JetLeg
25th April 2009, 09:11 AM
I think that the question 'does god exist' is not the important question to be asked.
The evils of organized religion are not caused by the philosophic question 'does god exist', but by the attitudes that people have towards this god if he exists.
Imagine that there _really_ is a creator of the universe. In no way it means that he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. We have zero proof for that. We cannot infer from the fact that god can achieve) a lot in a certain area (knowledge, creating of stuff, compassion) that god can achieve everything in that area.
Perhaps god is almost omni-omni-omni. Perhaps he only lacks in the following: he doesn't know what is the phone number of Sylvia Brown, cannot creqate a red snail, and is not compassionate towards the dog of G.W. Bush. How would one prove that the last proposition is not true?
Not only we have zero proof for that god is omni-omni-opmni, but even if we would have one, it would still be a tentative one. (Which the religious try to forget about). If it would be proven that there is a god, and god would reveal himself to us and say "1+1=3", we would have to conclude that god is not omniscient/can lie/can err and not that 1+1=3.
It is the same with every area of knowledge. If god tells us that it is a good thing to kill unbeleivers, the right conclusion that god is not omnibenevolent. If he told us that he created the universe in six days, we can conclude that he is dellusional/has amnesia/can lie/doesn't know english well.
So, the important difference is not between theists and atheists. The evil of religion is caused by that it subdues one's own reason to authority. If an authority (god) tells us something that contradicts reason, or contradicts evidnece, a freethinker would conclude that the authority is wrong (for whatever reason). A true believer concludes that his reason is wrong. And that is the important difference.
The evils of organized religion are not caused by the philosophic question 'does god exist', but by the attitudes that people have towards this god if he exists.
Imagine that there _really_ is a creator of the universe. In no way it means that he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. We have zero proof for that. We cannot infer from the fact that god can achieve) a lot in a certain area (knowledge, creating of stuff, compassion) that god can achieve everything in that area.
Perhaps god is almost omni-omni-omni. Perhaps he only lacks in the following: he doesn't know what is the phone number of Sylvia Brown, cannot creqate a red snail, and is not compassionate towards the dog of G.W. Bush. How would one prove that the last proposition is not true?
Not only we have zero proof for that god is omni-omni-opmni, but even if we would have one, it would still be a tentative one. (Which the religious try to forget about). If it would be proven that there is a god, and god would reveal himself to us and say "1+1=3", we would have to conclude that god is not omniscient/can lie/can err and not that 1+1=3.
It is the same with every area of knowledge. If god tells us that it is a good thing to kill unbeleivers, the right conclusion that god is not omnibenevolent. If he told us that he created the universe in six days, we can conclude that he is dellusional/has amnesia/can lie/doesn't know english well.
So, the important difference is not between theists and atheists. The evil of religion is caused by that it subdues one's own reason to authority. If an authority (god) tells us something that contradicts reason, or contradicts evidnece, a freethinker would conclude that the authority is wrong (for whatever reason). A true believer concludes that his reason is wrong. And that is the important difference.