Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Hitchens Unhinged Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i#6810 Post contents: Maud, If you go back and read my post carefully, you'll notice that I never once said that the words 'proof', 'evidence', 'science', and so on, are themselves "philosophically irresponsible." That wouldn't make sense. What I said, rather, is that nontheists USE these words in philosophically irresponsible ways. An example is when you, as a nontheist, come here and say "prove God exists" without clarifying what kind of proof you're looking for. In this regard, you'll recall that I explicitly asked you to specify the kind of proof you demand. Empirical? Epistemological? Mathematical? Abductive argumentation? Inductive? Or what? The closest you come to answering this question in your last post is by saying, vaguely and unspecifically, "just something; anything; the merest shred." Intelligent readers are sure to notice that this is not an answer to my question. I trust you'll actually answer it in your next post if you plan to continue this exchange wihout appearing ignorant. The question of God's existence is, you'd agree, perhaps one of the most important questions to ever occur to a human mind. A lot hangs on the answer, so we must think as carefully as we can if we want to get at the truth of the matter. (Certainly, we must think more carefully about it than we do about, say, the question of whether WMD's exist in Iraq.) One step towards thinking carefully about God's existence is to stop conflating organized religion and theism. It'd be illogical to let the horrors of organized religion distort the conclusions we come to about God's existence. Here's another step: if we demand "proof" for God's existence, we had better get clear on what we mean by "proof". What is it for something x to count as "proof" as something y? We need to ask ourselves questions like the following: assuming a God really does exist, am I making it too hard on myself to believe it? What, precisely, are my standards of proof? Do I use these standards across the board, or do I relax them when it comes to believing what I want to be true? Do I treat all of the propositions I believe with the same strict degree of skepticism that I treat the proposition that a God exists? You suggest that the existence of our 4-dimensional spacetime universe is unremarkable "for all we know". Well, Maud, "for all we know" there are invisible pink unicorns dancing on the Moon. Epistemic possibility doesn't get us far here. We need to be concerned about what is actually the case! And *actually* the existence of our universe is quite remarkable -- indeed, given atheism, it is surprising. Too surprising. Why should I believe that all of this sprang into existence without a cause, from a mindless, purposeless, nonrational, nonpersonal, spume of NOTHINGNESS? That seems prima facie incoherent. And why should I believe that due to dumb luck things like objective moral truths, consciousness, reason, libertarian free will, also sprang into existence despite the early chaotic conditions of spacetime? Further, why should I believe that all of these features of the world came together just in time to be discovered by sentient beings, beings who are capable of being morally responsible agents, but whose existence, you would like us to believe, is also due to dumb luck? This is too hard to believe. It's superficial of nontheists like you to dismiss these things as "unremarkable". Independent thinkers, who are open to the possibility that there is more to reality than what meets the eye, will not fall for such superficiality. I asked you to argue for your claim that religion is "sinister and embarrassing". Yet, instead of arguing you merely re-asserted yourself by claiming that it's a fairytale. OK, Maud, we get it. We understand that you think it's a fairytale, that it's sinister, embarrassing, and all the rest. The question is: WHY should anybody else believe that your assessment is correct? Where's your argument? Nowhere to be found, of course. Why are atheists like you so fond of assert n' runs? Try supporting your views for once. Who cares if sky lord sounds funny? Logical rigor, avoidance of ambiguity, and intellectual precision matter much more in this context than "being funny". Have you ever heard the maxim: understand before you critique? Were you to seriously let this guide you, it would prevent you from attacking mere caricatures of religion, and perhaps you would develop a more challenging and substantive critique of theism. As it stands, you seem to prefer rhetorical fluff, sound bites, "being funny", and ambiguity over sound argumentation. And yet you expect theists here to believe that *they're* the irrational ones? Nonsense. Best, W.H. Sent at: 2008 05 16