As a former instructor for a Biology and Society class at LBCC, I was often asked if there were any way to interpret the Genesis creation stories so that they were compatible with the findings of modern science. My answer was always NO, not without considerable re-writing and re-defining of numerous biblical words and phrases.
Yes, the Prayer Caucus’ letter — demanding “In God We Trust” as our national motto — is a waste of time and should be thrown in the trash bin. But we can imagine some other interesting responses that we might make to U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes and his Prayer Caucus. We could ask exactly what do they understand by their motto “In God We Trust.”
I am very suspicious of the often repeated claim that mystical experiences always have some object or referent, natural or supernatural. This implies that there is more here than just an extraordinary experience, that it is an experience of something which is real. All are very questionable claims.
We can raise raise a number of questions regarding the sociological and historical effects of monotheism, questions which many members of secular communities tend to answer in negative terms. But, of course, a definitive statement on this issue is not easy and maybe not even possible, given that most answers are posed in terms of a religious or a secular bias. Nonetheless, maybe a few things can be said which are not just partisan statements that belief in one god is good for you or the opposite.
What the world would be like if man never invented religion nor needed a god to believe in? Some think that the world societies would simply fall apart with no religion to guide them. As it looks from my point of view, religion divides much more than it unites. It might unite small communities in times of trouble or despair, but taking a look at the larger picture, its divides entire cultures – which is much more dangerous than dividing small communities.
Walter Kaufmann, who was an effective ‘atheist’ and heretic long before our current crop of outspoken atheists, was also bothered by the general attitude among some secular-minded people that the worst aspects of religion characterized religion in general and the attitude that religious tradition offered little of value to modern thought. Kaufmann included a humorous dialogue between Satan and the Atheist in his 1960 book, Critique of Religion and Philosophy.
“Philosophy as a preparation for death?” “Philosophy as the study of death?” Why should we accept such characterizations of philosophy? Maybe I’m being disrespectful to Plato, and his version of the great Socrates, when I say “thanks, but no thanks!”
The Christian god is described as an all-good, all-loving, all-merciful, all-just, all-compassionate, all-knowing, all-powerful, interventionist god. Of course! Who wants to worship a hateful, vengeful, ignorant, absentee god? But if this god really exists, then why has there been so much heinous evil throughout all of human history?
The fallacy of arguing from ignorance does not apply in all cases in which we point to ignorance or a lack of evidence as basis for a conclusion. It does not follow that one argues fallaciously from ignorance whenever one argues that ‘P’ is not likely because there is no evidence adduced for ‘P’. (Suppose that ‘P’ represents the claim that Muslims secretly plan to overthrow the U.S. government.) Sometimes our best information is that there is no evidence to support the claim that P, and when we point this out we are not committing the fallacy of “argument from ignorance.
An acquaintance (call him “Bob”) tagged me in Facebook with a set of remarks arguing that random chance and physical processes alone could never explain how the universe came about. I considered his remarks, replied to them, and tried to show why I (like most scientists and rationally-critical people) reject this argument as even remotely close to a good case for an intelligent designer working behind the scenes to bring about the universe