pool, the way it generally works for me is the Asimovian Parameter:
*****
'Brian, do you believe in God?'
'I'm not sure what you mean when you say "God". Can you be clearer?'
'Oh, come one. You know - God. Everyone knows what God is.'
'Well, if you can't define it, how can you expect me to believe in it?'
*****
The difference between this and your Einstein example is that there are people who can tell you (often in great and boring detail) EXACTLY what the theories of relativity are. At this point, you can look at the theories and the evidence for them and make a determination as to whether or not you believe them to be true.
When an atheist tells you, 'I don't believe in gods', s/he is doing so because 1) no one can explicitly define the concept the way they can with relativity and 2) there's no evidence or argument that would compel someone to accept godism as a valid hypothesis.
But suppose someone does indeed come to me with a coherent, non-self refuting definition of 'God'. I'm still not going to believe without either the compelling evidence or arguments I alluded to before. It's as if some told me, 'A unicorn is a beast with the body of a horse, the feet of a goat, the tail of a lion and a single spiral horn growing from its forehead. This beast can only be captured by virgins.' Dandy! We have a definition. But my next questions are going to be, 'Can you show me one? Can you point to them in the fossil record? Is there an ecological niche that is filled by this particular animal?'
Atheists don't disbelieve because 'God' isn't properly defined. We disbelieve because there is no good reason not to.
Boru
*****
'Brian, do you believe in God?'
'I'm not sure what you mean when you say "God". Can you be clearer?'
'Oh, come one. You know - God. Everyone knows what God is.'
'Well, if you can't define it, how can you expect me to believe in it?'
*****
The difference between this and your Einstein example is that there are people who can tell you (often in great and boring detail) EXACTLY what the theories of relativity are. At this point, you can look at the theories and the evidence for them and make a determination as to whether or not you believe them to be true.
When an atheist tells you, 'I don't believe in gods', s/he is doing so because 1) no one can explicitly define the concept the way they can with relativity and 2) there's no evidence or argument that would compel someone to accept godism as a valid hypothesis.
But suppose someone does indeed come to me with a coherent, non-self refuting definition of 'God'. I'm still not going to believe without either the compelling evidence or arguments I alluded to before. It's as if some told me, 'A unicorn is a beast with the body of a horse, the feet of a goat, the tail of a lion and a single spiral horn growing from its forehead. This beast can only be captured by virgins.' Dandy! We have a definition. But my next questions are going to be, 'Can you show me one? Can you point to them in the fossil record? Is there an ecological niche that is filled by this particular animal?'
Atheists don't disbelieve because 'God' isn't properly defined. We disbelieve because there is no good reason not to.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
