|
ok - i'll bite on a couple of things getting kicked around here. on the topic of god and the unknown, i both disagree and agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread. it seems to me that god does, in fact, stand for everything that man doesn't have a pretty good theory for. not sure how the world was created? that was god. not sure where man came from, all the steps in evolution? that was god. not sure why you're here in the first place? oh simple stuff simon, that was god. i'm not saying that's a bad thing - whether that makes a specific incarnation of the god concept correct or not is a different matter.
i do not, however, agree that all or even most atheists can't accept that man's knowledge is inherently limited. yes, we will presumably learn more tomorrow than we know today; but even the stuff we know today is only representative of the best theories we've come up with. look at newtonian physics and relativity/quantum. we thought the world was a big game of billiards...oops! not so much. if we ever propose a coherent grand unified theory or if parts of string theory hold up; well, dang it we'll be doing it again. i think many atheists are aware we will never know it all (despite our sacrifices to clarissa), but we wouldn't say that necessitates the god concept in any particular form. if you just want to use god as a semantic placeholder for "i don't know," well fine be me. i don't think this is the outlook of most theists.
this is repeating many of the discussions of this topic here in the first place, but i think that a problem many atheists have with the particular god concept is the following: where did it come from? all things equal right now, what we have in favor of god are books, stories, and traditions. however, if one isn't the type to trust books, stories and traditions - at least beyond anything metamorphical or quasi-historical - then where would the concept of a personified deity come from? why would any particular concept arise from simple observation of the world around us? i think that many atheists feel that the god concept is given unnecessarily equal footing amongst a list of philosophical / metaphysical concepts. where did this particular one come from, and why do people act as though its pretty probable? i feel like this is a big repeat of the unicorn/fairies discussion, but it seems that when that point is made, communication never occurs. theists say "well, see - you can't prove it, so i'm right: god exists." and atheists are thinking to themselves "that's not the bloody fucking point damn it!"
i'll also say that i think there will always be a need for the spiritual and mystical in humanity: some atheists would disagree with that statement, but i personally feel there are types of experiences and knowledge that are inherently non-scientific in nature and could only be dubbed spirituality. i simply don't understand why one would cling to what i consider an outmoded version of spiritual understanding, which is rife with unnecessary historical and scientific baggage.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|