Le 13-janv.-06, à 04:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like something to be true, or not to be true, has no bearing on whether it is in fact true. I don't like what happened in Germany under the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I should believe the Nazis did not exist, so why should my revulsion at the thought of infidels burning in Hell lead me to believe that God and Hell do not exist? It might make me reluctant to worship such a God, but that is not the same as believing he does not exist.

Totally agree.

But if it's scientific, it's not religion, is it? Religion means believing something in the absence of sufficient evidence.

But here the word "evidence" is too large. Imagine two seconds that Christian religion is true and you face God after your earthly existence. In that case you would have evidence for the existence of God. Would it be a reason to stop believing in religion? At the same time, operationally I do somehow agree with you, but then you should accept the idea that many scientist are religious in the sense that many scientist believe in the existence of a stuffy or substancial primitive physical reality, but obviously there are no evidence at all for this. No physicists does even postulate it in scientific paper. (People confuse often the belief in a reality and a belief in a physical reality).



Reply via email to