I don't like the assholish context of that QoTD, but it's largely right.

What I don't like about the situation is people invoking science to say he DOESN'T exist. "There's no physical evidence of him! He must therefore not exist!" To this I have two responses: 1) If God did truly exist as an omnipotent being, he would be able manifest himself through scientifically explainable phenomena. 2) That's the same thing that people said about the earth being flat, the earth being the center of the universe, the planets having circular orbits, etc. Just because we can't percieve yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What do I really think? I think that there is no definitive "yes" or "no" as to whether he exists. It's faith...you're not supposed to be able to prove it. I'm by no means a devout Christian (far, far from it, in fact), but I have certainly had my share of experiences that lead me to believe.

Oh, and on a side note, those militant, right wing nutjobs who claim to be Christians aren't true Christians. They're bastardizations of the religion just like Jihadists are bastardizations of Islam.

 

I think the quote is arguing against Christians using science to prove the existence of God, not atheists using science to deny God's existence.

And I disagree with you: the "right wing nutjobs" are true Christians just like the "jihadists" are true Muslims. They fall on the extreme side of the continuum, but both groups believe fervently in the religions they follow.

 

The full context of that qotd is pretty odd -- it's actually closer to what Aahz said; that people who believe in religion shouldn't try to explain it by science, since it's faith, after all. The full quote is actually from an Englishman about the monarchy in England and their divine right (or not) to rule. I just excerpted the part I thought was pithiest, since the whole quote is long.

Read the full quote here: scroll down or ctrl+F to "Decca Aitkenhead" that page is full of interesting quotes, and there are 5 more much like it. I've only read a few of them, so far, but that one jumped out at me.

Also, as is usually the case with the quotes I select; it's more about something being well or interestingly-said than about the argument being made. No one ever commented on the quotes back when I had a new one every blog; I think they stand out more now that I keep forgetting to post new things of the day more than like every 3 weeks.

 

I don't really want to get into it here, but the assertion by anonymous about who is a "true christian" or "true islamist" is an interesting one. Who gets to choose who is the true believer? Generally speaking, aren't the people who believe the most strongly in something going to claim they are the true ones? I mean apply that to anything, not just religion. True fans of a sporting team love it win or lose, right? True lovers support whoever they love through thick and thin. Etc.

Now there's certainly a debate about how intelligent that is, or how reasonable, or how delusional, but the quick argument, just based on common word usage, supports the fanatics in any field, does it not?

So in theory, the "true believers" in any field (food preference, sporting team love, religion, favorite color, etc) are always going to be the ones most other people consider to be crazy, since their belief is completely based on faith, and is therefore impervious to logic or reason.

Who are we to say they're not "real whatevers?"