To the OP: I believe that the idea of "proof" in 'metaphysical inquiries'
is a delusion, as neither Theists nor Atheists can present empirical evidence for either claim. Nor can we, with sound mind, claim that anecdotal experience, unverifiable writing, or even radiometric dating 'prove' the existence or non-existence of any deity. Logical arguments can always be made towards likelihood; Ockham's Razor, Pascal's Wager, etc. I find it unlikely that a diety exists, but not altogether impossible.
Wouldn't it be foolish to commit to either? This feverish commitment to the absolute existence or nonexistence of God(s) means declaring omniscient knowledge AND certainty on a position which one cannot ever be certain about.
Finally, I just wanted to re-post this quote in case it got lost in the random flaming by Dave, as its the best summarization of my feeling on this matter that I've ever heard.
It lends itself more naturally to agnosticism than atheism, and it's very accurate.
Thank you,
politicophile:
Quote:
|
It is in the realm of everyday action that we must believe and act in situations where we lack important information. Metaphysical truths, on the other hand, are of far less immediacy and can therefore be studied for long periods of time in order to allow for maximal accumulation of data.
|