Metal Reviews

Yes, but just for clarity, Christ isn't the "son of God" as in "birth son of God." The Apostle's Creed describes Christ as God's "begotten not made son." So, to be specific, the word "son" is being used differently than the way we typically use it when talking about a mother's son.

I'm definitely influenced by Deism and Pantheism. But it should be mentioned that the Christian God is basically a more complex manifestation of the Deistic God. Meaning that, in addition to believing in a God that created everything, we also believe in a God that spiritually (ie. not in the same way a human or animal does) communicates with us and guides us through life. At the same time, we also believe that the spirit survives physical death and goes into an afterlife (which most Deists and Pantheists don't).



Sure, but I never argued this. However, I will mention that some beliefs are certainly more warranted than others. And I think even most skeptics would agree that belief in God is certainly more warranted than belief in the FSG or an invisible pink unicorn.



May be you and I have different ideas of what spirituality is, then. To me, actual "spirituality" would involve some kind of supernatural entity, since otherwise all that really exists within us would be purely natural matter (one would think). At which, to me, spirituality would seem like an illusion rather than an actual entity.



Well, my personal opinion is that one should at least be agnostic (just as Frigid believes theism to be bad, I believe atheism to be bad - no offense to any of the atheists here, of course!). I don't really want to get further into this, though. So let's just leave it as my personal opinion.

Like I said in a previous post, though, there are varying levels of agnosticism. You can simply be agnostic about God's existence but certain that things like the GTITS don't exist.

But why is the concept of God so different than the Teapot? Why does it warrant a greater degree of believability? From a logical perspective, either a rationalistic or an empirical one, they're the same.

Russell's Teapot and the FSM are intentionally conjured up with the knowledge that they are not real. We could maybe even throw scientology into that list but whatever. Since they are created with the knowledge of their non-existence then they are less feasible than a god who was created with the hopes of being out there. It depends on how much emphasis you want to put on intentionality. Counter to that, though, one could claim that the FSM's creation as a joke is actually is method of coming into existence in a "god works in mysterious ways" style. Seinfeld, doesn't know if the FSM exists but he automatically discounts it since he knows humans conjured it up, just like I would discount the biblical God because I know it was conjured up by people. And instead of the FSM what about people that literally worship laundry machines? Does their phenomenological experience of worship with that metal cube of holiness make their belief more plausible?

But elves, fairies, ghosts, Odin, Wotan, Hermes, or Lucifer were not intentionally conjured (at least, in the same way) ... What's the difference between christian God and them?

Differing intentions do not make a physically impossible phenomenon any more plausible. From a logical point of view, religion is full of ad hoc exceptions, circular reasoning, and nothing remotely close to what would stand up as evidence in either a court of law or a science lab.

To use a VERY loose definition of God, let me put it this way: Wouldn't the existence of a power greater than the material universe be much more logical/reasonable than the existence of a flying teapot or invisible pink unicorn? Certainly, to me it would be.

But God is NOT a physical entity. That's what needs to be recognized here. And by reducing God to a "scientific proof", you're implying that God is controlled by science, when in fact it's God who controls science. Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.

What if that Teapot also created the universe?

To clear things up, the distinction between the God of the OT and God of the NT must be recognized. Since we believe Jesus to be God incarnate, we believe He finally clued us in as to who God really is. While the OT God was, in many ways, an incorrect representation of God. Because of this, our religion is ultimately contingent on the historical accuracy of the NT and (most important) whether Jesus really was God incarnate.

You realize, of course, that saying that God is beyond science raises a whole plethora of other issues involving paradoxes? The suffering problem, the irreducibly complex issue, the free will/omniscience paradox... It goes on and on.

The New Testament is not a viable source for historical fact at all.

Sure, but I think one of the key components of faith in God is recognizing your own limitations as a human being. As well as the fact that logic itself has limitations. Basically, it's believing in something far greater than yourself.

I don't want to get into a debate about this, since New Testament history isn't my department. But I'm sure many would dispute that claim.

Which to me seems something incredibly sad. To quote Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the end of it too?"

Well, just remember that this is YOUR personal point of view. Some people, myself included, would disagree with it.

I've read THGTTG, btw. One of the funniest books I've ever read.

A little later, I'll probably start reading The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.

Two different magisteria!
If you're talking about the value that belief in a god, whether true or not, has to you, then yes, it's opinions.
If you're talking about the actual feasibility of the existence of god, it's not dependent on opinion.

Perhaps, absolutely, it isn't. But make no mistake: There are and always will be wildly varying opinions on how feasible God's existence is. I'm well aware of your opinion about it, and you know that I definitely disagree with it. As would many other people (both scientists and philosophers). While there are also some who would agree with you. It depends, really.

Philosophers, maybe, but even then you'd be surprised; scientists... only a very small percentage of serious scientists are theists, and most of these are deists or pantheists.

I think there may be more Christians in science than you think (although you're correct about how, at least in the high sciences, there's probably considerably more atheism/agnosticism/deism/pantheism). Many great mathematicians throughout history, for example, were devout Christians. Such as Kurt Godel, Isaac Newton, and Blaise Pascal (let's not get into Pascal's Wager, pretty please?). One particular modern scientist I know of who happens to be a devout Christian is Francis Collins (one of the key people in setting the Genome project in motion). Another would be the late Max Planck (one of the key founders of Quantum Physics).

Like me, however, they have/had more philosophical views of the Christian God that perhaps fall a little more along the lines of Deism/Pantheism (albeit with a God who DOES involve himself with the world in some way - so it isn't "true deism/pantheism") than the Christian God as most people think of Him.

One thing many modern scientists, even the atheistic ones, seem to agree on though is that there's no need for conflict between scientific knowledge and religious faith. The late Stephen Jay Goulde, an evolutionary biologist (and Jewish agnostic), was one of the key people in discrediting the "conflict thesis" (the belief that science and religious faith are irreconcilable). Richard Dawkins, contrary to what many people think, is probably one of the last remaining advocates of the Conflict Thesis. Which is, perhaps, why he's so defensive of it.