Quote:
Originally Posted by Outvoid  I read the article and found it to be yet another silly Dawkins diatribe in which he makes a common mistake - one that I used to make: trying to define spirituality through a mathematical intellectual system. When one examines spirituality in terms of mathematical pragmatism (as Dawkins does), it's easy to poke holes in it. I could do it right now.
However, spirituality and faith are not based on concrete facts and figures. |
He does use logic, yes. If you say God is beyond logic then I do understand the point of view but I could use that argument to believe in anything and say it is beyond question, Santa Claus, fairies, UFO's, invisible orbiting teapots, whatever. if anyone criticises my belief I just say, "you don't understand, my belief is beyond your logical arguments".
Believing in God makes as much sense as believing in the other stuff I mentioned. None. Except it satisfies a psychological need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outvoid The results are verifiable, certainly (eg. look at all of us recovering addicts out there), but not by using the scientific method of absolutes. |
The results are not verifiable, it could just be a placebo effect or another psychologcal mechanism. Belief in God may help your recovery but its doesn't prove God actually exists.