And it is incontrovertible fact that Flew is deeply into senile decline, and the probability is very great that Roy Varghese wrote the book, not Flew.

In contrast many “Secular Progressive” leftists seek to employ the ubiquitous, infallible “State” as a crutch for their existence. It’s just as ridiculous to worship the “collective” as a tool for good as it is to worship some ubiquitous, disembodied spirit. These are also same enlightened people who choose to dispense w/ scientific fact when it conflicts with their leftist ideology. Some examples: the left apparently believes in the validity of “science by consensus of opinion” as replacement for the scientific method. The “scientific method” is apparently invalid because of its hierarchical, patriarchal nature & its reliance on “fact’, e.g, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate. The left fervently believes in AGW which is caused by man -generated “greenhouse gases” while ignoring fluctuations in “solar luminosity” in the UV spectrum band associated w/ “black spot” activity. Currently, the Martian ice caps are also receding. Apparently those evil Republicans have secretly found an inexpensive way of transporting their SUVs to Mars. The left believes global warming contributed to the creation of Hurricane Katrina, yet the 2006 Hurricane season was the tamest in the last 40 plus years. The left believes that homosexuality has a genetic basis w/o scientific evidence (apparently Darwin was wrong) ,despite the fact that the phenomenon could be explained via the concept of “Congenital Sexual Dyslexia.” The left believes that “gender is a social construct” in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Lastly, the left’s fundamental anti-intellectualism can be summed up by the following: Marxism as an economic model is an abject failure, yet the modern left actively employs Marxism as a tool of social engineering. Yet, there is nothing nuanced, revolutionary or evolutionary about the continued employment of the same old “victim/oppressor” Marxist canard as replacement for rational thought.

You’re onto something … and I say that a member of that scary army of “Born Agains” (you know, the spectres haunting post-modernity and inhibiting the advance of mankind into the sunlit uplands of political and moral achievement that’s just around the next switchback if only we can eliminate superstition).

If I have understood your (very sensible) objection, I believe the answer turns on deciding what constitutes “knowledge” and “evidence” and what standard of proof we use. In my view there’s at least a successfully made Preponderance of the Evidence case available … which is to say that without reference to any individual’s claimed experience of the divine, weighing the evidence for and against the proposition “God exists” yields a scientific (i.e., falsifiable) conclusion that He exists is a more believable proposition than that He doesn’t exist.

Naturally, you don’t want to get frustrated that people lack the disclipline to think through these things carefully. A very careful observer, Nietzsche, pointed out that the severe atheism he had adopted against the tide of his time would, in our era (”the day after tomorrow” he called it), be taken for granted — not because its adherents understand it but because it is merely the popular hue of the time and ol’ time religion is but a dull brown. Give me that kind of honesty over that silly Dawkins and current celebutantes any day!

All the best,

EPK

Denyse, you don’t have to stray far to find a first class argument for the existence of God. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, SJ, Prof of Philosophy, Gregorian University, Rome, 1957. “Insight: a Study of Human Understanding” (Longmans)

String theory anyone?

The universe is made up of jillions of silly strings all set in a 12 dimensional universe where only three of the dimensions are cognizable, and the other nine are wrapped up in tiny little balls.

Oh, wait! The math doesn’t work out … OK, how about 15 dimensions, 20, 26?

Let’s massage our equations until they seem to be OK. That’s ludicrous.

Great, some physicists get an actual job in their field (supposedly) as opposed to driving a cab … but the theory is totally unsubstantiated, has zero predictive value, and adds nothing to our conceptual understanding of the world around us. It’s nice to talk about … but not a scientific or conceptual breakthrough.

How about Quantum Mechanics:

Schroedinger’s cat anyone … even Old Irwin didn’t buy that one. But, someone has to reconcile the macro from the micro … I’m waiting.

Wormholes — travel to a new universe with Jodie Foster:

Nice scientific fiction, but not science.

I believe we’ve strayed too far from the scientific method and labeled fanciful ideas as science. I guess this is what happens when a wall is hit … and modern society demands constant advances … and PHd’s need a semblance of a job.

Hint: Get a real job … in a patent office preferably.

“Everything is so complicated and unexplainable … therefore, it must be the magic man.”

That’s not science … that’s the same ‘ol, same ‘ol … going back millenia.

I think intelligent design is a worthy theory, and I believe the ‘evidence’ does support a belief in a ‘higher power’ … but it’s not hard science … in a space where hard science applies.

Perhaps, someone can explain to me how the existence of God is scientifically derived from the ‘evidence’. I don’t see it.

Is it merely the return to explaining the unexplainable by attributing phenomena to the Gods … we know for certain that thunder is not the voice of angry Gods.