Blair, Hitchens Debate: Religion Force for Good?
In this Feb. 2, 2012 file photo, Carl V. Ericsson, 73, is led into a Lake County courtroom for a bond hearing on a first-degree murder charge in Madison, S.D. Ericsson was sentenced to life in prison Friday, June 15, 2012, after pleading guilty but mentally ill last month to second-degree murder. Ericsson was charged in the Jan. 31 killing of retired Madison High School teacher and track coach Norman Johnson, who KSs shot twice in the face. (AP Photo/Dirk Lammers) / Dirk Lammers
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday his religious beliefs did not play a role in his decision to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq during a debate about the merits of religion in Toronto.
Blair attempted to persuade his verbal sparring opponent, writer Christopher Hitchens, that religion is a force for global good when he was asked by an audience member how religion influenced his decision to stand with the United States against Iraq.
"Religion doesn't do policy. All my decisions were based on policy and so they should be, and you may disagree with those decisions but they were made because I genuinely believed them to be right," said Blair before the audience of more than 2,600 at Toronto's Roy Thompson Hall.
Blair, 57, converted to Catholicism after leaving office in 2007. Since then he has started the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to promote understanding between religions.
He faced a fierce opponent in the debating ring Friday night. Hitchens, 61, an avowed atheist, Vanity Fair columnist and author of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (Twelve Books), has been a prominent voice in attacking religion.
"Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt - is it good for the world?" Hitchens said in his opening remarks.
"To terrify children with the image of hell ... to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?" Hitchens asked as he opened the debate hosted by the Munk Debates center.
Though his face was pale and drawn, and his trademark mop of unruly hair gone, he was no less animated than usual in spite of his battle with cancer of the esophagus. He said earlier Friday that he scheduled his chemotherapy treatments around the debate so he "wouldn't have to let anyone down,"
"This is what I do whether I'm sick or not. (Religion) is still the main argument," said Hitchens who has made it known that his diagnosis has not opened him to God or religious belief.
Hitchens fueled the debate by criticizing religion for blocking peace in the Middle East, perpetuating poverty by subjugating women as inferior and causing numerous conflicts including the genocide in Rwanda - a country he says "is the most Christian country in the world, and one which many of the people who committed the crimes are now hiding in the pulpit."
Blair acknowledged that religion has been used to lead people to commit indescribable acts, but it has also led people to commit acts of goodness.
"Health care in Africa has been delivered by those motivated by their religion ... The abolition of slavery was achieved by combined secularism and non-secularism. At least accept that there are people who are doing great things because of their faith," he said.
Blair incited a sarcastic response from Hitchens when he argued the Northern Ireland peace process is an example of how people of different faiths can bridge their differences.
"It's very touching for Tony to say that he recently went to a meeting to bridge the religious divide in Northern Ireland, where does the religious divide come from?" Hitchens asked. "Four-hundred years and more in my own country of birth of people killing each other's children depending on what kind of Christian they were."
Although a lot of conflicts have religious roots, it's futile to try to drive religion out, Blair said.
"In the end, it's for politics and religion to try and work out a way in which religion in a world of globalization that is pushing people together can play a positive rather than negative role," he added.
Audience members voted on the debate and preliminary results posted on the Munk Debates website sided with Hitchens, with 68 percent saying that religion is more of a destructive than benign force in the world.
BBC World News and the News Channel will broadcast the debate on Jan. 1, 2011.
By Associated Press Writer Charmaine Noronha
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Blair attempted to persuade his verbal sparring opponent, writer Christopher Hitchens, that religion is a force for global good when he was asked by an audience member how religion influenced his decision to stand with the United States against Iraq.
"Religion doesn't do policy. All my decisions were based on policy and so they should be, and you may disagree with those decisions but they were made because I genuinely believed them to be right," said Blair before the audience of more than 2,600 at Toronto's Roy Thompson Hall.
Blair, 57, converted to Catholicism after leaving office in 2007. Since then he has started the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to promote understanding between religions.
He faced a fierce opponent in the debating ring Friday night. Hitchens, 61, an avowed atheist, Vanity Fair columnist and author of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (Twelve Books), has been a prominent voice in attacking religion.
"Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt - is it good for the world?" Hitchens said in his opening remarks.
"To terrify children with the image of hell ... to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?" Hitchens asked as he opened the debate hosted by the Munk Debates center.
Though his face was pale and drawn, and his trademark mop of unruly hair gone, he was no less animated than usual in spite of his battle with cancer of the esophagus. He said earlier Friday that he scheduled his chemotherapy treatments around the debate so he "wouldn't have to let anyone down,"
"This is what I do whether I'm sick or not. (Religion) is still the main argument," said Hitchens who has made it known that his diagnosis has not opened him to God or religious belief.
Hitchens fueled the debate by criticizing religion for blocking peace in the Middle East, perpetuating poverty by subjugating women as inferior and causing numerous conflicts including the genocide in Rwanda - a country he says "is the most Christian country in the world, and one which many of the people who committed the crimes are now hiding in the pulpit."
Blair acknowledged that religion has been used to lead people to commit indescribable acts, but it has also led people to commit acts of goodness.
"Health care in Africa has been delivered by those motivated by their religion ... The abolition of slavery was achieved by combined secularism and non-secularism. At least accept that there are people who are doing great things because of their faith," he said.
Blair incited a sarcastic response from Hitchens when he argued the Northern Ireland peace process is an example of how people of different faiths can bridge their differences.
"It's very touching for Tony to say that he recently went to a meeting to bridge the religious divide in Northern Ireland, where does the religious divide come from?" Hitchens asked. "Four-hundred years and more in my own country of birth of people killing each other's children depending on what kind of Christian they were."
Although a lot of conflicts have religious roots, it's futile to try to drive religion out, Blair said.
"In the end, it's for politics and religion to try and work out a way in which religion in a world of globalization that is pushing people together can play a positive rather than negative role," he added.
Audience members voted on the debate and preliminary results posted on the Munk Debates website sided with Hitchens, with 68 percent saying that religion is more of a destructive than benign force in the world.
BBC World News and the News Channel will broadcast the debate on Jan. 1, 2011.
By Associated Press Writer Charmaine Noronha
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Graphic video: Man dead in "truly shocking" London attack Play Video
- 2 men from diverted Pakistani flight into U.K. arrested
- Bangladesh slum life 13 Photos
- Muslim hard-liners ID suspect in London attack
- Former sex slaves: Osaka mayor should quit
- U.K. official: London attack suspects probed before
- Tokyo's rockabilly scene 16 Photos
- Deadly car bombing at aid group's house in Kabul
I do know that the majority of atheists today (at lest those I have had discussions with) are Objectivists.
So for lack of a better option lets look at the Objectivist definition.
The following definition is from page 387 of "The Ayn Rand Lexicon":
"Proof", in the full sense, is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic. [originally found in the Leonard Peikoff, "Introduction to Logic" lecture series (1974), Lecture 1.]
Objectivisim is riddled with contradictory identifications. Above we have an excellent example of this. Proof, a noun, is being defined as a verb (contradictory identification again). This mistake is easily corrected by a small edit, "Proof", in the full sense is the [end product of] the process . . .
What Dr. Peikoff is defining above is the process of proving something. A very minor mistake you might say, and I agree. But just as thousands of pieces of circumstantial evidence add up to something more than just circumstantial evidence, so to, thousands of such minor mistakes add up to major error.
Let's look at his definition a bit closer. Accepting the notion of deriving a conclusion step by step in accordance with the laws of logic reflects positively on the credibility of Objectivism. The philosophy requires that a proof be based on the "evidence of the senses" which seems quite reasonable when speaking of an airtight irrefutable proof, since the evidence of the senses is the most direct and least questionable form of evidence. But this is the only reference to the meaning of "evidence" in the lexicon. The lexicon contains no other definition of evidence, which indicates that this is the only real form of evidence. But it points to another logical fallacy (once again contradictory identification) that Objectivism is guilty of.
Objectivism says that logic correctly applied to data from seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting, results in proof in, for example, the fields of science, and the individual Objectivist may accept the evidence of other people's senses in that context. But logic applied to the evidence of the senses of Theists cannot produce proof, since the testimony and records of Theists, the evidence of THEIR senses simply cannot be valid. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence is dispensed with by simply saying claiming "that's not proof".
I believe in science, but I also believe in G*D, and scientific evidence is one of my many reasons.
Rational thought and religion are polar opposites. Religion REQUIRES you to ABANDON rational thought.
"Science isn't your forte is it? The funny part is your screen name. Titter."
You obviously have no comprehension of science if you can beleive this.
by January 4, 2011 9:13 AM EST
"Rational thought and religion are polar opposites. Religion REQUIRES you to ABANDON rational thought."
Yes, that is a common delusion. Rational thought applied to spirituality results in rational religion. But if you find your "beliefs" more satisfying I support your right to be deluded.
For example:
You can't prove a negative? Oh no that doesn't apply to all mere negatives. You can prove that 2+2 is not equal to 5, or that there are no ducks in the room. No it is only a Universal Negative which cannot be proved, i.e. G*D. How very convenient since it completely transfers the "burden of proof" to the Theist. They don't have to support their contention there is no G*D, we must prove their is One. This is a strange position for a purportedly rational person for another reason. It has already been disproved by counter example by modern science, i.e. Relativity Physics. There is no such thing as a physical object, anywhere in the universe, that can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The non-existence of any such object ANYWHERE has been proven by modern science. The actual proof is a bit beyond me, I'm not a relativity physicist, but when 97% of all PhD level scientists agree that something has been truly proven I trust their expert opinion, because I have FAITH in their abilities.
This is in fact how most atheists arrive at most of their beliefs as well, i.e. by trusting in the testimony and records of others. Put on some armor and a battle helmet before trying to point this out to them.
And jolly good luck trying to get them to admit it. They deceive themselves far more completely than they deceive others, therefore they are usually most sincere in their belief that their logical contradictions are the only valid logic.
For example:
The apples and oranges fallacy is invoked to avoid a comparison of the EVIDENCE supporting the existence of apples and oranges. Comparison of evidence to evidence is an apples to apples comparison which is logically acceptable. Therefore identifying it to be an apples to oranges logical fallacy is in fact the logical fallacy of "contradictory identification", which saves them much grief in a debate with someone who isn't skilled at seeing through this deception. It is not an intentional deception in most cases, it is simply a product of their brainwashing, which they also deny. Theists are brainwashed and atheist are not, is once again contradictory identification.
As further proof (by a preponderance of the evidence) of the dogmatism of their belief system which further forms their (man made) shield against refutation. They irrationally believe that a consideration of the nature of evidence and proof is not prerequisite to a consideration of the question of whether or not the existence of G*D can be proved. Their dogmatic belief system already defines any evidence in support of G*D's existence as fairy tales ruled inadmissible in the kangaroo court of there brainwashed minds.
They believe the ancient testimony and records proving the existence of Caesar and his empire, but they reject the ancient testimony and records proving the existence of G*D and his kingdom. Why?
Because the latter does not support their contention that G*D does not exist. If they have any other reason for this double standard (another logical fallacy) they refuse to share it and cry "fairy-tales"!
So as is virtually always the case in such debates the Atheist makes assertions without feeling any need to logically justify them. Such assertions are presented as irreducible primaries, obviously true, irrefutable, and in need of no justification.
Examples:
The Bible is a collection of fairy tales. Why do you believe in such childish things?
You have no more proof for G*D than you have for the Easter Bunny (Santa Claus, Tooth fairy).
You are incorrect! Get a dictionary.
(What is your definition, and what dictionary are you using?)
You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.
(Explain it to me!)
Get a dictionary.
This allows them to insist their definition is correct without the need to prove it. Nothing more than an attempt to win effortless points in the debate.
Obviously the Atheist master of logic sees no rational or logical reason to establish agreement on the meaning of the concepts being used in the debate. He/she is saying, I know the only correct definition and if you claim you don't know, you are either ignorant or intentionally trying to trick me, in either case I am not responsible for your education. They act as if their is only one definition which may be applied to any concept regardless of the context (or they insist they know the context and refuse to discuss any definition which lies outside that context "in their view").
For example, this is a religious debate therefore only religious dogma is relevant, philosophic dogma is not relevant Which illustrates another problem, their constant insistence on "contradictory identifications" which is a "logical fallacy". They MUST indulge in logical fallacies to justify their irrational "Belief System". A debate about the attributes of G*D is a religious debate. A debate about the existence of G*D is a philosophic debate. Yes G*D is a religious concept, but debating His existence is a philosophic debate done with atheists. Theists have no need to seriously debate the existence except as a hypothetical exercise to hone one's skills at handling atheist attacks, and they are attacks, because they perceive (again quite irrationally) that all religion is evil and must be opposed as rigorously as possible. They exhibit all the characteristics of a verbal holy war against religion. But they are guilty of no dogmatic beliefs because that is a religious evil which they have cast out. (with the help of the Rabbis, I'm sorry, teachers, who lead them to the light of perfectly pure irrefutable "beliefs").
I want to stress that I am speaking of the large majority of atheists but not all atheists. I understand that their are always unique individuals in any group that do not fit the mold.
But again generally speaking, atheists say all Theists are brainwashed fools who cling to their dogmatic belief systems based on fairy tales (but remember we can be guilty of , or the victim of, dogmatic brainwashing, but they cannot, since they have seen the indisputable light). In fact they state as a given, an irreducible primary in no need of logical justification, that we are brainwashed and they are not. This is nothing more than a vain attempt to usurp the moral high ground without any need to prove they deserve it.
Atheists have many a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle, which is held to be beyond question and obviously irrefutable, to draw upon in their arguments, which if denied by their challenger will result in their withdrawal from the discussion, because to question these beliefs (which may not be called dogmas because no authority requires them to believe them) is to demonstrate a total lack of logical knowledge, which makes debating such an ignorant person a waste of their precious time (after all when they are dead they are dead so time is limited). This convenient tactic allows them to avoid defeat by superior logic, and this allows them to continue to feel rationally superior to all those brainwashed Theists. It's a great philosophic con job, just define the rules of debate in such a fashion as to prevent any possibility of a successful challenge.
For example:
You can't prove a negative? Oh no that doesn't apply to all mere negatives. You can prove that 2+2 is not equal to 5, or that there are no ducks in the room. No it is only a Universal Negative which cannot be proved, i.e. G*D. How very convenient since it completely transfers the "burden of proof" to the Theist. They don't have to support their contention there is no G*D, we must prove their is One. This is a strange position for a purportedly rational person for another reason. It has already been disproved by counter example by modern science, i.e. Relativity Physics. There is no such thing as a physical object, anywhere in the universe, that can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The non-existence of any such object ANYWHERE has been proven by modern science. The actual proof is a bit beyond me, I'm not a relativity physicist, but when 97% of all PhD level scientists agree that something has been truly proven I trust their expert opinion, because I have FAITH in their abilities.
This is in fact how most atheists arrive at most of their beliefs as well, i.e. by trusting in the testimony and records of others. Put on some armor and a battle helmet before trying to point this out to them.
And jolly good luck trying to get them to admit it. They deceive themselves far more completely than they deceive others, therefore they are usually most sincere in their belief that their logical contradictions are the only valid logic.
For example:
The apples and oranges fallacy is invoked to avoid a comparison of the EVIDENCE supporting the existence of apples and oranges. Comparison of evidence to evidence is an apples to apples comparison which is logically acceptable. Therefore identifying it to be an apples to oranges logical fallacy is in fact the logical fallacy of "contradictory identification", which saves them much grief in a debate with someone who isn't skilled at seeing through this deception. It is not an intentional deception in most cases, it is simply a product of their brainwashing, which they also deny. Theists are brainwashed and atheist are not, is once again contradictory identification.
As further proof (by a preponderance of the evidence) of the dogmatism of their belief system which further forms their (man made) shield against refutation. They irrationally believe that a consideration of the nature of evidence and proof is not prerequisite to a consideration of the question of whether or not the existence of G*D can be proved. Their dogmatic belief system already defines any evidence in support of G*D's existence as fairy tales ruled inadmissible in the kangaroo court of there brainwashed minds.
They believe the ancient testimony and records proving the existence of Caesar and his empire, but they reject the ancient testimony and records proving the existence of G*D and his kingdom. Why?
Because the latter does not support their contention that G*D does not exist. If they have any other reason for this double standard (another logical fallacy) they refuse to share it and cry "fairy-tales"!
The only evidence of that 'god' is a 2000-4000 year old collection of fairy tales which can REPEATEDLY be proven false.(earth as the center of the universe, earth being supported by two great pillars, devil takes jesus to the highest mountain on earth and they can view the whole world, etc) Not to mention too many contradictions to name (like adam & eve being created at the same time in Genesis chapter 1, and in chapter 2 Eve wasn't created until Adam expressed displeasure at the other animals).
There are many arguments against the G*Dhood of Jesus, but they all have certain commonalities.
They all boil down to something like this: If G*D is infinite, He could not be contained in a finite vessel like a human being. If G*D is omniscient, and the mind of G*D contains all knowledge. A human brain having limited capacity cannot contain the mind of G*D. The instruction set defining the personality/behavior set of G*D's intellect, G*D's software, cannot be contained or implemented (Run) by the wetware (as opposed to hardware) of the human brain (a natural computer). In the pre-computer world it was simply stated that the mind of G*D is infinite and therefore must have an infinite brain to contain it.
This is only a problem if one demands that all of G*D's Being must be contained in the human simultaneously. In other words, if the entire mind of G*D must be contained all at once. However any data set can be divided into smaller sets. Even software programs can be divided into sub-routines.
Consider the computer screen on which you are reading this post. It is a data space of limited capacity.
You cannot place the sum total of human knowledge on this screen and view it all at once, but you can theoretically view all human knowledge, if you can scroll the screen up and down to reveal different portions of this knowledge base. I do not believe there is any requirement that Jesus' brain contain the sum total of the Mind of G*D at any given instant for him to be G*D. If His brain can download any portion of the mind of G*D, up to the rated capacity of the perfect human brain, as needed, then I say his mind IS the mind of G*D.
Why might G*D want to create a human level implementation of His G*D software? Aside from the fact that he wanted to offer humans salvation, it was the most perfect way for an infinite being to communicate his message to us. We can handle one screen at a time, so He wisely decided to scroll his message to us.
In the event that you have pulled an Ayn Rand and have decided you have been insulted to severely to continue. I can only say that if you can't take it don't dish it out.
If you just got bored with my "circular" logic, then I must say that you really need to work on your proclivity for contradictory identification. Logical fallacies prevent meaningful philosophic debate.
In any event I found the debate very enlightening, and I thank you for participating. Best Wishes, John R
Yes, and it would not be the topic of discussion. Next? - Slappy
The question of whether or not you are truly thinking for yourself, as you CLAIM, is relevant.
And I think this bares repeating, when you ask me a question, the only logically relevant meaning is your intended meaning. and when I ask a question of you the only logically relevant meaning is my intended meaning. Otherwise all we have is a failure to communicate. - John R
"Tens or hundreds of thousands, or more, witnesses through the ages, and many documents supporting the existence of G*D, which you insist must all be lies for some reason." - John R
That's not proof, any more than Spakespeare's works are actual history. You apparently don't understand the difference between fact and fairy tale. - Slappy
You dare to make the positive assertion that all of scripture is a fairy tale, and place the burden of proof on me to prove it is not? That sounds familiar but backwards somehow. - John R
"Well of course this wont qualify as proof in your belief system, (an accurate prediction)
but the Double Slit Experiment in quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe somehow knows if we are watching, and that it acts differently when we are not. I think that is a powerful indication of some intelligence at work on a cosmic level" - John R
Typical of your type, and the entire reason religion exists. You just illustrated PERFECTLY the thought process of "I cannot understand it, so it MUST be God!". No logic whatsoever. Which, of course, doesn't seem to bother you at all. - Slappy
I say that the universe exhibits what appears to be intelligent behavior, therefore this might be an indication of intelligence, and you translate that into being equivalent to "I cannot understand it, so it MUST be God!" I guess I have to make the A & B therefore C's more explicit for you. - John R
"I haven't dodged a SINGLE question of yours. That's simply dishonest. - Slappy
I'll put together the list tomorrow. I don't feel like digging through all our posts right now. John R"
I'll be waiting a very long time for that list.... - Slappy
Is less than 24 hours a very long time Slappy? - John R
"I've presented proof you just don't chose to accept that it is proof. - John R"
You have not once presented "proof". Theory? Conjecture?? Dogmatic belief? Yes, you've presented all of those. Actual proof, per the actual dictionary definition??
That is an outright lie. Otherwise, repost it RIGHT NOW. - Slappy
It's been posted Slappy. Now put up or shut up. How the heck DO you define proof? And who or what taught it to you? - John R
________________________________________________________
OK Slappy I'll try getting an answer from you by another route. I went outside tonight and I noticed there is no moon, it just disappeared. My observation indicates to me, rightly or wrongly, that the Moon no longer exists. Now prove to me without reference to the records or testimony of others that it does indeed still exist. You've already stated that it is verifiable and proven. OK, so verify it and prove it without reference to the testimony or records of others. I can't prove it doesn't exist and I'm not required to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you now, let's see what you got. I already know you believe that theoretically you could go there and verify it first-hand, but you haven't done that, and the only reason you believe that you could is because you believe the Moon exists in the first place. I'm asking you to prove it exists using what you have to work with today. Why do you believe now? And prove you are correct in this belief. Given your standard of proof , I'll nominate you for any award that applies if you succeed. - John R
"Apples and oranges. Another sign of no actual argument. - Slappy
Contradictory identification, another sign of no actual logic. - John R."
If you're unfamiliar with the phrase, look it up. You attempt to compare the tangible with the intangible, which is an "apples and oranges" comparison, and a logical fallacy. - Slappy
I am quite familiar with the phrase and I know when it does and does not apply. That's why I pointed out that it was you, and not I, that was committed the logical fallacy contradictory identification. You have incorrectly identified the comparison which was being made. I was not comparing a tangible with an intangible, nor the Moon to G*D. I was comparing the evidence in support of each proposition.
Evidence to evidence. Apples to Apples.
And please share which dictionary you subscribe to, and the definition of proof you are using? Proof cannot exist in the absence of the evidence which validates it. Where there is a single piece of sufficiently compelling evidence there might be proof, but where there is no evidence there can be no proof. I understand the nature of proof. If you disagree, please state the nature of the disagreement.
by slappy_mcghee November 28, 2010 7:15 PM EST
"I do not HAVE a belief system."
1. Are you saying that your beliefs are not integrated in your mind to form an interconnected whole?
I asked this because I observe that you have beliefs, and they at least seem at first glance to be systematically organized.
I understand now that the better question is this:
What exactly does the compound concept represented by the auditory/visual designator "belief system" symbolize in your conceptual hierarchy?
2. If you see it, how do you know the pilot isn't showing you a huge ice burg?
Asked with respect to the verification of the existence of Antarctica.
- A point not addressed. Do you have any a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle, which is held to be beyond question and obviously irrefutable? I am asking if you have such beliefs not if you feel obligated to have them.
I get my definitions from Websters New World Dictionary of the American language.
3. Where do yours come from?
Oh and before I forget. When I ask a question it is only my intended meaning which applies in any attempt to understand what I am asking. When you ask a question it is only your intended meaning which applies in any attempt to understand what you are asking. The separate question of who is applying the "correct" meaning, is not logically relevant in this context.
- A point dodged by refusing to accept my intended meaning.
If you believe in anything you yourself have not observed or experienced, like it or not, you use faith.
I'll rephrase it:
If you believe in anything you yourself have not observed or experienced, like it or not, you are trusting in the accuracy of the testimony or records of others, and this trust is the only reason you have to believe in something you have not observed or experienced. You see I am pointing out the reason for such a belief. The nature of the object, idea or other entity believed in is not logically relevant.
4. Why would you adopt such a glaring double standard?
Why do you have two standards of proof for the Moon and G*D?
We are discussing the nature of evidence presented as proof of something. The nature of the entities the evidence relates to is logically irrelevant. You accept one class of evidence as proof of the Moon, and you reject the same class of evidence as proof of G*D. Why?
Because the Moon is verifiable and proven, does not address the question. The question pertains only to the nature of the evidence in both cases.
5. I say you can't verify that the Moon exists but you believe it does anyway. You just say you can verify it. So tell me how you propose to do that?
This one speaks for itself.
- A point not addressed:
If you are trying to say that proof beyond all possibility of doubt is the ONLY proof, then I would say that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is also considered proof, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence is also proof.
"The first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged is now a reality. A teaching that delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence?based truth embodied in experience. For the first time in history, however unexpected or unwelcome, the world must contend with a claim to new revealed truth, a moral wisdom not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rational and justifiable belief!?"
If confirmed and there appears a growing concerted effort to test and authenticate this material, of which I am taking part, this will represent a paradigm change in the nature of faith and in the moral and intellectual potential of human nature itself;? untangling the greatest? questions of human existence: sustainability, consciousness, meaning, suffering, free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most profound problems of our age.
While the religious will find this news most difficult, those who have claimed to be of an Enlightenment mind should find it of particular interest. But if they are unable to appreciate this change in the historical faith paradigm, to one that conforms precisely to a criteria subject to test and confirmation, then their own 'claim' to rationality is no more than pretension nor better then those theological illusions they find so abhorrent.
A unexpected revolution appears to be under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk