Even though the existence of God best explains the exquisitely finely tuned constants that allow for life on our planet, Dawkins dismisses God as Cause because he can’t "understand God." I wonder how many millions of knowns we’d have to dismiss if we forced ourselves to understand that which made the knowns possible?
Let's suppose we agree that god is the best explanation. How that will improve our humble human life? Can we use this knowledge to improve our understanding of the natural phenomena?
It is raining, why? God makes it rain. Is this explanation really useful? We now understand that when cloud which is formed by evaporation from some water surface meets cold air, the water moisture condenses and falls down as rain. The latter explanation helps weatherman to forecast weather. The god explanation does nothing useful.
Progress is made because human continuously trust evidence and base our thinking on evidence. If we do not know or understanding something, we do not know. A god-filler explanation serves no purpose and does nothing useful. Can the religious be honourable and humble enough to admit we do not know everything? Religion has passed its used-by date long time ago!
No comments:
Post a Comment