The Sri Venkatesvara Temple near Pittsburgh. It seems that a new twist has been added to the God controversy.I don't think that either the Christians nor the scientism
devotees anticipated anything like this.
Seriously, folks, some of my best friends are atheists--no kidding. I don't go around saying that theists have better behavior or are nicer people. How could I, when recent events (say, the last few thousands years) have shown the tendency--in the West, at least--for "religious" people to torture other people for their beliefs. There is something about this history that I find especially disturbing...
But none of that impinges upon philosophical arguments for the existence or non-existence of God--and I freely admit that there is no empirically based way of proving the existence of God. So I expect the same courteous admission that there is no empirically based way of
disproving the existence of God. Does that make sense?
It seems to me that it does, because God is a metaphysical thing, concept, or whatever, and science--which is empirical--does not deal in metaphysics. Since science does not and cannot deal in anything not empirically testable, it is most unscientific to say that there is no God. On the other hand, it is most unscientific to claim the existence of God, based on science as the term is generally used.
Belief in God makes absolutely no sense only if we accept science as the only way to know anything. My disgust with this viewpoint is that it has absolutely no aesthetic appeal. This is not the same as saying that scientists or atheists have no aesthetic sense of the beauty of nature.
I tend to see the Western traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as having more in common with science, than these traditions and science have to do with the Indic traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The Western religious traditions defined the cultural matrix out of which science developed--more or less.The Western religious traditions make common cause with science in seeing everything in dualistic terms. Good God, Bad God. Fact, not a fact. And both of them tend to have a similar world view: we live only once upon this earth.
The beauty of science is that it is neutral, as any tool should be. We control the tools we use, not the other way around. But the unreasonable antagonism toward religion displayed by some atheists is not science at all, it is scientism. Scientism makes extraordinary claims, such as "there is no God."
I am willing to admit that by scientific measurement, claiming "there is a God" is extraordinary. I am only asking those who subscribe to scientism that their claims denying God are equally extraordinary. Are they willing to do this?
In my worldview, the facts of life are birth, death, old age, and disease, continuing ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) until the soul has understood its real nature. This world, therefore, is an opportunity to learn, it is one gigantic institution of higher learning.
I do not consider this worldview to be necessarily "religious", I regard it as factual. These are facts that are understood metaphysically. I have no physical proof for it. But, neither can they be disproved physically.
I also believe that belief in God is not necessarily "religious". Atheistic folks might assert that belief in God is by nature religious, because they are not that interested in religion and therefore, quite frequently, know very little about it. Actually, simple belief in God could be a mere philosophical conviction. One could believe in God and despise every religion in the world. What's "religious" about that? Let's take this even further. One could believe in the existence of God, and in the Indic tradition, even directly percieve the existence of God, and yet contest God's supremacy, actually be against God. So why should belief in the existence of God necessarily be considered religious?
However, I believe that the existence of God is a fact, determined by my metaphysical method of knowing. If you don't believe in a metaphysical method of knowing, that is fine. We could still be friends.
But I pose this challenge. How do you actually know that I do not have a metaphysical way of knowing? You can assert that I am crazy, conditioned by my environment, or otherwise deluded in some way, but how do you know--in empirical, scientifically testable terms--what I know or don't know?
I rest my case on HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I'm not even trying to debate a scientism devotee. I would lose in any real debate on any subject. I'm just begging for a little courtesy, no more and no less than I have offered.
Here's one of George Harrison's friends on this subject.Here's George: