From: millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller)
Subject: Re: My own religion
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:48:41 GMT

danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>>(Neal Miller) writes:

>> 	This is a common argument among agnostics, but the flaw is that it is
>> impossible to prove that something exists, when the something in question, by
>> its own rules, acts like it doesn't exist.  It's like trying to prove that
>> a San Diego-sized jelly doughnut, hovering above the earth at an altitude of
>> four miles, that does NOT respond to any laws of physics, reflects NO wave-
>> lengths of light, and does not respond to any interactions with physical
>> matter, exists.  There is simply no experiment that can be done to prove or
>> deny it.  However the concept of the flying doughnut is just so preposterous
>> that no one in their right mind would believe in it.  The burden of proof
>> must rest on those who believe it exists.  No one will ever see proof that
>> a god does or doesn't exist.  Therefore, until someone proves otherwise, it
>> doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.  However, now that I think about it,
>> the jelly-doughnut is a more plausible concept than any omnipotent being.

>My two cents:

>It seems to me Mr. Miller asserts that a thing as preposterous
><as religion> bears the burden of proof, to "prove" it to others.

>There are two things wrong with this argument as I see it: first,
>saying something is "preposterous" is an appeal to majority thinking;
>this tends to fall flat when the majority of people on the planet
>tend to believe in some religion or another. 

	This is true, but "majority thinking" isn't automatically defined
as correct.  The earth was round long before the churches tolerated such
radical teachings.  The sun was a physically plausible celestial body,
even when the Ancient Egyptians believed themselves to be looking upon
the face of Ra himself.  I define preposterous in this case as being in
complete violation of history, logic, physics, and practicality, whether
or not several billion people choose to follow the religious paths back 
into the dark ages when people would huddle in front of fires ignited by
the God of Lightning.

[material deleted...]

>Mr. Miller seems to be saying that it is up to agnostics to
>"prove" their agnosticism, precisely the same assertion he
>would give to anyone who does not share his beliefs; this 
>of course is exactly what agnostics (IMO) wish to avoid:
>tedious arguments of (dis)proof. Far more important is what it
>all personally means to the agnostic. S/he is not out to
>convert anyone, being "undecided" him/her self.

	No...  The burden shouldn't lie on the agnostics at all...  It's
the fanatical religious leaders to which I am referring.  The ones that
come to my house (and even my dorm room!), trying to get me to believe
the most fantastic stories I've ever heard, that go against all common
sense, and everything that I can see with my own eyes.  They almost look
brainwashed as they rant and rave about how even though I consider myself
to rank as a "nice guy" on the lists of most of my peers, I'll be damned
to eternal suffering if I don't pray to their god.  Those are the ones who
hold the burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
 Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic