Posted: Dec 26, 2011 8:10 pm
For Mick:
Natural Theology fails to tell me anything about the nature of the divine creature, it's arguments (to me) offer meandering nothingness beyond wishful thinking; Physico-theology does not have a leg to stand on - It's Arguments From Design fail in the face of (the/any I'm aware of) scientific method.
To steal a passage from H J Blackman ( Humanism, 1968) - ~ the onus used to be on the unbeliever (to have his beliefs taken seriously) when it was assumed that natural theology proved the primary truths of religion which explained and justified the world. ~ [thanks to Darwin, other researchers and scientists creating peer-available paperwork] ~ the collapse of natural theology means the obligation to justify his/her position has shifted from the unbeliever to the believer and cannot bounce back. The onus is inescapably on the theist. THAT is the justification of agnosticism.
I prefer the 'strong atheist' stance, being as the challenge (above) repeatedly fails, is effectively dead, and will most likely continue to embarrass itself over and again. Natural theology is a dead parrot, physico-theology is the cement shoes it wears.
I guess that could well be true, but the failure of these arguments leads us to turn to other areas for explanations of phenomena - the mountain of evidence for other 'real & natural' answers points quite firmly in the opposite direction from heavenly beings. Remember, the OP asks for reasons behind strong atheism. Each of the theologians failures allows me a step away, even from agnosticism.
It does to me, the two POVs make poor bed-fellows. I think the impact is ground-shaking.
Excuse the fragmented passages, micro-typing on a phone is poor, but I hope I've cleared up the query a little.
Natural Theology fails to tell me anything about the nature of the divine creature, it's arguments (to me) offer meandering nothingness beyond wishful thinking; Physico-theology does not have a leg to stand on - It's Arguments From Design fail in the face of (the/any I'm aware of) scientific method.
To steal a passage from H J Blackman ( Humanism, 1968) - ~ the onus used to be on the unbeliever (to have his beliefs taken seriously) when it was assumed that natural theology proved the primary truths of religion which explained and justified the world. ~ [thanks to Darwin, other researchers and scientists creating peer-available paperwork] ~ the collapse of natural theology means the obligation to justify his/her position has shifted from the unbeliever to the believer and cannot bounce back. The onus is inescapably on the theist. THAT is the justification of agnosticism.
I prefer the 'strong atheist' stance, being as the challenge (above) repeatedly fails, is effectively dead, and will most likely continue to embarrass itself over and again. Natural theology is a dead parrot, physico-theology is the cement shoes it wears.
The failure of these arguments does nothing to show that the contrary is true.
I guess that could well be true, but the failure of these arguments leads us to turn to other areas for explanations of phenomena - the mountain of evidence for other 'real & natural' answers points quite firmly in the opposite direction from heavenly beings. Remember, the OP asks for reasons behind strong atheism. Each of the theologians failures allows me a step away, even from agnosticism.
"The" scientific method (there is no one scientific method) is neutral on this matter, and so its strength shouldn't have any impact on this issue.
It does to me, the two POVs make poor bed-fellows. I think the impact is ground-shaking.
Excuse the fragmented passages, micro-typing on a phone is poor, but I hope I've cleared up the query a little.