evidence, I should have said. I have ample evidence for my father loving me and very little has ever happened to contradict that assumption; but a magic entity who created the universe, has access to our thoughts, responds to prayer, and corresponds with the contradiction-riddled Bible even in the loosest way - that flies in the face of all known evidence about the world.
I used the word 'magic' advisedly. Not grinding any axes, not trying to fan any flames, I am sincerely baffled as to how to distinguish "leprechauns take people to dance at their revels" from "God takes people to heaven". (NB: distinguish in terms of plausibility, not morality/honour/elegance. Your problem with my teapot example was presumably one also of elegance, yes?)
Now, I know perfectly well that some intelligent people are religious, and that some professional scientists are religious. (Though comparing the stats of believers among high-ranking scientists vs. general population is fascinating.) I'm not insulting your intelligence by calling you a Christian.
But I will ask you this: how, precisely, does religion not contradict science? I don't want to hear about how the beauty of the world strengthens religious belief, or anything like that. I want to hear how God is more plausible than leprechauns.
(Btw, I once knew a fantastically able physics student who decided against studying theoretical physics at university in favour of becoming a nun. She had felt personal revelation of God. I think she is mistaken in the nature of what she felt, of course - but I respect that reason a lot. It may be shaky evidence that doesn't stand up to unbiased analysis, but it's evidence nonetheless.)
Oh, I'll say another thing, actually. I don't go round challenging people's beliefs all the time. It'd be tiring as well as intrusive. I got into this conversation because I felt I shouldn't leave David's virulently anti-Dawkins comment unopposed, and the best way to oppose that was to say: yes, of course he represents normal atheists. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you find religious belief perfectly logical but have decided to opt out because you prefer sleeping in on the Sabbath. It means that you see no reason to think God exists. The reason that atheists will make fun of the cargo cult of Papua New Guinea but not, generally, of Christians, is largely due to the fact that they meet Christians every day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 11:04 pm (UTC)I used the word 'magic' advisedly. Not grinding any axes, not trying to fan any flames, I am sincerely baffled as to how to distinguish "leprechauns take people to dance at their revels" from "God takes people to heaven". (NB: distinguish in terms of plausibility, not morality/honour/elegance. Your problem with my teapot example was presumably one also of elegance, yes?)
Now, I know perfectly well that some intelligent people are religious, and that some professional scientists are religious. (Though comparing the stats of believers among high-ranking scientists vs. general population is fascinating.) I'm not insulting your intelligence by calling you a Christian.
But I will ask you this: how, precisely, does religion not contradict science? I don't want to hear about how the beauty of the world strengthens religious belief, or anything like that. I want to hear how God is more plausible than leprechauns.
(Btw, I once knew a fantastically able physics student who decided against studying theoretical physics at university in favour of becoming a nun. She had felt personal revelation of God. I think she is mistaken in the nature of what she felt, of course - but I respect that reason a lot. It may be shaky evidence that doesn't stand up to unbiased analysis, but it's evidence nonetheless.)
Oh, I'll say another thing, actually. I don't go round challenging people's beliefs all the time. It'd be tiring as well as intrusive. I got into this conversation because I felt I shouldn't leave David's virulently anti-Dawkins comment unopposed, and the best way to oppose that was to say: yes, of course he represents normal atheists. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you find religious belief perfectly logical but have decided to opt out because you prefer sleeping in on the Sabbath. It means that you see no reason to think God exists. The reason that atheists will make fun of the cargo cult of Papua New Guinea but not, generally, of Christians, is largely due to the fact that they meet Christians every day.