With the ignostic argument, I use the Ockham: since natural causes suffice, God is redundant. Either He has no meaning or He is superfluous.
We have no more need of Him as a personal explanation,contrary to Richard Swinburne than we have of Thor to explain the weather, gremlins to explain mechanical problems or demons as my therapist knows to explain mental illness.
Theists have the mere feeling there is some super mind behind and beyond the universe that has purpose, love and a future state for us. The mere feeling is a pareidolia- seeing the man in the moon!
We do not need that mere feeling as our own purposes, human love and this one life suffice; to aver otherwise is to embrace the universal neurosis of religion. That would be as Ellis would have maintained,"mustabatory," a mere want rather than a true need.
Dr.Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life" shows that we function best as independent of religion. Reason, not a long dead Galilean saves!
__________________  :: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists. 
Last edited by skeptic griggsy : 11-21-2007 at 11:57 AM.
Reason: more substance
|