what atheists are supposed to know
I quoted at least two ATHEIST philosophers who admitted a god would explain things, but Naturalism (alone) falls short. Alex Rosenburg is another ATHEIST philosopher, who wrote a book called “Living Without Delusions.” The problem is, most ground-level, non-philosopher Atheists don’t know exactly what godlessness is supposed to mean, because they’re not very good at thinking through these things. (mrsmcmommy)
My dearest blogging buddies, Ark and John Zande, recently recommended that I pop over to ‘Branyan Comedy’ in search of interesting conversations. I duly did their bidding and was immediately treated to a two-pronged attack by the blog host and mrsmcmommy (above), who I am told is the host’s daughter.
I found the whole experience rather interesting and would, in turn, recommend others to pop over for engaging chats with Christians that generally don’t deteriorate into personal insults or a lack of interest in facts. But be prepared to have to engage your brain on two simultaneous fronts, which for someone with brain stagnation like I do was quite enjoyable and useful.
But back to the quote. What exactly are atheists ‘supposed to’ understand about life? It’s in comments like this that we face the rigidly composed compartments of some religious thinkers. They genuinely think atheism is another religion, guided by the same underpinning requirements of religion. It’s not.
Let’s explore what atheists are really supposed to know:
The likelihood of any of the many gods created by other members of our thoroughly inquisitive and delightfully imaginative species being real, is remarkably slim.
And even there, I’m indulging in some embellishment. But, for avoidance of doubt, I think it’s safe to say we genuinely have no need to have a shared understanding at any other level.
For Christians, it’s a slightly more complex situation. They’re not free to evaluate their understanding of life on an individual basis. If they don’t know everything they are ‘supposed to know’, they think it could mean the difference between a lifetime in paradise and a lifetime of eternal torture.
I can only be relieved that my benevolent creator deity doesn’t allow such abominable dilemmas!
I think the reason many Christians view atheism as a belief system is because it really does come down to what one believes. Atheism, like theism, can not be proven in the classical sense. So one has to weigh all the evidence available to them and decide what they believe about god / God. I think most of us would agree with that.
I don’t think it is fair to label atheism as a religious system, because how could it be? But it surely is a world view, a system of loosely held beliefs about the nature of the world.
LikeLike
“But it surely is a world view, a system of loosely held beliefs about the nature of the world.”
I don’t see how that is the case. What beyond my sentence could say about it that makes a ‘system’ or even plural?
LikeLike
System, in the sense that it is a filter or a lens that shapes the way one looks at life. Plural in the sense that atheism doesn’t require one to agree with everyone else’s views about atheism.
LikeLike
There is em> one belief (which in itself is a controversial statement, but doesn’t bother me) – there are no gods. There is no plural or we would be required to agree with others about other things to adopt the label. And that one belief isn’t a ‘system’ in any sense of the word. I expect better from you Jim! 🙂
LikeLike
I think we are talking about the same thing but looking at it from different angles. What I am saying is that there is one belief in no diety, and from there various conclusions are drawn about all sorts of other things.
But I understand what you are saying and agree with you. There really is just one belief that all atheists hold and that is that there is no real deity. I guess I call that a belief, since one can not truly know that there exists no such thing and must take a certain leap over the unknown to arrive at that conclusion.
Perhaps system is the wrong word, but it is a world view, and I think everybody’s world view, regardless of what it is, impacts how they see the world and interact with it.
But I certainly don’t consider atheism to be a religion.
LikeLike
Hi! I was recently in a similar discussion about this on my blog; about whether or not atheism is a worldview or any kind of belief system. I concluded that it isn’t a worldview on its own, but it could be a very important part of an overarching worldview. This comment https://theclosetatheist39.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/atheism-not-for-the-faint-of-heart/#comment-185 has a definition of “worldview” that was given in one of my college textbooks. Atheism definitely isn’t a religion, and it isn’t a worldview on its own, and I wouldn’t say it is a belief system, since it is only one singular belief. But I don’t like calling it a belief, either, because then it sounds like it requires faith, which it doesn’t, because it’s a negative claim. I guess you could call it an un-belief, or just a statement.
LikeLike
That makes a lot of sense to me! Atheism rarely stands alone, and it can hold a very central role in one’s overall outlook on life. Atheism is an important part of one’s overall world view, but isn’t a world view all by itself. I think it is unfair and incorrect to label atheism as just another religion.
On one hand, I totally understand why an atheist would not want to call their thoughts about a non-god a belief, because that has a quasi-religious undertone to it. But I don’t think it has to. We believe all kinds of non-religious things.
On the other hand, it seems to me that some kind of something, other than logic and reasoning has to be exercised to conclude that there is absolutely no intelligent being outside our universe. We can not possibly know that with 100% certainty, but we can have certain convictions about it.
LikeLike
I disagree with John on this one. I think that at this point in time, atheism is a chosen belief, because the framework we operate in is one based on religion. It’s certainly not a belief in the traditional sense, and I understand why some people are keen to emphasise the distinction. Especially when religious people think we have read atheist textbooks …
LikeLike
Jim, the absence of a belief in something has no content.
LikeLike
John, you always me think hard!
It seems to me that for one to conclude no intelligent being exists outside of earth, one must accept that to be true. It can not be known with 100% certainty either way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, but you’re starting here from the theistic claim. A-theism is the default position of the human being, although it’s hard to grasp that considering we’re all raised with some knowledge of the claims, especially given the cultures in which we’re grown. Theism, though, is new information superimposed over the default: the complete and total absence of not only belief, but any knowledge at all. For this reason, a-theism is entirely content free.
Naturally, of course, a-theism today is mostly built upon a rejection of the claims made. There’s no avoiding that, but the fact still remains that if a child is raised in perfect ignorance of any of those claims then their absence of belief is completely content-free.
Anti-theism has content. Humanism has content. Tildeb is brilliant at explaining this, so I hope he pops in.
LikeLike
But the fact is that if those little babies grew up in a vacuum of religious input, they would make up their own superstitions that would evolve into religions within a few generations. It’s a natural urge, like killing for food, that only information plus the availability of other options can solve.
LikeLike
Absolutely. We’re hardwired to find agency in nature. It’s an evolutionary trick, and a very useful one for when we were hunted alongside deer and boar. Nature erred on the side of caution, selecting fast and cheap, but more often than not incorrect, causal associations than more careful, most costly, time consuming critical thought. We jump before we think, and that’s why we’re still here talking about it.
This, though, doesn’t change the fact that a-theism is content-free.
LikeLike
Only content free out of the context of developed human societies.
LikeLike
I pointed to that in my comment to Jim. Still content free.
Anti-theism has content. Humanism has content. Both, though, are not a-theism, which describes one thing: a lack of belief.
LikeLike
“If a child is raised in perfect ignorance…..” which I believe no longer occurs. Everybody, at some point, becomes aware that there is this concept of a god / God who people believe in or reject. At the point which they choose to make their own decision about it, their decision is based on some kind of content.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Like I said, today a-theism is more built upon the rejection of the claims made; claims that are imposed on children. That still doesn’t render a-theism with any content. Certainly, one can point to the breasons why those theistic claims have been rejected, but the fact remains, if those claims were never imposed there would be no rejection in the first instance.
LikeLike
I understand and somewhere below you differentiated between atheism and anti-theism, a term I have never heard until today. What is the difference?
LikeLike
“They’re not free to evaluate their understanding of life on an individual basis. If they don’t know everything they are ‘supposed to know’, they think it could mean the difference between a lifetime in paradise and a lifetime of eternal torture.”
One common trait of atheists is their love for caricatures.
LikeLike
What about that quote is inaccurate?
LikeLike
Violet,
I have a different question for you.
What do you believe would disprove the statement: “Christians are not free to evaluate their understanding of life on an individual basis?”
LikeLike
If they don’t care about their status in the afterlife. Otherwise they are bound to finding the ‘correct’ interpretation or message from their god.
LikeLike
Even if the ‘correct’ interpretation of God’s message is the basis of their understanding of life given the high-rate of conversion between denominations wouldn’t this suggest that people are often switching between their understanding of life, aren’t they doing so on an individual basis?
LikeLike
They are almost invariably bound to the systems created by other people, and if not, have to justify their changes in the context of the existing systems. They move from one denomination (groups of people with preconceived ideas about existence) to another. This is in direct contrast to atheists, who have nothing in common with each other beyond their disbelief in one man-made concept.
LikeLike
Aren’t we all “invariably bound to the systems created by other people and the context of the existing system? When I was born there was already an existing governmental system in place, I learned the cultural values of that system as deeply as any religious belief (the critical importance of Freedom of Speech), the specific things I learned came from an established curiculum already in place, and when I went to graduate school and wrote papers I had to respond to the views of other scholars and thus an existing set of ideas already in place, any piece of literature, history, philosopher, and even most science had an existing system or context as well.
If you literally had nothing in common with other atheists, why so much agreement on a host of social issues, political or otherwise? I’m not saying your atheism specifically led you to those positions, but it’s a bit of an overstatement to say you have NOTHING in common beyond your disbelief.
LikeLike
“If you literally had nothing in common with other atheists, why so much agreement on a host of social issues, political or otherwise?”
That’s a good question. Where atheists do have things in common, I think it’s because we evaluate on the basis on observable facts and don’t have the baggage of ‘holy texts’ or notions of ‘invisible guides’ to get in the way.
LikeLike
Besides the fact that it is mostly false?
The grain of truth is that any meaningful community has an agreed upon vision of life, at least implicitly. In the church there is an agreed-upon notion of the goals of human existence, otherwise it could not be a functional community. But each member creates his own life within that framework, in a state of freedom and responsibility.
LikeLike
That’s true to a certain extent. I’m referring to the fact you need to be sure you’re in possession of what you are ‘supposed to know’ in order to be a ‘correct’ Christian and therefore be saved. To do this you must refer to and evaluate the teachings of other Christians, mustn’t you?
LikeLike
No one thinks mental contents seal one’s eternal fate. Faith is trust in God, and an act of the will; it is not abstract knowledge of propositions.
Heresy is bad when it does damage to the community and bad belief can often lead to bad acts, sometimes in unexpected ways. There is usually some manifestation of pride or lack of faith in those who initiate a rupture in the church, but there is no sin or bad will in growing up in the “wrong church”, or growing up in a time when the church has a lot of problems and you are unconsciously absorbing them.
LikeLike
There’s a lot riding on it for Christians:
“One reason it is better to die as a Catholic, for someone not convinced about going straight to heaven, is the ability to take advantage of the special sacraments for the sick and dying, as recommended in the epistle of James (5:14-15), for healing and/or the forgiveness of sins.” (this whole article is worth reading if you really want to be saved)
And then even if you choose the correct church (the Catholic one, obviously) and take advantage of special sarcraments, you have this to contend with:
“A further distinction also needs to be made between the “visible” and “invisible” church. The “invisible” church constitutes those throughout all ages that are truly saved. They are the elect. However, the “visible” church contains both the elect and non-elect throughout all the ages. So, in our definition of a true church and the denominationally visible one, we need to understand that there will be the lost in it and with this also false doctrine taught at numerous levels.”
(this whole article if worth reading if you think you’re saved as a Catholic following ‘so much false doctrine’)
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40044
Catholics to Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses to Mormons, and everything else along the way – there’s lots to choose from, all allegedly coming from the same timeless source, and all giving conflicting advice on how to have the ‘best’ relationship with the deity that holds your eternal torture possibilities in his whimsical grasp. Sorry, not ‘whimsical’, did I say that? Caricature from Bible stories, I apologise.
LikeLike
Both sources say orthodoxy is good and helpful, not that the heterodox are excluded from heaven. So I’m right, as always!
LikeLike
Both sides are questioning whether the other ones can be saved, because they are ‘wrong’, and saying in any case you may well be doing something ‘wrong’ without knowing it. This suggests there is a ‘correct’ belief system, which we know all Christians are looking for. Your eternal afterlife depends on getting it right dp.
LikeLike
Both sides are claiming their side is better, not that the other is condemned. The idea that the ordinary Christian imagines his afterlife as a catechism quiz is just stupid.
LikeLike
Yet this study done by Pew shows that large proportions of Christian individuals in the U. S. don’t hold this exclusivity view, not only between Christian denominations, but also for non-Christian religions as well. To quote from the study:
“Responses to these questions show that most American Christians are not thinking only of other Christian denominations when they say many religions can lead to eternal life. To the contrary, among those who say many religions provide a path to eternal life, strong majorities believe that both Christian and non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.”
As the study further notes only 30% say it is belief that determines who obtains eternal life.
LikeLike
Yes, and this is just another example of how religions slip and slide around the place (or ‘evolve’) to suit the mood of society. This was never the case throughout history – everyone ‘knew’ their god was right. People are having to make this adjustment to their thinking in order to keep believing, because they are living side by side with ‘nice’ people of other religions and couldn’t possibly condemn them to death in their minds.
But none of this changes the fact that religion is dependent on the interpretation of texts, the works of other humans, and you are all striving to find the perceived truth within that. It means there are many things you are ‘supposed to know’. For an atheist, there are no such things.
LikeLike
It might be that this shows religions evolve to fit social mores, violet. However, that isn’t what is under discussion.
You claimed (A1): “This suggests there is a ‘correct’ belief system, which we know all Christians are looking for. Your eternal afterlife depends on getting it right dp.”
The study presented to you shows that most American Christians believe there is more than one path (i. e. other religions and denominations) to eternal life and only 30% think this depends specifically on their beliefs, thus the claim that ALL (or even most) Christians think there is a ‘correct’ belief system and that having the ‘correct belief’ system is the key to gaining Eternal Life has been rebutted with the evidence that is available on this topic—at least within the United States.
Why said Christian might feel this way or hold these views is beside the point. It’s irrelevant to addressing your claim and the data directly rebuts your claim.
Furthermore, you used this claim as one of the primary supports of your conclusion: “They’re not free to evaluate their understanding of life on an individual basis.”
This means that your conclusion doesn’t have that to support it anymore. I think what I and Dp are suggesting is that your presenting a stereotype of a Christian rather than one that matches up with the much messier and complicated reality.
LikeLike
Sorry to be nitpicking here, but in the topic post Violetwisp actually said: ” If they don’t know everything they are ‘supposed to know’, they think it could mean the difference between a lifetime in paradise and a lifetime of eternal torture.” Please notice the word “could”. The fact that many US Christians today do not think it absolutely means that, does not refute the fact, that they might feel this way. That there is this possibility.
Even 30% of US Christians is not only a high representation, but also quite an abundance of people, many of whom think they do represent in their beliefs the “true” Christian. In any case the US Christians are not a very representative selection of Christians in the world even today. You can just guess what the Christians of Latin America or Africa think about such things.
In any case, it does not change the fact that for centuries Christians have fought bloody wars of extinction and attrition against each other based on the belief, that they are justified in not only killing the heretics, but in sending them straight to hell for their failure to believe just the right things – in effect for not “knowing what they are supposed to know”.
For most of Christendom, for most of it’s history this has been so and for some reason no gods, or angels have manifested to correct this view. Why? Because it is true, or because the god of the Christians is incapable to correct such a harmfull misconception, or simply because no gods even exist?
LikeLike
I agree with you that this tells us only about US Christians and it may be drastically different in Latin America and Africa where the majority of Christians reside.
However, Violet in her response posts in the thread did say her comments applied to ALL Christians, thus elaborating on what she meant in her original post, and clearly this study does disprove that the claim that ALL Christians think their salvation is dependent on ‘correct belief.’
To address the larger point she’s making, based on the Christians I know in real life, most aren’t basing their understanding of life solely on Christian doctrine. Yes, it might be part of the meaning they find in life, but not the only source.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree with you Consoledreader, and I rejoice in the fact, that people get their understanding of reality from various sources and not only from Christian dogma. It is not a very positive dogma, as it holds seeds for many a misunderstanding about reality, that may lead to suffering, fear, dehumanization and even hatred.
Most Christians have never even read the Bible, let alone understand anything about dogma of any particular Christian denomination. It seems to be more like a cultural heritage, to wich they most often reflect themselves rather unaware of the history behind the heritage, nor the values it offers them as metaphysical assumptions (guesses given from authorative figures).
It is kind of depressing on the democracy side of things, that so many people subscribe to values they do not really understand, nor have ever bothered to contemplate, and that many of them do not even have the mental tools to do so.
I must have missed the point where Violetwisp elaborates the idea to be a necessary requirement to each and every Christian. The thing is, in my view, that it kind of is, even if they are not really aware of it being that. It is like breathing is necessary to all of us, even when we do not think about it (though breathing is an example of something verifiable and real while religious dogma is a result of an elaborate guessing game). If one accepts, that there might be a chance, however unlikely, that not knowing the right things might cause you to end up in eternal torment, one is bound to make a choise to find out what these things might be, or not, even if only on a subconscious level. It is exactly on that level, where no conscious choise is made that the person most easily slips into simply accepting, that the truths given to them as cultural taboos and heritage must be right without ever even examining other possibilities.
I can not help, but to think, that even if most people who self identify as Christians never really gave it any thought, it is actually written in the basic tenets of the religion in general. Otherwise there would be no point in even having such a numerous amount of different sects, many of wich at least imply, that the others are heretics bound for an eternal torment by the ritual experts to save their own flock from that terrible fate. Or are they making these suggestions purely on selfish reasons to keep their group together to pay for their keeping? Or what? The Christians proclaim unity when questioned from the outside, but the Cathar never had a worse enemy, than the Roman Catholic and so on. It seems the followers of a particular sect get easily by with a nother sect as long as there is no need to compete over anything, or if there is common outside competition, but as soon as secular civilization gives way, they are at each others throats. Basic tribalism, that appears in all human groups, unless it is systematically analyzed and educated away.
I do not suggest, that by thinking about this issue, people could be divided into more or less true Christians. To me, if a person holds a label as their identity, then that label applies, even though it would seem they do not understand anything of the ideals or tenets of the label. For example I think Stalin was a socialist, even though his view of it was highly authoritarianistic and ulitmately counter productive to any goals socialism as an ideology holds.
That said, I do not mind that many Christians in general might not really ever think about what they are supposed to know to be sure they avoid eternal punishmet for not knowing what they should have known. To me it only goes to show, that most of them do not take their faith too seriously, wich can be a good thing. But it also makes them a bit voulnerable for influences of religious demagougery and tribalism. Fundamentalists are often the most boring and dangerous people. Are they not?
LikeLike
Quiz time! Who wrote this:
The second text is that of the great banquet (Lk 14:16-24). This gospel is, above all, in a radical way the Good News, when it recounts that at the end, heaven will be filled with all those that one can, in one way or another, include; with people who are completely unworthy, who with regard to heaven are blind, deaf, lame, and beggars. Therefore, this is a radical act of grace, and who would wish to deny that perhaps all our modern, European pagans in this way can enter into heaven? On the basis of this position, everyone has hope.
LikeLike
(not all atheists love caricatures, that kind of seems like a caric…..)
LikeLike
Yeah, irritating, isn’t it.
LikeLike
Might be if someone else said it, but it has a different effect coming from a squirrel killer. 😉
LikeLike
Like this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes!
LikeLike
Just to be clear, I want to point out, that there here are a couple of typical mistakes about this meme: How do we know that atheism is evil?
First, Hitler was not an atheist. He was a member of the Roman Catholic church to his dying day. He did not resign nor was he excommunicated. He even made a pact with the Pope, did he not? His (and those of his followers) antisemitism was closely related and derived from one of the leading figures of the reform – Martin Luther. He never claimed to be an atheist, on the contrary, he claimed to have had a direct revelation from his god, no less than to get rid of all the Jews. (Originally he wanted to relocate them to Palestine, wich failed, but now the Jews have made his dream come true on their own accord and Christian Zionists seem more than happy about this result.) He also made it his public policy to protect “both of the German Christian churches.
Second, only some 1.5 million people died in the political persecutions by Stalin (incidentally most of wich were communists and quite a lot of whom were also atheists – as in the persecutions by Hitler). There is this neo-fascist meme going around, that Stalin killed more people than their right wing idol Hitler, but it simply is not true. As if that made Hitler any less evil. And it is a stupid contest, because each person killed by these dictators was one too many. It is even a bit hypocritical for some of us in the west to add to the death toll of Stalin all the people who starved to death during his government, because one of the major reasons for the starvation, was that western countries had embargoed the newly formed Soviet Union and they supplied and supported the insurrections and intervention forces to continue the civil war, instead of helping starving people there. Or perhaps the figure of 23 million somehow includes all the babies aborted during the reign of Stalin, or something as ludicurous as that…
If we want a meme about murderous dictators, why are not for example Christians like Somoza, Franco and Pinochet mentioned here? Because they failed to kill quite as many in their reign of terror? Or would that change the caption to: How do we know atheists are efficient?
LikeLiked by 1 person
100% correct. My comment was making fun of Dp who said “One common trait of atheists is their love for caricatures.”- I wanted to show how religious people use those tactics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I understood that much. It was an exellent reply to that and what is best, I think he got it too.
I am just such an enthusiast of historical correctness and I am annoyed, how such memes, go about as some sort of alt-facts, that infect the minds of not only the fanatics who invented these lies, but also some simpletons who do not know any better. I believe I am only irritated more by the fact, that there is this other meme going around, wich is basicly part of the same phenomenon, that the study of history is not a science. For wich I blame the failed American school system, that has managed to convince millions (while it has not managed to teach them such basic facts about science, like evolution), that natural sciences are the only things that the scientific method can be applied to, when it should be applied basicly to every issue between heaven and earth (so to speak).
In my eyes, the current negative nationalist political development both in the Americas and in Europe is a direct result of schoolsystems failing to educate the voters about history (and basic science facts).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am somewhat curious, rautakyy. In what way do you think the study of history is a science as opposed to a humanities?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, the study of history is a humanist science. It focuses on the study of human activities. As it focuses on past activities certain difficulties in repeatable experiments are obvious, but that only makes it harder, not impossible to be scientific about it. Historical events are observable, and we need to have as objective information about them as possible, to awoid making the same mistakes of historical scale. It is science in that in the research work, the scientific method is rigorously employed, and any individual study of history (or any other actual humanist study, for that matter), that has failed to use the scientific method, is met as a failure by the peer review. In that sense it differs not, from the natural sciences. Agreed?
LikeLike
They genuinely think atheism is another religion, guided by the same underpinning requirements of religion.
Yes, they are both obsessed by the need to believe this. It seems that without this pantomime their entire world view will collapse.
Did you notice that they’re both actually desists, but just can’t admit it? It’s really rather odd.
LikeLike
I expect you meant to type ‘deists’ rather than ‘desists’ – don’t worry, I’m have similar problems, I can’t bear to re-read my comments and I found an error on one of my posts the other day. Luckily no-one bothers to read things. 🙂
Anyway, I did wonder, they seem kind of dismissive of the Bible.
LikeLike
They HATE the bible… until they love it. They also HATE Yhwh… until they love him.
It’s really strange. Makes for some seriously slippery dialogue. Those Branyan goal posts aren’t just liquid, but pure vapour in a cyclone.
LikeLike
It’s a shame they don’t pop out for more discussion. I’m quite sure John put his quip in here in an attempt to save face, but has no intention of discussions outside his advertising zone. It is an indication that they aren’t interested in real conversations but in holding court – and the chat round their place is jumping through pre-programmed hoops. Kind of sad, they seem a bit brighter than the average.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
Your post is again, based on your false understanding of Christianity.
In your own words:
“They’re not free to evaluate their understanding of life on an individual basis.”
The Christian, especially the Protestant Christian, is a champion of “understanding life on an individual basis.
Again, another false claim, in your own words:
“If they don’t know everything they are ‘supposed to know’, they think it could mean the difference between a lifetime in paradise and a lifetime of eternal torture.”
That claim is pure gibberish.
Where do you come up with all this crap about Christianity?
LikeLike
One of her primary sources of Christian theology made the quote directly above yours.
LikeLike
Is that John Zande? I must admit he’s an inspirational blogger when he bothers posting. Do you have his book?
LikeLike
I didn’t know I was one of your primary sources, Violet. Did you know that you were incapable of arriving at your own conclusions all by your little female self? John Branyan must be right, though. His pantomimes are never incorrect.
LikeLike
John, I wouldn’t be the woman I am today with the guiding hand of strong men. And let me know if you need another sandwich.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“ATHEIST philosophers who admitted a god would explain things, but Naturalism (alone) falls short.” So what?
Even if naturalism fell short (as it sometimes does) and a god would be a convinient answer to some questions, this god hypothesis still falls short also, because an answer that can not be verified is equal to not much of an answer at all.
Anybody can make a guess, but it does not magically come true, just because it seems to answer the question. The honest educated person acknowledges that if scientific methodology does not provide an answer, then we really are not warranted to claim knowledge and if there is no evidence to back up a hypothetical answer like a god – as is the case – then it is no answer at all. Infact, even if we thought we had some evidence to back up a god – that we do not currently hold – it still was no answer because it was just an attempt to answer a mystery with even a bigger mystery.
Any adult person should be able to deduce, that what we do not know, we do not know and making up convinient answers does not make any of them true.
LikeLike