George,
>>>>>>
Well, OK but ..... I think the recent experiments subjecting human brains to
electrical stimulation which thereby produces "religious like" effects in
the
patient is pretty strong support for the atheistic side and needs to "keep
in
mind" :-)
I think the best responce is to agree that all religious experienc is in the
mind. Where else would it be?
We are very, very physical.
<<<<<<<<<
I agree, we are physical beings and religious experience happens in the
brain. Any other tact promotes a dualism that is hard to support. If,
however, it is granted that we are physical creatures that does not entail
that religious experience is strictly material. There are a number of
naturalistic theist models that affirm both the physical realm and the
metaphysical realm. In fact most religions and particularly Christianity
claim that God *acts* in creation. But if God acts in the physical world
then there must be some causal joint. Various Christian
theologians/philosophers( i.e. Barbour, Peacocke, Polkinghorne, Russel,
Murphy, et al ) have offered scientifically based proposals on this causal
joint. In all those proposals God acts without violating natural processes.
Others like David Ray Griffin make proposals based on process thought.
Unfortunately the "naturalistic theism" of these scholars is not very well
know. That is unfortunate because I think they offer intellectually honest
alternatives that even some atheists could embrace.
Best,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Andrews Jr." <gandrews@as.wm.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: atheism vs theism
Hi Steve;
Steve Petermann wrote:
> I've had a lot of discussions with atheists and the one thing that is both
a
> hallmark of religion and a non-refutable aspect is religious experience.
By
> religious experience I don't mean just some rare dramatic event. What I
am
> referring to is the underlying sense of the sacred that is universal to
all
> peoples and is talked about all through scripture and characterized in
> ritual and piety. Atheists must always deny any objective validity to
those
> types of experiences because they point beyond the material world. Also,
> even though religious experience is not empirical evidence, per se, as a
> universal phenomenon it also cannot be dismissed out of hand. Atheists
> often try to explain it away as a strictly psychological aberration or
> phenomenon with no objective truth, but if so, they should be obliged to
> provide convincing arguments to support that position. They cannot,
> however, do that because just as God cannot be the object of empirical
> proof, God can also not be disproved by that means or even by reason.
Even
> parsimony is not a valid final argument against theism because of its
> universality. In the final analysis the belief or disbelief in God is a
> matter of faith. For those who are open to the sacred in life, they may
> without hard proof choose to believe in God or not.
Well, OK but ..... I think the recent experiments subjecting human brains to
electrical stimulation which thereby produces "religious like" effects in
the
patient is pretty strong support for the atheistic side and needs to "keep
in
mind" :-)
I think the best responce is to agree that all religious experienc is in the
mind. Where else would it be?
We are very, very physical.
George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 15:41:45 EDT