Just as obviously, absence of evidence is not proof of existence.
Alisa, where did you ever get the idea that I thought absence of evidence was proof of existence? Are my numerous, explicit clarifications that I was NOT offering any such proof insufficiently clear to preclude you spinning my argument like this? I'm actually a bit cheesed off that you continue to 'respond' to an argument I've never made. So, let me be clear. I agree completely that absence of evidence is not proof of existence. Just like absence of evidence is not proof of non-existence (that such lack of evidence could be construed as an observation that is consistent with the hypothesis of non-existence I would have no problem with....but it is not PROOF of anything, scientifically speaking).
are you seriously telling me that it is more rational to think that the lack of evidence is more likely to be a result of existence rather than nonexistence?
Only if God existed within the limits of space and time. Which I do not think is true. In short, I think your conception of 'God' is far too limited and your estimation of the limitations of human knowledge and inquiry is far too optimistic.
More respondents to this poll have defined themselves as atheists than as believers.
That's partly because your 'poll' forces all 'believers' to check a single 'extremist' option which is not representative of the beliefs of all believers: like me, for instance. Whereas your poll does allow various shadings and nuances of an athesit viewpoint. I have not checked any option on your poll as a consequence. Hardly a sound survey design to use to draw conclusions from.
Regardless, corelations are interesting. Have you not considered that atheism is being subliminally TAUGHT by 'higher' education, hence the corelation? Your failure to recognize the philosophic underpinning of science and faith demonstrates all too clearly to me that universities, like medieval monasteries, are teaching a very blinkered and limited approach to understanding the world around you.
A second point, is that from a statistical point of view, corellations do not implay causality. You need a regression in order to make that implication. Perhaps Dawkins neglected to explain that to his readers because it suits him to imply causality to make himself feel 'superior' in some way? It wouldn't be the first time a professor threw rocks at those gathered below his ivory tower.
Then I ask you, why bother believing in him at all?
Now you’ve opened a real can of worms
WARNING: no science/objective logic beyond this point.
There's a line in a movie called second-hand lions that I love.
"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."
When I say faith is a choice, I mean it. I think life in the here-and-now would be a whole lot better if people acted as if they would someday be held accountable for their behaviour towards their fellow man. Human authority, law enforcement, only ever work if the chances of punishment for wrongdoing are high enough to dissuade the criminal from their bad behaviour. Social justice plays into it too. But the point is that law enforcement and other authorities generally fail to catch the bad guys in the act. Criminals treat the human justice system as the cost of doing business. That’s life. But God knows all, and there will be a judgment where EVERYTHING is revealed and judged. It’s a terrifying concept if you stop and think about it.
More than that, if life is just a glorified chemical reaction, with only the everlasting struggle to pass on our DNA in perpetuity, then there's no point to anything I ever do except to breed. My devastation standing at my mother's grave last year after she committed suicide has no glimmer of hope to relieve the tragedy of her life. If there is nothing beyond the grave, I really will never see my beloved dog Libby again who passed away two years ago. Perhaps that’s the reality, perhaps it’s not. I prefer to believe. Your results may vary.
I have no kids. If you’re right, then when I am gone I will join with the lost creatures and people of the world as nothing more than a fading memory and a distant oddity of history; a failure according to the rules of the evolutionary race. Evolution may define T.rex, Woolly Mammoths, and Jesus Christ as abject failures (no living offspring) but I am struck with wonder and awe at the lost animals of the prehistoric, and I believe that Jesus Christ was the ultimate example of what we should aspire to be like (not to mention being the son of god is a pretty remarkable thing). Again, if I’m right, evolution is just a curiosity and my own life and death will not be judged a failure just because I did not produce a kid. I will be judged, but there is hope for something beyond this life. If I get to choose, I choose to believe.
If I believe there’s no higher power, when confronted with a truly hopeless situation I am powerless. If I believe in God, I can pray and ask for help. Even if nothing tangible happens, if God chooses to allow his creation to unfold without disturbing the pre-destined order of my days, then at least I have shared my anguish with someone. And if he does intercede on my behalf, well, wouldn’t that be nice? (and no, I have not yet experienced the overtly miraculous). And sometimes in prayer, you discover that your own motivations and attitudes are the ones that need adjusting. That’s worth a little faith don’t you think?
I choose to believe in God because, in my opinion, God himself is worth believing in.
If I am wrong I have harmed no-one, I have experienced comfort in times of despair, I have treated others better, and the world will go on after I am gone deeming me as something of an evolutionary dead-end. You may deem me as delusional to choose to believe there is a hope beyond the battle of life versus entropy. Perhaps I am. But you have no right to choose my beliefs for me, and you have no evidence that you can present to contradict those beliefs. If you prefer to live in world where there is no hope beyond the grave, no higher authority to keep your basest attitudes in check, then good for you. It seems pretty cold, lonely, and pointless to me though.
And if I’m right, then someday there’s a chance I’ll be reunited with my mother and get to ask her the unresolved questions I will have in my heart for the rest of my life. There’s a chance I’ll get to play with my perfect rotten-dog Libby again. Maybe I’ll get to introduce my grandparents to my lovely wife who they never got to meet. And maybe I’ll have my existence validated by my creator. Don’t get me wrong, I live a comfortable life. But to think I served a purpose, that my life was an intended and welcome outcome to the creator of the entire universe, well, that would mean a lot to me.
Don’t forget that life itself, evolution included, is actually a biological battle waged against a higher law of this universe: the law of entropy. It is a battle that is destined to be lost. Entropy will someday claim all our descendents, and all life in the universe. That’s physics. If life itself is a doomed but noble battle to overcome entropy for continued existence, then perhaps the ultimate expression of life is to also battle against the limitations of biology and aimless evolution to achieve a lasting existence and sentience? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting idea I think.
I do not force my beliefs on anyone else. I do not hate Muslims, or gay people, or gluttons, or people with a different skin color, or atheists, (or any other group you care to name. Although I probably should also resist the urge to despise religious hypocrites and political organizations that exist solely to further their own greedy ambitions for more money for the wealthy at the expense of ordinary folks). We’re all in the same boat and we all are fundamentally flawed. I have no right to choose anyone else’s belief, and if you read the bible, God himself gives us the right to choose for ourselves (from the book of Isaiah), so to me it is the ultimate in hubris for a believer to try to remove from someone else the right to choose that God gave us all.
So, if you choose differently then I congratulate you for thinking about the issues and making the choice that satisfies you. As for me, I will believe in the things I think are worth believing in regardless of what anyone else chooses. And yes, continue to learn about life, the universe, and everything, in case there’s a pop-quiz later
