Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leto
I think that this pretty well sums it up in my mind as well. It takes a heap of faith to be either Atheistic or Theistic. Given the lack of proof either for or against a God, I choose to "Not Know" (Agnostic).
Given the advances of human capability to measure and predict using the scientific method, I can't discount that one day we will be able to use provable (to the scientific community) methods to take the measure of a supreme being. So as a scientist, I would never disclaim the existence of a God, simply because I cannot take God's measure. In this way, I think that there should be no problem for religion and science to co-exist.
|
Well, atheism is not a leap of faith. It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon. It is the opposite of faith.
The debate of divine existence, and its degrees and nature of intercession, goes around in circles like this because some people simply want to or need to believe. The world is already cruel enough without the distinct possibility that you will not, in fact, enter eternal paradise if you are a good Christian; that suffering and misery is not a Jobian test of spiritual resolve, but just the way life is; that the Devil didn't make them do it, nor was it God's will.
While formalized mysticism runs counter to Occam's Razor, so do we in general. Unlike scientific methods, slide rules and Bunsen burners, we possess the infection of hope -- hope that we individually or at least collectively belong to a higher purpose that is worth the gauntlet we run from the cradle to the grave.
So there is no explanation based in logic, because faith is a psychological attribute.