Ah but in the case of the example you use there are in fact a number of reliable indicators of the probable outcomes possible to make an educated decision on the matter. And in any case I am not saying that because we do not have any scientific evidence alone for the existence of god that the probability is that he does not exist, I am saying that because science cannot provide us with such evidences and because of a variety of other reliable indicators of probability it is most likely by far the case that god does not exist. In everyday practice this ammounts to enough certainty to presume that god does not exist and that until such time as reliable evidence of any kind can be provided to the contrary this will always be the case.
My biggest concern was your desire to have science disprove the existence of God formally. But what you said here is something I can agree with. I think you can summarize this point of yours that taken informally, science makes it very easy to be an atheist.
It is not unreasonable for anyone to draw the conclusion that if science has not run into anything supernatural in all its detailed investigations of natural phenomenon, it is not outrageous to live your life with the working hypothesis that there is no supernatural.
Faith in god, even open mindedness about his existence requires us to ignore a far greater range of reliable indicators than presuming he does not exist.
But only if you are a logical positivist and expect that the supernatural must manifest itself in the natural.
Indeed I am aware of the contribution of the Roman Catholic Church to science, I simply wondered exactly how great you think it is. There were after all thousands of years of scientific investigation before the Roman Catholic Church even came in to being, and have been several centuries since in which its contribution has radically diminished. I admit that much of the "science" which came before the enlightenment not associated with the RC church was also motivated and sponsored by other religions but not all by any means and in fact secular science has a far broader and older history than is often apparent to the casual observer, as I am sure you are aware.
Actually, you are partly right about the enlightenment. In her latest book, Karen Armstrong has a chapter on how the church began a vigorous campaign to be part of the intellectual revolution of the enlightenment, but it was cut short by the Reformation.
However, the greatest contributions to science in proportion to the secular world from the RCC came before the Enlightenment starting about the 13th century. If you are interested, I can dig up some examples of this.
I'm always slightly mystified by this position, I accept that you personally do not believe in certain supernatural phenomena, fair enough, I don't believe in any, but why do you see so great a distinction between the commonly accepted superstitions of other ages, and other cultures and your own ? Surely in your conception they are all about as likely as eachother no ?
Tell me, Calboner, if my answer seems consistent or inconsistent with other things I have said. My answer is that all of the world's major religions are equally as likely since we have no idea whether any of them are true or based on some truth.
My faith in the God known to use through Jesus, as reflected through the mainstream Christian theology of grace is completely arbitrary in the light of your question.
The level of biblical literalism in protestant and non-conformist sects in Africa and elsewhere is probably much higher, and in these sects the absence of anything like Papal authority on matters of doctrine calls into question the whole concept of a coherent doctrine. Even Anglicans/Episcopalians suffer with this conflict between Episcopal doctrine and low church belief. A conflict which is currently raging extremely fiercely. But I feel like we have digressed and I can't remember why now. :tongue:
No, this is all very true, what you say. The news is not good from southof the equator. Conservative Christianity is growing there at an alarming rate.
My original reason for bringing up the science-friendly doctrine of the mainstream denominations was to suggest that none of them interpreted the Bible as a science text. The fact that science contradicts the literal meaning of such books as Genesis, doesn't really demonstrate that science has disproved the supernatural.
I think we are both exhausted from this conversation and I am sure the other readers are. I thank you sincerely for your perserverence and tenacity. I am always surprised at the number of brilliant people that frequent these LPSG forums. It is amazing that a site based on this premise has such an intelligent population. Why do you suppose that is?
