[+/-] Why there almost certainly is no god
Richard Dawkins explains why there almost certainly is no god:
Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle - and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it - an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.
The Chamberlain tactic of snuggling up to 'sensible' religion, in order to present a united front against ('intelligent design') creationists, is fine if your central concern is the battle for evolution. That is a valid central concern, and I salute those who press it, such as Eugenie Scott in Evolution versus Creationism. But if you are concerned with the stupendous scientific question of whether the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence or not, the lines are drawn completely differently. On this larger issue, fundamentalists are united with 'moderate' religion on one side, and I find myself on the other.
Great stuff. Check it out.
posted by Nanovirus @ 10:54 permalink
your thoughts? 2
2 Comments:
The problem with this argument is that few Christians want to know the "how" when it comes to Jesus. They are looking for the "why". I know this can be hard to understand for some non-believers, but going after the "how" rarely is effective. If you think that you can be more effective at proving that Jesus was not here to save us from our sins, then you might actually be able to convince a few people (though certainly, I still do not think you would be particularly effective there).
You're right, I wouldn't be very effective, because science doesn't disprove anything. I challenge you to disprove Zeus' existence. Or Thor's. Or garden faeries. I imagine you are an atheist with respect to those deities. I just go one deity further.
Post a Comment