[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that Dennett missed perhaps the most important one: Religious experience, or the revelatory nature of faith. I have had my fair share, and whilst I am well aware of the rational arguments leveled against religious experiences, they are meaningful enough in my own life for me to maintain a commitment to "faith."

He does address that in his book Breaking the Spell, highly recommend it if you get the chance, its very well laid out case of science looking at religion as a natural phenomena.

Isn't this a form of "spirituality"? You know, a couple of weeks ago a guy in the spiritual support group from my Church that I am involved in shared an experience he had had that week. He's a contractor and has been hit hard by the economic slow down. He's in rough shape and he is running out of money. He was invited out for coffee by another friend who gave him a sizable cheque that just happened to cover his most immediate and pressing expenses because "the Lord told him he needed it." No strings attached. No thanks neccessary. Just because it is what he was convinced was the right thing to do. How does one explain that as simply putting faith in his "fellow human"? Try telling that to either of these two men who sincerely believe that God cared enough about the situation to—dare I say it—intervene.

Charity I think comes from some partial evolutionary triggers, and of course empathy has many benefits to humans. Whether a person does such acts because they 'think' its God's will or if its done out of concern without such a claim is I think less important that looking at it as a example of human kindness, something we need more of.

I was struck by a fact that per capita Sweden and Denmark had some of the highest donations to charity/other countries of any nation in the world. A mostly unreligious nation being if not the most, right at the top in terms of generosity to their fellow man. Some of this socialigist's would also point out that democratic socialism has a bit to add to this, universal healthcare, free education, there is an underpinning of care for your fellow man in all aspects of that society from birth.

I'm not impressed by "miracles" simply because no one has ever seen anything that is really and truly "not explicable by natural or scientific laws." But it is usually those small, inexplicable coincidences of amazing good fortune that press home the point for me: that "God" may not be knowable, but some of the time he is actually believable.

Yeah, I agree there, especially with one of my favorite websites http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ , which is quite simply the best line of argument to refute an intervening god, something I strongly think people of faith shouldn't claim.

I think that if you have faith, you should avoid believing in an involving god because that would create and for me disprove that there is a god. A non involving, completely incomprehensible 'thing' we could call god is a topic starter for me, but a biblical, 'we understand god', he listens to our prayers, he plops down a miracle here and there, he talks to me, etc.. This is a god that would make it easy argumentative wise to dispute and throw away.