Spurred by our debates in some of the threads below, Micha posts a common question at his own site:
If God really did exist, why would God provide complex, statistical, scientific evidence for its own existence only in the micro-world of biochemical processes, and not instead, say, host his own public access television show called Jesus and Pals? Are microbiologists more deserving than the rest of us to bask in the knowledge and glory of the Divine? Or does God want us all to give up our day jobs and become microbiologists?
I realize I've been harping on this stuff for a few days now, so I'll keep my answer here brief.
1) God did try direct communication with the Hebrews. They weren't very obedient. Even though they were literally being led around by a column of fire, they still managed to make golden idols etc. Look, I personally believe that God has intervened in my life, and I think He is watching over me. I still act like a punk. So this idea that, "We would all be 'religious' and the world would be a better place if God weren't so mysterious" is not as obviously correct as atheists believe. Of course atheists will laugh and say, "We're talking about reality here, not dumb stories in your dusty book," but the challenge Micha presents is obviously one for believers to grapple with. So I'm answering on behalf of someone who actually believes in this stuff, to show why there's no huge contradiction (at least on this issue).
2) About 2000 years ago there was a traveling group known as Jesus and Pals. I don't think everybody on the planet suddenly converted. In fact, they tortured and killed Jesus and some of his pals. Why would things be different today? If someone went up to Richard Dawkins today and said, "Hi, I'm the son of God and you and I need a sit-down," would Dawkins be receptive?
3) There already basically are shows about Jesus and Pals. I doubt Micha watches them.
4) So I hope I've demonstrated that the flippant, "I would believe if God came out and revealed Himself" isn't as compelling as it first sounds. (I used to think the same thing when I myself was an atheist.) In order to convince people in this more scientific age (versus 2000 years ago), surely a more compelling approach would be to embed evidence of His existence in nature itself. And it's not just microbiologists who get all the fun. Just skim this site to see what I have in mind. Again, you can scoff and say this is all ridiculous, but I don't think Micha's claim of internal inconsistency stands up.
“The advancement of science and the rationality of politics are interwoven in a social process that, in the perspective of a more distant f...
Declares LewRockwell.com : "All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimu...
Is shaping up nicely .
The language won't die, but that doesn't mean the programmers won't ! Funny quote: '"Just because a language is 50...