The reason that there is so much obscurity and lack of understanding in discussions of God (one of them anyway, and an important one) is that each side assumed it is the other that has to prove the truth of its position, and this causes a
complete separation of ideas which is responsible for the not getting anywhere.
To the believer, the existence of God is so obvious that it is the atheist who
has to give well-founded reasons to challenge it, while the atheist finds the
idea of God so strange that it must be the believer who provides the arguments.
Each assumes that theirs is the default position and that the other has the
greater responsibility to defend his position. (In the case of Arthur C.
Clarke’s teapot the default position is unquestionably the assumption of
non-existence.) thus they argue past each other, each expecting the other to
provide evidence which will not be forthcoming, because the need for it is not
understood. This is the nature of belief, it is based on what strikes us
without examination as obviously true, and we like to imagine that our belief
is reasoned and the other chap’s is not.
l'Univers(i)té
2 hours ago
2 comments:
I don't know what business the atheist has to discuss God. He knows there is no God. Nothing to discuss, if he is prepared to leave others alone.
That is a very good point, but many people are not prepared to leave others alone, and even those who are (who seems to include the people mentioned in the earlier post) will react when they feel that the beliefs of others are affecting them in some way. As a species we love to tell others what to do, and we love to argue about minutiae. Between these two traits I fear your very valid assertion will fall on stony ground.
Post a Comment