Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (78416)	10/28/2003 1:06:01 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"We don't have any scientific evidence for or against the supernatural" Good. That was his point. Your original rejoinder was to a comment from Dawkins, to wit: "The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole, people don't believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their parents." His analogy was clearly to imaginary or "unprovable" things outside of proof, as being equally unprovable. This is why he instanced elves, unicorns, and dragons (as being mythological creatures) and thus equally capable of an agnostic indifference as to their existence...and equally as invulnerable as somebodies idea of "God" to being disproven. Why then do people put more credibility into allowing the possibility of God (agnosticism) than they allow the possibility of (say) fairies? Especially, since God is a far more extraordinary and incredible belief than elves? I think Dawkins ascribes this to an emotional distinction--that they WISH to believe in something which overcomes their death. All creatures have an instinct for survival, and our peculiar consciousness of time and of mortality leads us to thoughts of "personal" survival beyond the physical. I suppose this is no different than a deer racing away from the wolf. Such deep-rooted instincts translated into conscious reflection would account for the inordinate willingness to suspend disbelief (the avoidance of strong atheism) which so many people have--in marked contrast to their willingness to suspend disbelief in other areas where no proof exists, nor can. Of course, I cannot speak for Dawkins, and I will leave it at that...