|
That's a fairly complicated reply.
Ok. IMHO the simple view of god deserves to down in flames. I see it as self-evidently flawed and as a stepping-stone to simplistic philosophy and morals based on literal interpretation of religious texts.
But that's not your describing. Your talking a more sophisticated model. I'm an atheist myself actually. I feel that I've examined thinking roughly similar to what you outline earlier in my life. To me, this seems a dead end - a way of salvaging "God" when no evidence exists. The arguments proposed ultimately seem so complex as to be unlikely (taking an Occams Razor approach) and in discussions with believers - similar views and concepts appear to take a constantly mutating form in order to dodge the many arguments against believing in a deity.
Ultimately - I think the affirmative should prove it's case, not the other way around.
But.... getting back to my first point. I rarely debating God with those who have this type of view. Anyone with a complex world-view who is willing to debate it genuinely is ok with me. In fact... (in my view again), lots of good has come of the more sophisticated religious thinkers.
So - with people such as yourself, I've no desire to threaten your religion, I'll tend to discuss politics, climate change and other interesting issues.
Perhaps also... having decided that God either doesn't exist or is not relevant, long discussions about God's nature seem a waste of time.
|