Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Hitchens Unhinged Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i#6782 Post contents: Maud, You say, "The ONLY relevant question is: Can you prove God exists?", yet you never bother to spell out in clear terms what it would take, on your view, to count something x as "proof" for something else y. This is carelessness. What precisely do you mean by the locution "prove God exists"? Atheists like you constantly use words like "proof", "evidence", "rational", and "science" (among a host of others) in philosophically irresponsible ways. It's not enough to throw the phrase "prove it!" around -- you don't even tell us what kind of proof you think is required (epistemological? mathematical? abductive? or what?) I'll be glad to answer your question when you make it clear what exactly it is you're asking for. "[Religion is] sinister and embarrassing." Why should anybody believe this? It'd be interesting to see you actually give a supporting argument for this claim. Of course, it doesn't follow from (i)there are many sinister and embarrassing religious fanatics out there, that (ii) therefore, religion is "sinister and embarrassing". Most sane and intelligent people would admit that (i) is true; the error of nontheists like you is to go a step further and use (i) (or something like it) in a fallacious attempt to bash religion per se. In any case, I welcome you to argue for your claim rather than expecting people to believe things on your say-so. You can begin by letting us know what you mean by "religion". "Trying to marry the fact that a lot of these same intelligent people also hold the conviction that a mysterious Sky Lord oversees all our affairs is extremely difficult." Mysterious sky lord? Maud, if you can't make the relevant conceptual distinctions between God and a "mysterious sky lord" (whatever exactly you mean by that), then one is left to question whether you've enough intellectual fortitude to actually understand the position of your opponents. Perhaps you're using "mysterious sky lord" as a cheap rhetorical spin; all the more reason to believe that you're not adequately prepared to debate these matters in an philosophically responsible way. Sent at: 2008 05 16