At 10:02 AM 10/18/2000, you wrote:
>>SJ>Here is a test of "dogmatism". I have in the past stated that I am
>>prepared
>>to admit that I could be completely wrong about theism, Christianity, ID
>>and/or creationism and that atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
>>evolution could be completely right.
>>
>>I have invited Chris and other atheists to similarly state publicly that
>>they could be completely wrong about atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
>>evolution and that theism, Christianity, ID and/or creationism could be
>>completely right.
>>
>>To date, AFAIK, no atheist has been willing to admit this.
Susan
>atheism/Darwinism and Christianity/creationism are two big lumps in your
>mind. They are four separate issues for me.
>
>Theism:
>Someone once asked H.L. Menken what he would do if he died and woke up in
>heaven and saw Jesus surrounded by the apostles. He said he would walk up
>to Jesus and say "Sir, I was wrong." I'm afraid it would take a similar
>level of evidence for me to admit the same thing.
Chris
How would he know it was Jesus? He might be in some pseudo-hell created by
some naturalistic alien sadist. :-)
For my part, what it would take would be a logically consistent concept of
God followed by proof that that particular God existed. So far, except for
certain abuses of the word "God" to apply to things that I regard as
non-theistic, I haven't seen such a logically consistent concept of God.
Whether it could be proved to exist would depend partly on limitations that
might be imposed by the concept. But, if it was proved, that would be
enough for me. But, I'm not holding my breath.
Susan
>Darwinism:
>The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. I'll probably believe it until
>the Theory of Gravity is proved untrue and things start floating up off
>the ground.
Chris
Gould says that in principle, naturalistic evolution could be wrong. I
agree, in that some designer *could*, in principle, have been manipulating
things. But, why? And where's the evidence? I could accept design if it
served some valid explanatory function, especially one not already served
better by evolutionary theory, and if some major and irremediable flaw were
found in evolutionary theory.
>Susan
>Christianity:
>Christian morality with its Middle Eastern emphasis on blame/shame and its
>neurotic dualism will probably always turn me off. Christianity is also
>intensely authoritarian. Democracy is a pagan idea that Christians have
>never been comfortable with and I'm very fond of democracy.
Chris
Democracy is a *secular* idea, not a specifically Pagan idea. It is true
that I don't think I could ever accept *Christianity*. It's just too
irrational and bizarre. If God exists, he should be the ultimate in
reasonability, not the ultimate in insanity, cruelty, short-temperedness,
egotism, barbarism, and stupidity.
Susan
>Creationism:
>An attempt to use the force of the Federal government to require teaching
>the mythology of one of the many religions practiced in the US in public
>schools. No thanks! There's nothing scientific about creationism and ID is
>just a propaganda campaign that collapses when real scientific evidence is
>required of it. See Christian views of democracy above.
Chris
We need to distinguish creationism as a political movement from simple
theological creationism that can exist separately from the political
movement. Some creationists have no interest in politics, but merely
believe the Genesis myths.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 15:35:29 EDT