God table
Another comment from the Dawkins/God discussion over on Evolving Thoughts. Interestingly, after I posted this, no one commented on it. Not even a reference. Maybe it was too late in the game. Maybe no one knew what to do with it. I don’t know.
Seems the various positions can be summed up in a table tracking one’s view/position on the existence, idenitity and efficacy of God. (Many apologies for the icky formatting; no tables in WordPress). Follow the arrows for trains of thought.
Person: God’s existence God’s Identity Any effects?
True believer: Yes –> Yes, whatever –> doesn’t matter
Pragmatic believer: Yes <– doesn’t matter <– It works
Irrational athesit: No <– doesn’t matter <– No evidence
Rampant skeptic: Can’t know <– Can’t know <– doesn’t matter and/or can’t know
Empiricist: Depends on the data <– matters, don’t/can’t know <– No evidence yet
Rational atheist: No <– ID matters & is invalid <– No evidence and it matters
Rational believer: Yes <– ID matters & is valid <– Yes/no and evidence matters
Semi-rational believer Yes <– ID matters & is valid <– Evidence doesn’t matter
So really it boils down to an investigation of both the evidence for and concept of God (or insert any other supernatural being here). Although I won’t let loose a whole rant on the formation of the concept of God, and valid concept formation in general, I’ll just say that the concept of a supernatural being is broken, no matter how many people hold it. This is because it was formed without accurate, thorough-going reference to reality and proper conceptualization (which is a very common thing to do), so it cannot legitimately claim a referent in reality. Like Santa Claus.
li>