The Bigger Arrogant
To claim the existence of a creator is a greater arrogance than the claim to the contrary.
Almost every conversation I’ve had with a religious person leads to the accusation that how could I be so arrogant, so boastful and limited in my imagination as to dismiss the existence of God. In fact, this accusation is so common that even Richard Dawkins has had to respond to it in many of the interviews and talk shows (at least in the US) he has been to … but never quite from the following perspective.
The truly remarkable arrogance is in fact to not dismiss God. That a mortal, feeble human being could be so immensely boastful and certain of its biological construction and mental capacity that it alone can ASSUME into existence a God for the universe thereby explain everything there ever was and ever will be in just one stroke ought to be arrogance incarnate.
The inherent complexity of the world and the capacity of the human mind to comprehend this complexity require extrapolations that are sometimes faulty. In light of such abundant research (even everyday experience) pointing to how easily the human mind could be tricked, to believe that the human mind is capable of such immense knowledge as to have the final explanation, God, for every facet of life is a truly remarkable arrogance (to borrow a term from The God Delusion, it is the Super Jumbo Jet of arrogance).
The truly remarkable arrogance is in fact to not dismiss God. That a mortal, feeble human being could be so immensely boastful and certain of its biological construction and mental capacity that it alone can ASSUME into existence a God for the universe thereby explain everything there ever was and ever will be in just one stroke ought to be arrogance incarnate.
The inherent complexity of the world and the capacity of the human mind to comprehend this complexity require extrapolations that are sometimes faulty. In light of such abundant research (even everyday experience) pointing to how easily the human mind could be tricked, to believe that the human mind is capable of such immense knowledge as to have the final explanation, God, for every facet of life is a truly remarkable arrogance (to borrow a term from The God Delusion, it is the Super Jumbo Jet of arrogance).
Re: The Bigger Arrogant
Hi Ephraim,
...
2) And also, I just wanted to ask you a question about your post on the arrogance of religious people. As far as I can tell your accusations of religious people being arrogant seems to be based on some moral ground in the sense that religious people are blameworthy for not dismissing belief in God. I wonder on what basis you hold such people morally culpable for what they believe since your commitment to naturalism seems to deprive you of an objective, transcendent source of morality, which, if you’re aware of, is an Achilles’ heel for naturalism. Unless you’ve a new moral theory for your brand of naturalism/atheism, I’m extremely skeptical of the availability of objective moral anchor for naturalism that is superior to that of theism. If your moral theory, given naturalism/materialism, is incoherent or indefensible, I wonder how you’d maintain your accusation of theists being arrogant, which seems to be a moral failure on their part. I hope that you’re aware of the normative dimension of an ought statement with moral implications such as the one you used in your post I’m referring to and I really want to know how on earth normative, prescriptive statements could be accounted for given naturalism.
...
Cheers,
Alethia
[Posted on behalf of Alethia by Ephraim Tekle. For the original post by Alethia click here]
...
2) And also, I just wanted to ask you a question about your post on the arrogance of religious people. As far as I can tell your accusations of religious people being arrogant seems to be based on some moral ground in the sense that religious people are blameworthy for not dismissing belief in God. I wonder on what basis you hold such people morally culpable for what they believe since your commitment to naturalism seems to deprive you of an objective, transcendent source of morality, which, if you’re aware of, is an Achilles’ heel for naturalism. Unless you’ve a new moral theory for your brand of naturalism/atheism, I’m extremely skeptical of the availability of objective moral anchor for naturalism that is superior to that of theism. If your moral theory, given naturalism/materialism, is incoherent or indefensible, I wonder how you’d maintain your accusation of theists being arrogant, which seems to be a moral failure on their part. I hope that you’re aware of the normative dimension of an ought statement with moral implications such as the one you used in your post I’m referring to and I really want to know how on earth normative, prescriptive statements could be accounted for given naturalism.
...
Cheers,
Alethia
[Posted on behalf of Alethia by Ephraim Tekle. For the original post by Alethia click here]