Skip to main content

Quotes needed

I am looking for good, pithy quotes from theists acknowledging that the various arguments for the existence of God are inconclusive or even poor (even though they think that doesn't matter). If you have examples (with sources), could you email me direct rather than stick them here? Email address above. Thanks...

Comments

Spokesthingy said…
This is not to this point; but I could not find your email:
I just wanted to let you know that I just finished reading my copy of 'Believing Bullshit'. I must say that I was reminded of Colin McGinn's book Mindfucking; A Critique of Mental Manipulation, 2008, Acumen. The early chapters in your book were a bit of a mindfuck ... I really enjoyed chapter 6, Pseudoprofundity. I think the question as to whether God exists is somewaht irrelevent and perhaps a point worth discussing is whether those individuals that recorded the original scriptures were bullshitters motivated by the ever present desire for power and wanting to become leaders. What better argument then to say: I met God on the mountain and he gave me the following commandments to make you behave and I will be your leader!! It is also possible that scriptures are simply the records of what people believed then and the problem is with moderns who won't let go.
Finally as a scientist, now retired, I recommend you take a look at 'bullshit science'. Let me just give you two quick examples. A scientist publishes a paper with evidence being analytical results; however, it becomes evident that with known samples s/he only gets expected results 50% of the time - that kind of thing is not unheard of - how good is the evidence now?

Several religions claim that certain rivers can cure bacterial infections and might claim that such cures are miracles; however, the science of phage therapy provides evidence that such cures are not miracles at all. Please go to my blog for more on both bullshit and phage therapy - http://bullshitcitynorth.blogspot.com
Spokesthingy said…
While I was reading 'Believing Bullshit' I felt that there are really only two important questions that most people should ask and answer:

1. Whose or what bullshit do I believe? 2. How mindfucked am I?
Edward Ockham said…
A prime example would be William of Ockham, who entirely rejects Scotus’ version of the cosmological proof, and who generally rejects all forms of ‘proof’ for theological truths. I am currently scanning and uploading online, with the intention of one day translating, all of Ockham’s work. You can start here. The relevant parts would be the Ordinatio and Quodlibet VII – neither of which online, but I have the whole of the Prologue, some of it translated. Ockham is generally pithy, I will look around for something suitable. The gist of his argument is that either the argument is logically defective, or would simply be unconvincing to an unbeliever.

There is an example here, in the bit beginning ‘Secondly as follows’.
Stephen Law said…
Well thanks for the comments - and for reading it.
Philosotroll said…
Also... spokesthing pointed this out, but (as it turns out) your email is not (posted above). So emailing you will likely be a challenge.
Stephen Law said…
my email address is in the banner - think AT royalinstitutephilosophy.org
jaltarangart-in said…
like.your.blog.very.much.thanks.for.creating.this blog.
you.write.really.very.nice.i.am.your.daily.visitor.
Law quotes said…
Really I enjoy your wring. Great post!! thanks for sharing with us.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist