[Vincent Torley has posted this at Uncommon Descent. As many people who might like to respond, not the least among them Dr. Liddle herslf, are unable to do so directly, I reproduce it here. The rest of this post is written by Vincent Torley]
Over at The Skeptical Zone, Dr. Elizabeth Liddle has written a thought-provoking post, which poses an interesting ethical conundrum about the morality of creating sentient beings.
Dr. Liddle’s post was titled, Getting some stuff off my chest…., and its tone was remarkably conciliatory, as the following extracts reveal:
I don’t think that science has disproven, nor even suggests, that it is unlikely that an Intelligent Designer was responsible for the world, and intended it to come into existence.
I don’t think that science has, nor even can, prove that divine and/or miraculous intervention is impossible.
I think the world has properties that make it perfectly possible for an Intelligent Deity to “reach in” and tweak things to her liking – and that even if it didn’t, it would still be perfectly possible, given Omnipotence, just as a computer programmer can reach in and tweak the Matrix.
I don’t think that science falsifies the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity – at all.
Apparently, Dr. Liddle’s main reason for disbelieving in an “external disembodied intelligent and volitional deity” is a philosophical rather than a scientific one: she is “no longer persuaded that either intelligence or volition are possible in the absence of a material substrate.” Fair enough; but Dr. Liddle should tell us what she means by the word “material.” Does she mean: (a) composed of visible and/or tangible “stuff”; (b) having some (non-zero) quantity of mass-energy; (c) spatially extended, and inside our universe; (d) spatially extended, and inside some universe; (e) composed of parts; (f) behaving in accordance with the laws of Nature; or (g) behaving in accordance with some invariant set of mathematical laws? What is Dr. Liddle’s definition of “matter,” and why does Dr. Liddle believe that an intelligent being has to conform to that definition?
But the most interesting part of her post came in two paragraphs where she made it clear that while she regarded the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient deity as quite compatible with science, it was ludicrous to suggest that this deity might also be omnibenevolent:
I do think that the world is such that IF there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, EITHER that deity does not have human welfare as a high priority OR she has very different ideas about what constitutes human welfare from the ones that most people hold (and as are exemplified, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), OR she has deliberately chosen to let the laws of her created world play out according to her ordained rules, regardless of the effects of those laws on the welfare of human beings, perhaps trusting that we would value a comprehensible world more than one with major causal glitches. In my case, her trust was well-placed…
I don’t think that it follows that, were we to find incontrovertible evidence of a Intelligent Creator (for instance, an unambiguous message in English configured in a nebula in some remote region of space, or on the DNA of an ant encased in amber millions of years ago) that that would mandate us in any way to worship that designer. On the basis of her human rights record I’d be more inclined to summon her to The Hague.
This is a little inconsistent. On the one hand, Dr. Liddle declares that she values “a comprehensible world” with no “causal glitches”; but at the same time, Dr. Liddle wishes that the Intelligent Creator, if she exists, would do more to promote human rights and alleviate suffering.
At any rate, here is the question I would like to ask Dr. Liddle. Suppose you were the Intelligent Creator of a world containing life. Suppose also that you have decided that your world should contain no “causal glitches” whatsoever: miraculous interventions are out of the question. Suppose, finally, that the laws of your world happen to dictate that any sentient beings in it will suffer and die, and suppose, also, that death in your world is absolutely final, with no hereafter. That goes for sapient beings as well: in your world, you only get one innings.
The life-forms that currently exist in your world include not only micro-organisms, but also complex animals, rather like our insects, which are capable of a rich variety of behavioral feats, but lack any kind of phenomenal consciousness: they react to environmental stimuli in a very sophisticated manner, but for them, there is no subjective feeling of “what it is like” to experience those stimuli. So far, everything is unfolding in accordance with your pre-ordained program.
Here’s my question for Dr. Liddle, and for skeptical readers. Given the above constraints, would you regard it as immoral to be the author of a program that eventually resulted in the appearance of:
(a) sentient beings capable of feeling pain, but with no self-awareness whatsoever;
(b) sentient beings with some rudimentary self-awareness;
(c) sapient beings capable of reasoning and language, as well as a rich sense of self-awareness?
Putting it another way, would it be better for an Intelligent Creator not to create a world of sentient (and/or self-aware and/or sapient) beings, than to create a world in which sentient / self-aware / sapient beings existed, but where all of these beings would undergo suffering (and where some of them would undergo a considerable degree of suffering), caused by the inexorable operation of the laws of Nature in that world? Or putting it as baldly as possible: if you were the Creator, would you deny us all the gift of existence, on the grounds that it would be immoral to create beings like us?
If your answer is that it would be immoral to create beings like us, then I would ask you to set out, as clearly as possible, the ethical principle which would be violated by the creation of beings like us.
And if it’s not the existence of suffering per se that you object to, but the degree of suffering, where do you draw the line, and why?
Over to you, Dr. Liddle…
[ETA correction to blockquotes – AF]
It’s always good for you to explain why you make the comments that you do.
Glen Davidson
There is no evidence that can persuade those who have chosen to be someone that doesn’t believe in god. That’s why I don’t bother trying. I cannot persuade such a thing, which lies pretty close to the root of one’s being; all I can do is point at an alternative path.
I cannot convince anyone to take that path.
Fortunately, I’ve found a demiurge that produces stories I enjoy re-living.
So, you either can’t or won’t provide persuasive evidence for God.
Not really a new development…
Glen Davidson
Even if you are capable of being persuaded, which I do not believe, how could I possibly know what would persuade you?
Wow, you believe that without evidence. How like an IDist.
True, you’d have to know what persuades the science-minded. It’s sort of the difference between pre-Holmes “gee, it really looks like he did it” and specifically matching up cause to effect. Yes, you need a specific cause for an effect that it clearly (and, one would hope, exclusively, so far as we know) makes, much as evolutionary processes leave evidence of effects limited by observable causes.
It’s not exactly about sales, or whatever seems to be your scenario.
Glen Davidson
I don’t know about any other commenter here, but a good start for me would be objective, empirical evidence of a similar quality to that required to convince me to buy or sell a financial instrument in my retirement portfolio.
“Just trust me, I know this is going to go up.” is not sufficient. “I choose to believe this is going up.” isn’t worth considering.
That seems to be a good way of putting it.
What would persuade me that a mode of transportation is safe, or that a restaurant is good, a medical treatment is effective?
Science is a short step from engineering. In fact, much of science is supported by novel engineering. Leading scientists often have to invent and fabricate their instruments. Not unlike Galileo.
No one cares what William thinks because William is not engaged in a useful line of inquiry.
I suppose self-help books along the lines of The Power of Positive Thinking are useful to some. They are not new. the ideas are not new. the packaging is new and the labels are new.
Perhaps you haven’t been following the conversation up to this point. Please scroll up. It is my view that there is no such thing as “convincing” or “compelling” or “persuading” evidence, because those adjectives are not innate characteristics of whatever facts and/or information is being offered; those are characterizations of how the individual mind reacts to facts and information.
You’re conflating how the arrangement of your mind actually reacts with how it ought react. Finding evidence “rationally compelling” is not a quality of the evidence, but rather of the structure of the mind (or, for materialists, the brain) viewing the evidence.
If the mind is ordered by will, and one has decided to be an atheist, then one has made a choice prior to viewing any evidence how that evidence will be interpreted. In a sense, it’s like an a priori ideological bias coloring how one interprets facts and information, only on a much more fundamental level.
If mind is ordered by the happenstance arrangements of matter, then the mind will interpret the information and/or facts however it happens to be arranged by matter. If you mind is materiallly organized to disbelieve in god, then who knows what would change it? It might be some thing I say, or it might be a pepperoni pizza, or the changing physiology of a person as one ages. Who knows what would ultimately cause one to change their mind in a largely chaotic material system?
I’m not asking anyone to trust me because I’m not trying to get anyone to do anything. I’m not selling anything.
That depends on what’s at stake and the circumstances. People have chosen to believe that they could accomplish some things that they were told were impossible, and have at times accomplished great things. Choosing to believe something against all known facts, knowledge and advice is sometimes quite worth considering.
Sounds like a prelude to a “no-true-scientific-minded-scotsman” fallacy, considering that even scientists disagree about whether or not particular sets of evidence are “compelling” towards any particular conclusion.
I think I’d probably have to know what would persuade that particular person, regardless of if they were a scientist or not.
No kidding, there are differences of opinion within evidence-based reasoning. It’s almost as if there are differences of opinion on guilt or innocence. How can that be? I mean, why aren’t juries composed of only one individual?
That’s why most evidence is at best considered to be “persuasive,” and not compelling, in fact. There is a range of legitimate opinions in evidence-based reasoning, but a much greater range of baseless speculation outside of evidence-based reasoning. That you don’t even acknowledge the difference between evidence-based differences and the meaningless speculations unconstrained by any real evidence suggests that the importance of evidence is lost on you.
I would be interested in what makes a proper case, rather than whether or not I was trying to persuade a scientist or anyone else. Scientists aren’t especially great thinkers outside of their areas of expertise, not even necessarily within those areas (on average, they will be reasonably good at what testing has shown them to be capable of, naturally).
I am well aware that many people are not persuaded by persuasive evidence, since I see it every day. That changes nothing about the fact that certain evidence-based methods are demonstrably able to close in upon what is probably the truth, whereas “it looks like design” or some such thing is wholly inadequate to resolving the question of why life differs so radically from anything that has been observed to be designed.
Glen Davidson
I think this is what frosts believers. Not that science undermines God, but that science undermines and discredits belief.
I would say it undermines an immature faith – one that essentially equates historically certain (usually literalist) truth with empirical evidence. But that is not what faith is, and it doesn’t demand much from us other than obedience. Faith is placing our trust in what can never be proven out of love and admiration.
That’s why I view Ken Ham and YECers in general as immature Christians, because they freely admit that they would lose their “faith” if they accepted a non-literal Genesis. For the the Catholic Church, however, that is but the first step in walking in faith with Christ.
And yet here we sit, in front of computers, one of the the most complex things created by humans.
So while there might be disagreement on any particular conclusion, on average science works.
So the fact that you are not even willing to try to convince says much.
Your pedantry misses the core point. What objective, empirical evidence for a deity do you have that is of a similar quality to that commonly used to determine whether or not to trade a stock?
You are skirting the edge of the rule about assuming that other participants are posting in good faith.
I am an atheist not because of any a priori commitments but because I have never been presented with objective, empirical evidence for the existence of a deity. Do you have any such evidence?
Objective, empirical evidence for the entity you are claiming exists would be a reasonable start. Got any?
You are claiming that a deity of some sort exists. Do you have any objective, empirical evidence to back up that claim?
Category error. Rising above one’s perceived limitations can be facilitated by personal belief. The existence of a deity is a different type of claim. If you don’t have any objective, empirical evidence for such an entity, there is no reason to consider the claim that it exists valid.
I have faith that the ethics of Jesus as presented in the Bible is a pretty good model to follow. As history I think it’s rubbish, an amalgam of religious thinking from a dozen or more religions.
When I encounter religious people, most of them are more interested in the afterlife than whether Noah actually collected animals to save them from a global flood. I think the afterlife is wishful thinking, and I thing the manipulation of children with fear of hell borders on child abuse.
I say child abuse advisedly, because that was my profession for most of a decade. I think it is simply wrong to teach children stuff that isn’t true. If Gregory wants to know what my motive is for arguing against religion, there it is. I simply think lying to children is hurtful and wrong.
I taught my children about religion, and for a decade I sang in a choir. My kids shared activities with a church youth group and obviously heard religious teachings. I took no active steps to belittle religion. I simply didn’t confirm it.
Hmmm. Did Patrick assert that ‘convincingness’ is an attribute of the evidence itself in the first place? In fact who, outside of a passing Objective-Moralist, would assert that assessments of value or worth resided outside of minds? You also seem very fond of pizza.
Engineering is the fruit by which you know science.
Many, if not most, scientists want to make original discoveries and add to the fund of theoretical knowledge, but the rubber hits the road in products.
Some of those products are instruments used for “pure” research, but they are tangible things that would not work if the previous generation of pure research were not valid.
First, petrushka, yes, it is obvious you don’t care. No need to repeat yourself.
Second, the first sentence above is so childish as to be astonishing. You are not really living in your 70s still believing that nonsense, spouting such absurdity are you?
Third, consensus is not the only or even primary goal of theology. Unity? Perhaps within religions, but a monotheist, polytheist and atheist are simply not going to find ‘consensus’ on the (lack of) existence of a Creator. Period. One simply needs to choose their interpretation of reality and accept that calling. Theists hold presuppositions about reality that atheists do not (and vice versa) and the consequences of that (extra-scientific) ‘faith’ are significant across a range of human (and beyond) experiences.
Fourth, no, ‘faith’ does not ‘evolve.’ It is not merely a ‘biological,’ ‘material’ or ‘natural’ entity/phenomenon. It changes, sure, Amen; it is dynamic, a dance through life, if you will. But it is not merely a low-level ‘physical’ Darwinian theory/mechanism. That language is far too myopic and disrespectful for ‘faith.’
To claim that faith “evolved into science” is so absurd that only a few empty-hearted fools and charlatans would believe it. Are you one of those fools, petrushka? What you’ve just said stems from a quaint (quasi-Comtean) triumphalist view of ‘natural science uber alles’ that strongly reeks of positivistic lunacy. I had to cover my nose to read your self-elevated ‘fearless’ thoughts!
How about hope? How about wisdom? How about beauty, amazement, grace and majesty that elevates far beyond and above any specialist ‘science’ or ‘gnosticism’? Usually a man in his 70s (according to sociologists) is thinking about what happens after he dies. If ‘nothing’ is what you believe in, petrushka, then perhaps ‘fear’ (or fatalist indifference) is part of your vocabulary too. Maybe hope could do you some good.
What is on display here at TSZ is often expression (personal USAmerican stories) against fundamentalists and narrow-minded evangelicals who are anti-science as if that counts as ‘normal’ religious belief worldwide. The bigger, broader and deeper world of faith and theology is still out there waiting to be explored. And in that world there are intelligent, compassionate, scientific, productive, friendly, hopeful theists. It’s a pity if in your neighbourhoods you ‘skeptics/atheists’ haven’t ever discovered them.
If giving children hope and teaching them to elevate their hearts, bodies and minds is “hurtful and wrong,” then ‘petrushka’ in his 70s hasn’t seen the religion and theology I’ve seen, even still in my 30s.
What do you mean that child abuse was your “profession for most of a decade”? Do you mean you were abused for a decade or worked with children who were abused? The religion = child abuse argument was put forward by none other than Richard Dawkins, who is far from an inspiring or hopeful figure, a man of anger and jilted arrogance that even fellow atheists have turned against. Such an argument is rather silly if one zooms out, which a bit of research on religious care for the abused, parent-less and homeless would reveal, if you’d commit to doing it.
Sure, so do I, along with most others. If all you were exposed to was American ‘hellfire and brimstone,’ that’s perhaps understandable reaction. There’s a lot more than just teaching about ‘hell’ in the Abrahamic faiths, petrushka.
And thus what you never actually did, was leap and believe, is that right petrushka? Your Mind got in the way. What difference would ‘confirmation’ in your heart make anyway, right?
Considering that the stock costs you nothing, and can potentially reward you with great benefits, only a fool wouldn’t acquire a share.
However, this has nothing to do with my argument about the failure of Liz’s decision-making logic (that was for you, AF) at all. Whether or not there is any “objective, empirical” evidence “for” a “deity” (a string of words filled with ambiguity and room for denial) at all is pre-determined by a mind that has already defined and organized the values of those terms and what they can be applied to and how they can be applied.
What for Antony Flew or others objective, empirical evidence for god (such as the fine-tuning evidence), to you may be nothing of the sort. Does that mean Antony Flew (or others) have incorrect concepts of evidence, empiricism, or “deity”? Incorrect by what standard? Yours? What you personally believe to be some consensus standard?
What Liz said, IMO, translates into: “I didn’t feel like believing in god any more”, because that’s all “being persuaded by evidence” is for a materialist; a subjective feeling based on how one’s subjective brain-structure happens to react to incoming data.
Pascal called. He wants his wager back.
Nonsense. Theists claim that a deity actually exists, in reality. That’s what makes them theists.
And yet, in all of the prose you’ve posted on this forum, never once have you even attempted to provide any objective, empirical evidence for the existence of such an entity.
One might reasonably conclude that you have none.
You are such a sweet person, Gregory, that it actually pains me to disagree with you.
I am nearing 70, have thought long and hard about the things you present as important, and reached different conclusions.
I am quite capable of experiencing awe and wonder, quite aware of the limitations of science, not simple-minded, nor a fool.
I am also aware that there is a universe of sophisticated theology. I just don’t find it very interesting.
I have thought of religion as child abuse for many decades. I haven’t needed Richard Dawkins for this insight. I can see it with my own eyes.
The problem I have with faith is that it destroys intimacy. When an adult or authority figure places importance on belief without evidence — even contrary to evidence — he or she is exercising power over another person to prevent that person from thinking about or expressing heretical thoughts. It doesn’t have to be snake handling fundamentalism. It’s inherent in placing value on saying things that simply aren’t true. From where I sit, it’s the original, primordial sin.
From my own experience and my observation of friends and relatives, I would argue that much profession of faith is based of fear of offending others, particularly friends and relatives. Being quiet about doubts is a kind of politeness, a bit like not talking about someone’s bad breath.
The problem is that when you abandon consilience and consensus building in the world of ideas, you replace it with feigned politeness.
Your own posts add to my evidence. Rather than present arguments to bolster your own vision of truth, you choose to engage in name calling and labeling.
As if your faith or your vision of truth are somehow confirmed simply by calling other people fools or atheists or darwinists or evolutionists. This strikes me a political propaganda rather than rational discussion.
You have made unwarranted assumptions about my thoughts and my abilities. I don’t know what your motives are, and I don’t care. I merely note that you are wrong.
Hi Lizzie,
Thanks for your reply. Will get back to you in the next 24 hrs. Very busy now.
In Warwickshire, England, where we used to live there is no church/state separation, instead there’s a bizarre system where many primary (5- 11) schools are run by the Church of England on the state’s behalf. My daughter attended such an institution as there was no secular school nearby.
ETA clarification
I can recall her asking why she hadn’t been christened like her schoolmates. I said that we, her parents, weren’t christian and thought it was up to her to choose if she wanted to be baptised and we would make the arrangements if that was her choice.
She decided not to (maybe she enjoyed the notoriety or resisting peer pressure – must ask her if she remembers, she was about eight at the time). She’s now a Buddhist.
I see Patrick beat me to it with:Pascal’s wager.
[emphasis added]
But how does anyone (who is not fortunate enough to be William J Murray) decide to be a theist, or an atheist, or a deist? Are you really claiming that it is impossible for a person (other than yourself, of course) to move from one category to another? Or that the decision cannot be based on ‘evidence’?
The ‘faith’ of many people fosters intimacy. Rand’s lack of faith, her chronic atheism, is a clear example of destroying intimacy.
Well, I know plenty of them. Your condescending suggestion otherwise would be insulting, if I had any reason to take you seriously. Luckily…
Rubbish.
There is one common feature running through all the religious myths on offer. That is that they are made up by people. The anthropomorphic nature of these myths makes them pretty unconvincing. So, considering this evidence and the lack of any other evidence of deities, the evidence-led decision is to reject these myths.One cannot of course rule out some real evidence turning up one day but it ain’t happened yet. Unless you know something no-one else does.
It seems as if some people think just saying “Pascal’s Wager” rebuts an argument. Here’s the stock market argument for believing in god:
First off, it doesn’t cost anything. Nothing. It’s like finding a lifetime lottery ticket. Nobody else even has to know you have it, so you can’t look foolish to others. Second, you might be able to get considerable winnings throughout your life – meaning, you’re not only not betting anything, you might even benefit before you die.
Believing in God has been shown to have beneficial physiological effects; you don’t have to believe in a god you dislike, or one that commands harmful things, but rather you could believe in any kind of god where you get rewards just from the belief – a sense of comfort, hope, something that mitigates despair, grief, and misery.
You don’t even have to change your behavior; you can believe in a god that comports with everything you already do. If you’re a scientist, you don’t have to believe in a 6000-year old earth or a god that commands you to fly planes into buildings, hates homosexuals or frowns on pot use. You can believe in whatever god makes your life happier, more enjoyable, and more comforting.
So, it’s not really a bet at all. Compared to stock, there is no downside because you don’t have to believe in any god that makes you feel worse, only better, Since it doesn’t cost you anything, even if it doesn’t work out, you haven’t lost anything. If there is a particular god that actually exists that doesn’t agree with the god you have chosen to believe in, you still haven’t lost anything because that god wasn’t going to be fond of your atheism anyway.
There is simply no reason not to believe in a god that makes us feel better in our lives. There would be no reason not to get that stock – it’s free, and it comes with no potential downside other than what atheism already has. We do all sorts of things to help us feel better in our lives – to find comfort, purpose, satisfaction, meaning, hope. This is free and has no downside.
Claiming that there is no evidence that god exists, even if true, is irrelevant. Even if belief in god is a placebo, placebo’s are often very effective in real, measurable physical and psychological terms. “Whether or not god is real” is irrelevant to the question of if it is a good idea to believe in god; “the evidence isn’t compelling” is not a valid reason to stop believing in god. Believing in god has its own merit, whether god exists or not.
It’s the same case for Santa Claus.
Glen Davidson
Yes, because a being capable of creating a universe is going to be impressed and/or fooled by this.
The thing about your little wager is that you’ve yet to receive confirmation your bet has been accepted.
Do you have a betting slip?
As my opinion would be that an entity that knew the position of every particle in my being from the start of time to the end would probably be able to see that the “stock” you have purchased was purchased with honest intent.
What great benefits await the likes of you on the other side of the veil I wonder?
I only observe that I share details about my thoughts and feelings on this and other websites, and I haven’t seen you reciprocate.
You bring up Ayn Rand(?) for no apparent reason. What are you thinking about, and if you want to know what I think about, why not ask me instead of labeling me?
If I were a universe creator/creature lifetime behavior judge thingy, I’d punish people for trying Pascal’s wager more then the people who did not believe at all.
As at least the non-believers were honest.
You don’t “decide”; you choose. Do you want to believe in god? If so, then find or invent a god you can believe in and believe in it. I’ve rearranged my concept of god many times since choosing to be a theist to better match my actual experience and my needs.
Now no one can say who will saved, but it seems to me that Pascal’s Wager’s is a variation of worshiping false idols — believing in a fool’s insurance policy. God knows what motivates us, and hedging your bets isn’t anything like loving and trusting in God.
It’s not a bet because I’m not wagering anything. It’s a free lottery ticket, and it’s already paid off in my life immensely, and has been for over 20 years since I picked it up.
That’s the sort of mental juggling that most of us seek to avoid.
Because it does have consequences with respect to honesty of intellect, and to whether one is approaching the world both ingenuously and effectively.
Glen Davidson
It’s not an insurance policy. I don’t “believe in god” in order to secure a favorable afterlife; I believe in god to secure a happier life. Even if it is a placebo, placebos are often as physically and psychologically effective as actual medication.
What is amusing here are atheists saying they wouldn’t take a free lottery ticket that can pay off during their lives whether or not god exists because they wouldn’t want to piss off a god they don’t believe in anyway!!!!
OMG!!! Priceless.
I’ll re-phrase my questions then:
But how does anyone (who is not fortunate enough to be William J Murray) choose to be a theist, or an atheist, or a deist? Are you really claiming that it is impossible for a person (other than yourself, of course) to move from one category to another? Or that the choice cannot be based on ‘evidence’? Or “experience”?
It has not escaped our notice that, yet again, you are hiding behind a lame semantic quibble in order to avoid engagement. Compelling stuff.
I’m not seeing anyone say anything remotely like that, William.
I’d also like to understand William’s distinction between “decide” and “choose”.
Then don’t believe in god. Who cares? I was asked a question about how one can “decide” to believe in god. These are my answers wrt my own experience. If you find atheism satisfying and enjoyable, it’s certainly no skin off my nose.
Rumraket,
Noting that your comment was inappropriately flagged as spam. I have released it.
Super. And like I say, the punishment I would give you for trying to fool me, creator of the universe, would far outweigh the benefits gained during your brief mortal life.
Note: The punishment would not be for the wager itself. Merely for thinking that such a simplistic trick would actually work. Creator of universes tricked by a mere mortal? I think not…
And in a similar way, you too must really be empty for such a mere trick to have made such a big difference in your life. Ever considered these “benefits” have been had by others without having to lie to yourself for 20 years?
And I’d rather be ‘less happy’ then live a lie. I pity you.
I’m using “choose” in the free will, uncaused sense; believe as you wish.
I’m using “decide” as the “caused” sense, or weighing options by some criteria that will move you one way or another.
I think a more essential way of saying it is: would you rather believe in a god of some sort? If so, then do so, and don’t worry about the particulars for now.
I’m not trying to fool anyone about anything. I’m openly admitting to myself, everyone here and any god that actually exists that this is what I’m doing. How can I possibly be trying to “fool” any actual god?
I think I’m starting to see the impossibility of a breakthrough of any kind here with WJM. Rather then answer this (I’ve certainly not said it, I’m not afraid of pissing off a god I don’t think exists) I suspect he’ll become satisfied with the debate and leave.
William reads what he believes people are saying rather then what they are actually saying, and what he said there proves it without a shadow of a doubt.
Citation please WJM. Who here, please name names, is afraid of pissing off a god that does not exist?
Rather I’m pointing out that the consequences for you if your god does exist are potentially far worse for you then believing for any other reason then that you get something out of it (how venal).
DNA_jock: You choose to believe in god (of some sort) the same way you choose your favorite flavor of ice cream. You choose to believe because you want to believe. If you don’t want to believe, then don’t.
When god asks you why you believed in her, what will you say?