Mister Pterodactyl: Sometimes blogging is like acne...

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Sometimes blogging is like acne...
You have to wait until they're ready to pop. I've been trying to write this post for a week. Now I'm tired of waiting and I'm giving up the quick-and-dirty version.

About a week ago Steve offered this over at Grandpa John's. It's an essay by Edward Feser about the role of metaphysics in ethics (broadly speaking) and dwells at length on the (potential) effect of the existence of god on said ethics. I found it black-and-white and a trifle arrogant, but I'm not here today to quibble about it.
In the comments to the essay, Steve said that he wanted to use the link to try and stir up some more debate at GJ's. He described, accurately, the political/religious makeup of the contributors and speculated, inaccurately, that the points Feser made might be the reason I and my atheist cohort stopped.

Aaaand no. Fair assumption, but no. The reason I stopped was because I was bored with it (here's my last offering). It took Feser's post to make me realize why I was bored.
[I'd like to take this moment to apologize to Steve for referring to him as casually as I'm about to. No offense meant.]
For people like Steve, and the many others I've debated religion with, like Feser, like Frances Schaeffer (yeah, I read that), the existence of god isn't something they've concluded or deduced. It's not the end of a line of thought. It's the beginning.
This is why they never quite (seem to) understand what I'm saying. This is why every attempt to promote a religious point of view (intelligent design) winds up being an attack on the secular (evolution). To be fair, perhaps I'm also misunderstanding, but the point is The Existence Of God is so fundamental to them they can't conceive an argument without that as an underlying principle, a first principle.

If you think I'm wrong, fair enough, but that's my perception and that's why I stopped discussing religion. There is no seeing eye-to-eye, and I have no interest in convincing you that I'm right (about god, I mean), so there's no reason to continue a debate that's bound to circle, endlessly. I will, however, offer a suggestion.
Science is actually neutral to the concept of a creator. Science does not say 'there is no god;' it says 'we have observed no phenomena that would require us to include such a concept in our hypothesis.' So, since the debate over design is so topical these days, and since evolutionary theory, like science in general, is neutral to the concept of a 'designer,' I will also be neutral. I will entertain the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent being, acting on purpose with full knowledge of what it was doing and why.

Can you, knowing that I do not include The Existence Of God among my core beliefs, explain why I should conclude that this designer is the god you worship?

[Note: recall that I called this the quick and dirty version. I do not intend to sound arrogant or confrontational; if it seems that way, sorry, this one was an itch I needed to scratch and anyway Steve deserved a response.]
- posted by Dactyl @ 7:35 PM

Comments:

Don't you wonder why people are so often eager for everyone to believe the way they do?

# posted by

Omni : 1:56 AM

Actually, being 'bored with it' is included in the broad brush of that comment on Conservative Phil.

I'll post over at G.J.'s so as not to overburden your comment section. (I have a couple of unrelated goof-ball posts in the works now.)

Omni, you are welcome to join in.

# posted by

Steve Burri : 5:58 PM

Thanks Steve, I'll do that!! :-)

# posted by

Omni : 9:42 PM

OK, it's not where I though it was, lol... where do I go?

# posted by

Omni : 9:46 PM

Omni, Grandpa John's on Todd's list.

# posted by

Steve Burri : 5:48 AM

That's where I went... but where's the discussion?