Anyone who claims that regular monotheists view God like Karen Armstrong’s Apophatic Entity or Tillich’s Ground of Being simply hasn’t gotten out enough.A good many people who are not scientists assent to the truth of Darwin's take on evolution. Does Coyne think their understanding of it is as sophisticated as scientists'?
Further, it’s obvious that the bulk of harm committed in the name of religion is done by those not who see god as a Ground of Being, but rather as an anthropomorphic entity who has a personal relationship with his minions and supplies them with a moral system.
No small amount of harm was done in the name of something called the dictatorship of the proletariat, advanced by an atheist of some note. The crimes committed in the name of religion say more about the nature of man than they do about the nature of religion. Man is capable of putting almost anything to evil use. Talk about not getting out enough.
Coyne's comment on ontological proofs is interesting. As this article reports, a computer seems to have verified Gödel's version, at least in the realm of mathematics. And we all know how important mathematics is to science and scientists.
Given that arguments in the first two categories are now untenable, people like Hart have proposed conceptions of God that are so nebulous that we can’t figure out what they mean.Has Coyne read up on any quantum physics lately?
No comments:
Post a Comment