Ayaan Hirsi Ali at her best!
Ayaan Hirsi Ali at her best!
This argument occurred to me last night and it isn’t well fleshed out — it’s merely a skeleton of an idea. It is a reason why religion doesn’t make sense which I have never heard — though, no doubt, someone has come up with this idea or something very similar.
So, this is where you come in. Since this idea is not completely formed, I’d like some criticism or additions to the idea to make it more understandable and sensible. Or, reassurance that it already makes sense 🙂
So here it is:
I’ve often heard the same response from a believer, when someone says, “Isn’t it a coincidence that most people believe in the same God as their parents?” The response: “You don’t realize that a lot of people actually change their religions as they come to understand the world better.”
Ok, leaving aside the questionable reference to “a lot of people,” this statement still seems to actually be evidence against God, not for God.
Why? Because if there were an absolutely correct religion, why would finding that religion be up to the capricious nature of humans?
There are many much less important things in the world that are not left to capricious thinking. We all know that humans normally have two arms. We all know that eating certain things can kill us. There is no wiggle room on these mundane things. If someone isn’t born with two arms we consider that a genetic or developmental error. If someone thinks that eating cyanide is healthy, that is a judgement error.
Yet, if someone changes their mind from believing that Christianity is the one true religion to believing that Hinduism is the one true religion — or, more importantly vice versa, which thereby nullifies the possibility of either change being correct — it is not considered an error.
Again, I’m not sure if this is a fully formed argument or if I’m just restating an argument made by someone else in different words. Any criticism appreciated 🙂
I always thought that the idea of evidence was pretty simple. I also thought that belief in God was not based on evidence, but on faith, since there is no evidence for God. However, in recent conversations with believers, it seems that they have a different view on what constitutes evidence. Without stating specifically what “evidence” is, so as to not stifle any possible comments by believers, I’m curious what evidence believers have for their belief in God.
And, by the way, I’m getting a little tired of people quoting wikipedia or a dictionary when I discuss a topic like this. Yes, I am tech-savvy enough to log on to dictionary.com or wikipedia.org and surf the web (as the youngsters say). I don’t care about dictionary definitions here, I’m interested in what believers naturally believe is evidence for God.
Posts about Atheism and the shortcomings of religion. Sometimes satirical and sometimes serious. #AtheistAssessment
Observations - From the sharp end
What is the right question?
All men are born with a nose and ten fingers, but no one was born with a knowledge of God. -Voltaire
A Literary Paradox
what's real & what's not
Dad. Atheist. Meat sack with thoughts.
Voices of Rationality and Skepticism from the Southern US
Stumbling along a Druid path
The one true God of Atheism.
a humanist blog
Blogging my thoughts to the world
Rambles and brambles in the garden of my mind
Parenting, polyticks, and the everyday busyness of an American-born mom in Israel.
From Faith to Freethinking
Education is the key
The Skeptic's Blog