From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: My own religion
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 05:01:42 GMT

In article <l8vq22INNstf@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> 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.

I do not understand what "preposterous" has to do with majority thinking.
It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of attitude which has allowed
religion to flourish for so long -- people putting too much trust in
the brains of the majority, and not enough in their own.

   preposterous:  contrary to nature, reason, or common sense.

Where in there does it say anything about a majority?

For example, probably the majority of people, at least those inhabiting
our part of the planet, believe that their god listens to their prayers
and acts on them.  But suppose that we do an extensive scientific study
and determine beyond all doubt that prayer doesn't accomplish a damn thing.
Would it not be fair to say then that belief in the efficacy of prayer
is preposterous?  Or suppose that the belief system of the majority was
riddled with logical inconsistencies.  Preposterous?

>Secondly, it should be
>well known that it is unlikely there will ever be
>scientific/rational/empirical (dis)proof for god/creator/flying doughnut,
>and that people do not make decisions about religion in terms
>of empirical proof (IMO), they do so from a pragmatic basis.

Well, I think that's what Neal was pointing out: that it is practical
to not believe in god(s) in the same way that it is practical to not
believe in flying doughnuts.  Why is this a problem with his argument?

>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.

Can you give a coherent description of exactly what it is that you are
undecided about?  I ask this because I've arrived at the conclusion that
it is deleterious to one's mental health to have a bunch of fuzzy beliefs
floating around in one's head, even if one is only agnostic about them.
And I've yet to see a definition of God that isn't fuzzy as all hell.
I'd much rather be agnostic about the jelly-doughnut, because at
least that way, I know what I'm being agnostic about.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.