|
On December 12 2013 11:54 Jerubaal wrote:Well, as much as I'd like to watch an hour long video, I really wouldn't. If someone wants to summarize it for me I would respond to it, since I insulted people like him in my previous post. :p Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 10:44 ninazerg wrote:
I hereby prophesy that this thread will end up in some kind of endless argument over something stupid. Ideas aren't stupid. People are.
You're wrong. You're assuming that people are the only thinking beings that can come up with ideas.
|
People are the only things that can come up with ideas that could be adjudged stupid.
|
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote:
The first thing I'd suggest is that you take a good, long, honest look at yourself and really ask yourself if you are as intellectually pure as you think because I just don't see it. You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one. Instead it is full of competing worldviews that cannot be dismissed as merely fallacious. Also, have some humility and understand that while you may think the class simple (it's for high school students, for pete's sake) you couldn't possibly hope to hold an intelligible argument with its source material.
Now on to your actual questions: Now the title of your blog (and class I presume) is Christian Humanism. This is an important distinction because it's not exactly whole milk Christianity. Rather, it's how can we explain Christianity to non-Christians and advance Christian arguments without explicitly requiring Christian faith. Leaning in that direction.
Now, as you say, in order to construct a moral framework, there must be something to ground this morality. This reference for Christians is not "because the Bible says so" but the metaphysical worldview contained in the Bible and all of the subsidiary literature. Another way of saying this is to say that Christians subscribe to a "natural law". Saying that murder is wrong is not just a moral statement but also an assertion about the nature of the universe. Now what is a conscience? It's our "moral map" and shouldn't our moral map depict the moral contours of nature? Part of the assertion of natural law is that this morality is not found only Christianity but is part of the common human heritage (see the appendices of Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate for a list of almost universal human compunctions) and is to some degree innately known by all humans ("the law is written in their hearts"). Obviously, though, not everyone at all times is good so the moral sense must be plastic and through either faulty reason or violent passions becomes subverted. This also suggests that an act does not merely have a practical effect, but has consequences for your nature/character/soul/what have you.
If you wished to argue against a particular premise in this system, you could say that you hold a different view of nature, but the beauty of natural law is that it can be transposed to nearly any other system. Every particular custom may not line up exactly, but the basics should and the rest can be deduced by reason. To answer your question, a natural law Christian would say that, of course, it's possible for a pagan to be good, but Christianity is not only a moral system.
The other, and far more common, argument, is to assert that the universe has no definite metaphysical nature. If you do that, though, you really can't convince me of anything. Some writers, with an almost mulish obstinacy, insist that they can construct a moral framework from practicality, but that only extends as far as it is actually the case. You could not convince Stalin or Mao or Franco that the greater good outweighed their personal good. You could only convince them that on average it is better to follow your code, but not everyone is average.
I mentioned earlier that the "humanism" part was important. I joke that anyone who says humanism is about to do something really inhumane. While I don't think nothing good has come out of Christian Humanism, I think they are for the most part misguided because the phrase is an oxymoron. As I said before, in order to accept Christian morality, you have to accept Christian metaphysics, but humanists are essentially trying to convince you of the former without the latter. It's not surprising, then, that when you examine it with your own basic premises, like relativism, you think it has holes.
You don't, I think, make very clear your arguments regarding gray areas and when a thing might be right or wrong for different people, but that won't stop me from talking.: Gray areas was a good phrase because it's common to talk about the dogmatism of Christian sin as if it were a list of Dos And Don'ts- cross off the list and you go to Heaven, fail to do so and you go to Hell. In reality, it's all gray area. Every little action you do either conforms to the nature of the universe or it doesn't. Imagine it's like a Bioware game. Flip off your neighbor, -1. Rescue a kitty from a tree +10. I'm really joking here, but it seems like half the anti-Christian arguments are Christianity says this is wrong, therefore they hate them and want them dead and burning in hell.
There are a lot of things that are variable for person to person. You might say, for instance that liberal democracy may not be the best form of government for every country, or that some people are better doctors and some people better librarians. I'm not sure how this relates to moral decisions though. I don't think anybody argues that homosexuality or premarital sex are "moral rights", they are either moral wrongs or there is simply no morality governing it. Morality does not give choices, it either says Yes (in an imperative sense), No, or nothing. Your argument about premarital sex also seems weak because I could argue that marriage arose out of the natural proclivity of humans to form monogamous pair bondings.
Here are some books you can read if you wish to further educate yourself:
If you wish to explore actual Christian arguments and not condensed textbook crap, I recommend Introduction to Christianity and Truth and Tolerance, both by His Former Holiness, Joseph Ratzinger. These books are not light reading from a conceptual or vocabulary standpoint, but I think they are wonderfully written and very accessible.
As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias.
Ok, there's a lot to respond to, so I'll do my best to try and respond without making a gigantic mess. I never claimed to be an intellectual or to know everything about the subject. The point that I made when I was responding (I actually never said that I found my school easy, I was referring to my middle school if that's what you're talking about). And my middle school WAS objectively easy, but that's because of the failings of the US educational system. Not really a discussion for this blog.
The one thing I would object to in your first paragraph explaining your argument is that your argument is only held for certain Christian sects. I can see that you're Catholic (probably Roman Catholic from how you regard the Pope), so that would explain your views of morality. Not all Christians think that their is more to read and learn about than the Bible, in regards to their faith. But since we're both Catholic, we'll just precede from that viewpoint.
So what you're saying is that the Bible is intended to reflect natural law? That's a heavy assertion to be made, especially depending on the context of which specific passages you are referring to. I had to read quite a bit of the BIble in my freshman year, and as we skimmed through Deuteronomy and Leviticus there are certain things that absolutely do not reflect natural law at all. That being said, I'd assume you're talking about the Commandments themselves and not the specific laws that were created afterwards to help protect/govern the Israelites? I always assumed most (if not all) of the laws in the Deuteronomy and Leviticus were for practical purposes, not to reflect the natural law. Things like keeping kosher and quarantining certain "diseases" (basically everything was leprosy to them, lol) were to keep them safe, not to govern their moral actions necessarily. And the punishments were incredibly harsh, especially compared to today's standards.
Obviously this is a pretty cherry picked argument, but I just would like to point out that not all of the laws of those days reflected natural law. The other thing I'd like to dispute (which I started on in my original post) is that not everyone has their conscience developed the same way. Conscience dictates how the person responds to the specific situation he or she is in, moral law "objectively" decides whether he or she did the right thing or the wrong thing. Just because certain things are considered "universal," people do what they have to to survive and carry out their biological functions. It is our nature, despite what anyone tries to tell us. I guess I agree that for the morality of an act to matter, there has to be some effect it bears on a person's character/nature/spirit/soul/whatever, but how does someone distinguish between people? Not everyone is created the same way, but is everyone judged on acts that they committed the same way? No one on earth can truly answer that question, but that would seem to disagree with the concept of moral objectivity. We can't really separate the judgement from the morality of a situation, since that would be dividing the most important part of the action. The morality of the action is not what is important (since actions can be done with incorrect judgement, incorrectly perceiving a situation, or being done unwillingly), what is important is the responsibility/accountability of the person who committed the action, whether the action be good or bad.
I think most people understand the basic example you used, but the issue is extending the metaphor and understanding where different acts objectively stand on the scale. To give you an example, say that I see a homeless man starving and freezing outside the Dunkin Donuts I'm going to. One person walks by him, goes into the Dunkin Donuts, buys two donuts and two coffees, and gives the homeless man the coffee and donut. Most people would consider that objectively good. What about if someone goes in, orders a donut and a coffee but ends up getting two donuts because they messed up his order accidentally. He's not hungry enough to eat the second donut and doesn't want to throw it away, so he gives it to the homeless man to not waste it. He did a good thing, but it wasn't exactly for the right reasons. Jesus himself said that it matters more the spirit of the action than the action itself. Not that what he did could be considered "bad," but he didn't really intend to do anything good, which can be (and is) as much of a sin as doing something bad.
And, while I'm sure this is a very controversial topic, humans are not inclined to mate for life. Obviously there will be studies going both ways for this, but most chimpanzees do not mate for life, and there is a lot of research pointing to the fact that humans are not naturally monogamous. This is a pretty deep subject in itself, and isn't something that I'd really like to discuss here just because it could have a gigantic discussion by itself.
I would like to read more about it, since I do find it interesting, I'll just have to find time when I don't have finals or anything. Anyway, I'm not saying that I know everything about the subject or that I know everything about Christianity. I'm just saying that with what I know about the subject, it seems asinine to claim that there is an objective moral law. But then again, I think most of Christianity is wrong anyway, so for me to disagree with it on moral objectivity isn't that much of a stretch.
You are a full blown atheist because agnostic atheism is full blown atheism. If you do not believe in any God or gods you are an atheist.
Theism and atheism are belief claims. You either believe that a God or gods exist, or you do not believe that a God or gods exist. Gnosticism is a knowledge claim, you know a God or gods exists, or you do not know that a God or gods exist. So when you say that you are an agnostic atheist, you are saying that you do not believe in a God or gods, and that you do not know for sure - which is the position that the vast majority of atheists identify with.
Not to talk about my own religious beliefs for too long, but I am almost sure that the idea of the Christian-Judao (even Islamic) idea of what God is has almost no truth in it. That said, I have no idea if there are other deistic powers, but more and more I tend to side with the idea of there being nothing that plays any role in our lives other than what is completely tangible. So in a sense, yes, I am a full blown atheist, but only in regards to the Trinity, or Yahweh, or Allah, not to what I cannot know.
|
On December 12 2013 18:03 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 17:21 vOdToasT wrote:Haha, christian humanism, that sounds like an oxymoron + Show Spoiler +Edit: Under the definition of humanism that means ethics can be intrinsic to humans, and do not need to come from an outside source, such as a god. Which is its real definition, as far as I know. 6th paragraph of my first post.
I posted on impulse, it was too amusing.
|
On December 12 2013 20:44 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 18:03 Jerubaal wrote:On December 12 2013 17:21 vOdToasT wrote:Haha, christian humanism, that sounds like an oxymoron + Show Spoiler +Edit: Under the definition of humanism that means ethics can be intrinsic to humans, and do not need to come from an outside source, such as a god. Which is its real definition, as far as I know. 6th paragraph of my first post. I posted on impulse, it was too amusing.
The course is almost as dumb as the name of the course. They tried to tell us that the reason they removed the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is because people in California were trying to favor the needs of the few over the needs of many and weaken the "power of the Church in public schools." This may be a shock to the author of the article, but the United States is a secularized nation and there is no power or rights of the church in public schools, which is how it should be.
|
On December 12 2013 14:51 Myrkskog wrote:
What would you say the difference between disbelief and lack of belief is?
I am not against the idea of God, but I don't think humans can ever find enough proof to make a rational conclusion that there is/isn't a God and that would make agnostic
Also I am not talking about a Christian God, I am talking about the concept of God in general.
So it's not about the level of belief.
|
On December 12 2013 14:51 Myrkskog wrote:
What would you say the difference between disbelief and lack of belief is?
Disbelieving P is believing that P is false. Lacking a belief that P is simply not having the belief that P. It's not like I made up the distinction.
Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
On December 12 2013 16:02 Jerubaal wrote:
The distinction frogrubdown is making is that you can believe that there is no proof of God/gods or believe that there are no gods.
That's not quite the same distinction, but it could be a related one. For instance, a reason a person might be undecided about the existence of God is if they think there's no proof one way or the other. An undecided person doesn't believe in God, but they aren't an atheist because they also don't actively believe God doesn't exist.
|
difference between atheism and anti-theism ^
not believing, vs believing that there is not
|
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote:
You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one.
Don't believe this person, the world is full of people who are objectively wrong. They are wrong according to criteria the vast majority of people, including themselves, would agree on. They might be wrong on questions of fact, their logic might be off or they simply believe things that are logically contradictory. In the worst case they might even answer the exact same question differently in different contexts.
Actually, most people are objectively wrong on at least some questions. It's hard not to be unless you qualify most of your beliefs with a probabilistic estimate, and even then it's quite possible to go wrong.
|
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote:
As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias.
It's insulting him to say Plato would confuse him. The short dialogues like the Euthyphro or Lysis are great introductory material... way more than jumping into Aristotle or Cicero.
|
On December 12 2013 16:44 Myrkskog wrote:
All of the prominent atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, have said they are agnostic atheists. That's a pretty bold assertion of you to make to tell us what they actually believe.
They say that because of the ridiculous people who love to insist that atheism means you're saying there is 100% not a God, when by definition, it isn't. They say their agnostic atheists as opposed to gnostic atheists, as they're not 100% sure there isn't a God, only 99.99%.
|
Theism = Belief in god(s)
Atheism = No belief in god(s)
The reason why many identify as agnostic atheists, is to sort of refute the association that atheists believe there is no god. It's more of a skeptic interpretation, that unless there is sufficient evidence, there's no reason to make a leap of faith for belief.
I just finished "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer, and I would definitely recommend it. It's about all the studies of neuroscience and psychology that help explain why our brains are programmed to believe over the use of rational thought (and why sometimes this is a good thing). It also goes into evolutionary factors of why humans as a species and our societies developed religions.
|
"That atheists believe there is no god" isn't just an "association". It's part of one of the standard meanings of 'atheist', the one I find more interesting to discuss.
|
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote:
difference between atheism and anti-theism ^
not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
|
On December 13 2013 03:12 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote:
You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one. Don't believe this person, the world is full of people who are objectively wrong. They are wrong according to criteria the vast majority of people, including themselves, would agree on. They might be wrong on questions of fact, their logic might be off or they simply believe things that are logically contradictory. In the worst case they might even answer the exact same question differently in different contexts. Actually, most people are objectively wrong on at least some questions. It's hard not to be unless you qualify most of your beliefs with a probabilistic estimate, and even then it's quite possible to go wrong.
I'm not exactly sure what angle you are coming from, but if you are saying that people don't fully understand the worldview they espouse, then that's true but not interesting. Lowest common denominator bashing isn't really helpful in advancing conversations. Finding simple contradictions in lower level thinking isn't helpful to you and likely won't convince anyone.
More than that, though, the young and foolish need to have their mental laziness discouraged or they'll turn into idiot ideologues.
On December 13 2013 03:30 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote:
As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias. It's insulting him to say Plato would confuse him. The short dialogues like the Euthyphro or Lysis are great introductory material... way more than jumping into Aristotle or Cicero.
It's not insulting. It's easy to comprehend the texts, but that doesn't mean you're getting anything out of it. I read The Republic 3 times and in 2 different classes before I was able to understand a lot of the points and the OP is probably reading alone and without any guidance. Cicero seems to me to set the table much better. And judging by his responses, I think what remained of my optimism vanished.
|
On December 13 2013 05:00 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote:
difference between atheism and anti-theism ^
not believing, vs believing that there is not Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel. So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair.
On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote:
Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former.
|
On December 13 2013 08:39 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 05:00 koreasilver wrote:On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote:
difference between atheism and anti-theism ^
not believing, vs believing that there is not Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel. So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists. As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair. Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote:
Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God. The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former.
100% of atheists identify with the former because believing that god doesn't exist is one way of not believing god exists. The set of [believers that there is no god] is a proper subset of the set of [non-believers that god exists]. That doesn't mean that the majority of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't believe there is no god, or that the majority define 'atheism' in the first way.
My definition also makes a lot more sense of many ordinary ways that people describe agnosticism than the other definition.
|
ugh proper subset...reminds me to study for my database management exam next wednesday :x
|
On December 13 2013 09:58 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 08:39 Myrkskog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:00 koreasilver wrote:On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote:
difference between atheism and anti-theism ^
not believing, vs believing that there is not Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel. So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists. As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair. On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote:
Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God. The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former. 100% of atheists identify with the former because believing that god doesn't exist is one way of not believing god exists. The set of [believers that there is no god] is a proper subset of the set of [non-believers that god exists]. That doesn't mean that the majority of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't believe there is no god, or that the majority define 'atheism' in the first way. My definition also makes a lot more sense of many ordinary ways that people describe agnosticism than the other definition.
So we are in agreement then that being atheist does not necessitate a belief that there is no God. Granted, I haven't seen any surveys on how atheists self identify, however, my comment was based off the fact that all prominent atheists, along with all atheists I have talked to or listened to, fall under the category of agnostic atheist.
|
On December 13 2013 11:02 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 09:58 frogrubdown wrote:On December 13 2013 08:39 Myrkskog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:00 koreasilver wrote:On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote:
difference between atheism and anti-theism ^
not believing, vs believing that there is not Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel. So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists. As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair. On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote:
Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God. The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former. 100% of atheists identify with the former because believing that god doesn't exist is one way of not believing god exists. The set of [believers that there is no god] is a proper subset of the set of [non-believers that god exists]. That doesn't mean that the majority of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't believe there is no god, or that the majority define 'atheism' in the first way. My definition also makes a lot more sense of many ordinary ways that people describe agnosticism than the other definition. So we are in agreement then that being atheist does not necessitate a belief that there is no God. Granted, I haven't seen any surveys on how atheists self identify, however, my comment was based off the fact that all prominent atheists, along with all atheists I have talked to or listened to, fall under the category of agnostic atheist.
No, I'm not agreeing to that. There are two very prominent meanings to 'atheist'. I don't know exactly how the pop-culture atheists tend to use the term, but I get the impression that my use is more popular among prominent atheist philosophers.
You seem to be under the impression that agnostic atheism is only possible under your definition. If so, I don't see why. Being agnostic just means you don't take yourself to know (or don't take it to be possible to know) whether god exists. That's entirely consistent with believing that god doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
