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
September 20, 2011 at 12:45 AM
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?
September 20, 2011 at 11:51 PM
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’.
September 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Stephen Law said…
Well thanks for the comments - and for reading it.
September 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM
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.
September 21, 2011 at 10:18 PM
Stephen Law said…
my email address is in the banner - think AT royalinstitutephilosophy.org
September 22, 2011 at 8:09 AM
jaltarangart-in said…
like.your.blog.very.much.thanks.for.creating.this blog.
you.write.really.very.nice.i.am.your.daily.visitor.
April 22, 2012 at 8:31 AM
Law quotes said…
Really I enjoy your wring. Great post!! thanks for sharing with us.
November 5, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Post a Comment

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...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more