« Can a Case Be Made? | Main | New Year's Resolution »

December 22, 2005

Comments

Paul Niles

I really liked this post and I hope you still are checking for comments here. Anyhow, I think you run into trouble any time you try to compare belief in god with something observable in the material world like: existence of other minds or who shot JFK. Anything that exists here can be observed and treated scientifically. For example, I can make a scientific argument for the existence of minds other than my own based on a wide set of empirical data-- conversations, actions, sounds, smells etc.. All of it is subject to interpretation, but that is how science works.

A better question is: can I prove my own existence? This cuts to the very basis of science because it calls into question the very tools that science uses to interpret data. If those tools are suspect then science is impossible. So if we all agree that we exist then we must answer the question "why". This question hasn't been answered sufficiently by science or by religion. Science provides no insight here because it's fundamental assumption is that the world runs by rules that are regular and predictable, so if some god was mucking around with the rules that would make prediction and thus science impossible. Therefore it is no surprise that a scientific worldview suggests that there is no god. Unfortunately, religion is equally compromised by a fundamental assumption of a god that intervenes in the world.

What is needed is a belief system that defines the existence of god as the reason for why we are here without any other preconceptions, then sets up a method to go about finding out the true nature of this god -- whether he is an anthropomorphic entity a la the Sistine Chapel or simply an a force that defines the physical laws of our existence.

Scott Paeth

Hey there Paul,

Thanks for the post. Just a quick note on other minds -- Plantinga's point is the minds aren't observable. BEHAVIORS are, but not minds. Can I infer a mind from behavior? Yes, but would that inferrence be justified? He argues no.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Scott Paeth teaches Religious Studies at DePaul University