|
Luis,
***Let's paraphrase: "I'm convinced that many do not want to believe in the Tooth Fairy." Now, how does this sound? Does it sound like the speaker is being objective, or does it sound like the speaker has predetermined his own righteousness before making this "observation"? (Needless to say, it also sounds a little silly, as the Tooth Fairy-ist has taken himself so seriously.)***
I don't want to believe in the Tooth Fairy. In fact, I so much don't want to believe in a Tooth Fairy that it would make extremely uneasy with the world if I knew that I should someday meet that Fairy. Is that how you feel? Sounds emotional and psychologically driven (btw, I fully admit that my feelings toward a tooth fairy is emotional and psychologically driven).
***It's not that I don't want to believe in the Tooth Fairy, I simply don't. To the atheist, the existence of 'god' is no more a '50-50' choice than the existence of the 'tooth fairy. Oh sure, my internal 'jury' will probably never say 100% yay or nay, but until I see evidence, I'm afraid the God thing is just as imaginary as the Tooth Fairy one.***
But, you feel the same way about photons, isn't that what your disagreement with Alex was all about (you emphasized to Alex how you cannot see photons), right? So, what am I supposed to learn from that - that you don't believe in anything you can't see, feel, or touch. I wish reality were that simply, but it's not.
***Besides, what "science" supports the existence of God? I have seen none. Indeed, anything scientific you can offer will surely be the type of 'evidence' that could also support the existence of unicorns, elves, Gondor the Magnanimous, the Easter Rabbit, and anything else to which we might attribute 'creation.'***
What science supports the ontological existence of anything? Fact is that science supports only the acceptance of a model as good at predicting observables. Now, if you want to take scientific evidence and construe that in a philosophical context, then we might be able to get somewhere. But, my sense is that you want science to confirm the ontological existence of something, and that it just cannot do. No matter, I'm sure you believe that some scientific theories are ontologically true (such as biological evolution), so somewhere you are justifying an ontological bias of the world. This is why I say your view is not consistent.
***Nothing that I've seen offered as "proof" can pass Occam's Razor. It's simply anthropic bias (and fear of the unknown).***
Ockham was a theist. Too bad more people didn't know that about poor ole' Ockham. In any case, Occam's razor is a philosophical position. I would love it if you were to agree that philosophy is the applicable discipline to discuss ontology. Can you agree that we should discuss the existence of God within the as a philosophical view and not strictly as a scientific issue?
Warm regards, Harv
|
