Each their own beliefs. I have seen examples of the evils of religion
as well as of the benefits of religion.
Superfluous merely means that God is not necessary but that does not
mean that God was not involved. Is that not what causes so much
concern when people believe that Darwinism has made God irrelevant
when in fact all that it could possibly do is show that God is
superfluous. Nothing prevents God from playing a role.
On Oct 31, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Terry M. Gray wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>> Note that God being superfluous is not necessarily an argument
>> against God.
>
> This is actually a very interesting sentence. Are you meaning
> "superfluous with respect to our scientific theorizing?" In other
> words, this is just a way of talking about methodological naturalism.
>
> I'm fairly certain that both Dawkins and Hauser would resist your
> sympathies with belief in God, even if you distance yourself from
> including God in your theorizing. This seems to be the gist of the
> Wired piece--not only do these new atheists not believe in God they
> think that belief in God is harmful and needs to be resisted.
>
> TG
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 31 23:35:38 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 23:35:38 EST