RE: Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
February 25, 2012 at 12:42 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2012 at 12:44 pm by Whateverist.)
I've often wondered what the least requirements might be for calling anything a 'god'. "Omnipotence", "eternality" and "omniscience" set the bar impossibly high. How about a critter that can do a couple things we can't do, lives enough longer than we do to have a significantly different perspective and who knows a hell of a lot by virtue of having lived so long. I don't think I want to make Her a mind reader but lets suppose our motives and intent are always perfectly obvious to her because she just reads people so well. While we're at it, lets say She has a Jedi's ability to go unnoticed by anyone she doesn't want to make her self known to. This allows her to go undetected by science since no scientist will perceive the evidence of her that is there unless she permits it. Is that a 'god'?
Lets face it, 'god' isn't a well defined term. No one knows, but why should we care? If someone claims to have had a 'close encounter' with a god I will in my heart of heart doubt them, but I needn't go overboard and claim what I don't in fact know to dissuade them. That would be dishonest and no, I can't be certain they are being dishonest. More likely they are experiencing some disconnect from reality but if they seem otherwise to have their wits about them I'm not going to tell them they're deluded. I might ask them how they can be sure they hadn't experienced some sort of hallucination but if they conclude they haven't what really can I say? I'm not going to be convinced of the existence of gods based on their experience but I can't fault them if they are. It seems the civil thing to do to grant each other the final say in what we believe based on our own experience.
They are not required to restrict their conclusions to what can be demonstrated objectively, and anyway no one does.
Lets face it, 'god' isn't a well defined term. No one knows, but why should we care? If someone claims to have had a 'close encounter' with a god I will in my heart of heart doubt them, but I needn't go overboard and claim what I don't in fact know to dissuade them. That would be dishonest and no, I can't be certain they are being dishonest. More likely they are experiencing some disconnect from reality but if they seem otherwise to have their wits about them I'm not going to tell them they're deluded. I might ask them how they can be sure they hadn't experienced some sort of hallucination but if they conclude they haven't what really can I say? I'm not going to be convinced of the existence of gods based on their experience but I can't fault them if they are. It seems the civil thing to do to grant each other the final say in what we believe based on our own experience.
They are not required to restrict their conclusions to what can be demonstrated objectively, and anyway no one does.
