I read some of your comments responding to Richard Dawkins.
I think some people derive much more satisfaction working with
concrete ideas which have an objective reality. For example, most
scientific subject are experimental, i.e., one can, in principle
at least, do an experiment to confirm or refute a hypothesis.
Others can repeat the experiment. On the other hand, theology
largly deals with concepts that do not have an objective reality.
They cannot be detected by any of the 5 senses or with
instruments. Further there is no general agreement on theological
concepts since they are subjective. They also invoke the
supernatural. By it's nature, a claimed supernatural event cannot
be tested or replicated. Thus the only thing left to validate a
supernatural claim is the claim itself. But one person's
supernatural claim is another person' superstition. Also, once
supernatural claims are considered admissible, what's to prevent a
host of other supernatural claims to be considered valid?
Witchcraft, dowsing, astrology, prophesies of other religions,
etc., all make their claims. There is no fundamental principle
favoring one over another. Mere fervor of belief is no guide to
truth. (If it were, the suicide bomber would be the supreme truth
carrier). But since no proof, or even the likelyhood of these
claims being true exists, wouldn't the best default position be
that they don't exist until proven otherwise? The trouble with
theology is that is built on top of supernatural assumptions. It
constructs concepts(god, the holy ghost, the trinity, the
resurrection, salvation, etc.) which are completely synthetic,
then procedes to create an elaborate traffic in these concepts.
The sheer volume of the traffic gives the impression something
important is being said.
My Reply
Thanks for the message.
You won't be surprised that I don't entirely agree with you...
Firstly, I have no problems with Dawkins as a scientist. He is probably quite a good one. My primary issue with him is when he starts to make pronouncements about God - which he spends a lot of time doing. At this point, he is engaging in theology, even though he also claims it is a waste of time. He can't have it both ways!
You say that "By it's nature, a claimed supernatural event
cannot be tested or replicated." You seem to be missing the
obvious point that no claimed natural event can be tested or
replicated. No statement about the past can possibly be tested, in
the scientific sense. No event can be replicated, nor does it need
to be. Science is not concerned with replicating past events, but
with predicting future ones.
As for the rest of what you are saying - my (charitable!) assumption is that you have not read most of the rest of what I have to say on the web site. I have no time for theology as an exercise in speculation. I am primarily interested in facts and evidence.
It seems to me that there is good, rational evidence supporting the basic claims of the Christian faith. I don't believe in fairies, because I have not seen evidence for them. On the other hand, I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus because of the evidence for that. And, if the resurrection is the best working hypothesis we have, then it makes sense to suppose that Jesus was more or less right in the things he taught.
I have no interest in the 'amount of traffic' on a subject. Football and rugby and baseball are not important because a lot of people spend a lot of time on them. However, questions about the purpose of human life, whether it has any value, and whether there are such things as right and wrong are matters of importance, however much or how little is said about them.
Quite clearly, other people believe a lot of other things. But, for me, the resurrection is not a 'supernatural assumption' - it is either a fact of history, or it is a piece of elaborate fiction. Personally, I have examined that latter hypothesis, and I just don't have the faith to believe it.