Posted: Dec 18, 2011 6:53 am
Indeed, following on from the above, the whole point here, is that the moment we have evidence to support the postulate that various magic entities exist, both 'atheism' and 'theism' become redundant terms. 'Atheism' as I have defined it becomes redundant because of the existence of that evidence, and for that matter so does 'theism', as currently constructed, which means belief in the existence of god-type entities. 'Theism' becomes a redundant term in such a discoursive environment, because, wait for it, when you have evidence to support a postulate, then belief becomes superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Which brings me on to rather neatly, to the fact that the supposed poster child for Christian apologetics, William Lane Craig, erects a vast oxymoron with his use of the phrase "reasonable faith". First, because 'belief' and 'faith' are all too often synonymous in the world of supernaturalism, and simply consist of uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, and the treatment of those assertions as purportedly constituting established fact, which is not a 'reasonable' position in any arena of proper discourse. Second, because the moment you have genuine evidence for the relevant existence postulates, evidence whose veracity can be determined independently by anyone who applies the relevant diligent effort, regardless of whatever position they may hold, then 'belief' and 'faith' are superfluous to requirements.
The moment you are in a position to say "postulate X is a verifiable fact about the real world, because of independently verifiable evidential support from A, B and C", for example, then no one has to believe that postulate any more. They simply accept that postulate as valid, because A, B and C provide the rigorous support needed. Craig has nothing of this sort, all he has is blind assertions to the effect that the contents of the television inside his head somehow carry more weight than hard empirical evidence, which is frankly laughable.
Which brings me on to rather neatly, to the fact that the supposed poster child for Christian apologetics, William Lane Craig, erects a vast oxymoron with his use of the phrase "reasonable faith". First, because 'belief' and 'faith' are all too often synonymous in the world of supernaturalism, and simply consist of uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, and the treatment of those assertions as purportedly constituting established fact, which is not a 'reasonable' position in any arena of proper discourse. Second, because the moment you have genuine evidence for the relevant existence postulates, evidence whose veracity can be determined independently by anyone who applies the relevant diligent effort, regardless of whatever position they may hold, then 'belief' and 'faith' are superfluous to requirements.
The moment you are in a position to say "postulate X is a verifiable fact about the real world, because of independently verifiable evidential support from A, B and C", for example, then no one has to believe that postulate any more. They simply accept that postulate as valid, because A, B and C provide the rigorous support needed. Craig has nothing of this sort, all he has is blind assertions to the effect that the contents of the television inside his head somehow carry more weight than hard empirical evidence, which is frankly laughable.