Quote:
|
"there is no evidence for the existence of a god, therefore the default position is to assume that one does not exist. Should compelling evidence ever become available, then my view will change."
|
Had to log in just to thank PyramidsofMars who seems to be advancing a thoughtful, well-considered, non-partisan argument. This thread is a perfect example of how both sides can be dogmatic. Science can be your God if you make it so. Just like (at the risk of sounding melodramatic) consumerism, money, TV, fashion, etc, etc.
I did want to respond to this, however, and question why you conclude that the no-god option is the default?
It seems to me, that lacking conclusive evidence for or against,
both would be acceptable conclusions. After all, how were molecules discovered if not by looking at a seemingly solid object and saying 'what if there were actually millions of tiny particles here?'
One last concluding thought...
Science may be rational but our world, in many ways, is not. It's complex, irregular, bizarre, fascinating, awe-inspiring, and beautiful, but oftentimes, irrational.
At the risk of sounding like a naive, preachy romantic - why do we always have to bicker that our belief is right? The same sentiments that go into a thread like this are what fuel all kinds of wars (both science and religion). Can't we look for the truth in the other person's argument instead of the negative? Heaven forbid we actually learn something.