SecularFuture

My ultimate goal is to make a small list of points that could, possibly, render theism invalid by default. It’s an ambitious goal, but I'm sure if I keep refining, something nice may come from it.

My favorite quote so far is this one:
"What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “religious faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one."

This could apply to many things; divine experience, "intelligent design", biblical prophecy, etc. I still need to tighten the writing a little before I make it "official".

SecularFuture

Thank you.

Stephen T-B

There are, of course, various ways of expressing your "what theists interpret..." idea, and I thought of a pretty good one as I was cycling home last night (being a pleasant evening, I made a detour of a few extra miles) but I can't remember now what it was..

I think it's the crux of the mattter.

Stephen T-B

This may be too succinct::

"By definition, supernatural phenomena must only have supernatural explanations; every possible natural explanation must therefore be excluded before anything can be judged supernatural."

SecularFuture

NOTE: The sections that are highlighted red received the most revisions.

========================

5 Points against Religious Theism

The existence of a god can not be tested by science, seen by the naked eye, nor detected by electronic devices. Therefore, “God” must be a supernatural being if he/she/it is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Definitions for the word ‘supernatural’:
- of or relating to existence outside the natural world
- attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
- of or relating to a deity
- of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous

Definitions for the word ‘natural’:
- present in or produced by nature
- of, relating to, or concerning nature
- conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
- not acquired; inherent

1) What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “blind religious-faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

2) Unlike non-religious history books, many religious scriptures include stories about supernatural worlds and events that can only be believed and not tested. Freethinkers dismiss religious scripture because it is subjective and inconsistent when compared to the objective and consistent nature of the natural world. Unlike religious scripture, non-religious history can be accepted though “reasoned-faith”, a kind of faith that is supported by the five senses, reason, and/or supporting evidence.

3) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. A god is not the only being capable of inspiring or writing books.

4) If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being a violation of a natural law, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested and personal interpretations of so-called supernatural events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

5) Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through the promotion of subjective thinking alone.

========================

The points I’m trying to make:

#1 – Don’t jump to conclusions
#2 – “Reasoned faith” is has validity, and “Blind religious faith" does not
#3 – Religious scripture could be works of fiction
#4 – There is no universal truth
#5 – Religion is dangerous

========================

SecularFuture

This statement kind of makes supernatural explanations "okay", which they're not. To bring down the beast that is religious theism, we must attack its heart, its roots.

Think about it for a moment. What holds religious theism together? It’s not their bibles. Its not "intelligent design" notions, nor is it so-called "divine experiences". Religious theism survives through their FAITH in those concepts.

Once we find a way to get rid of blind faith, everything else will fall automatically.

Stephen T-B

The point is, of course, that we cannot possibly know "every possible natural explanation."
Not unless we're omniscent...

SecularFuture

Right. That makes sense. I just read it wrong. Cool chickens. I'll probably end up revising my article about 5 more times before it becomes "official".