Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Atheists: your thoughts on this quote?
"It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible to proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind."
- Leonard Peikoff -
... do you guys seriously have such poor reading comprehension skills that you can't tell when someone is arguing against religion? I thought that the part at the end about faith undercutting man's mind would be a dead giveaway...
Celestial: The issue here isn't finite vs infinite, it's defined vs undefined. The word finite is used, in this context, to mean a specific entity with specific attributes. The point he is making is that religion rests on the idea that god is incomprehensible and 'beyond us'. In order to prove the existence a god you would have to reduce it to the level of a normal entity, and it would cease to be unknowable and mystic. It would just be another rational phenomenon.
15 Answers
- ?Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
totally agree, its what ive been saying all along here
most peopel dont read more than a few words
thats their issue, not yours ;-)
undercutting comment, dont agree with somuch, its an opinion, not a fact
- Celestian VegaLv 61 decade ago
You have obviously never read the work of Nassim Haramein. Point being: The finite can absolutely coexist with the infinite. Peikoff also ignores the obvious fact that, were God to prove his existence, He would undoubtedly be proven to be the Author of all science and reality. The "undercutting of a man's mind" remark is simply ridiculous.
- auntb93Lv 71 decade ago
I would generally agree with that. However, there have been religions based on considering someone or something to be god that were limited and finite. Of course, in modern times with modern communications, such a religion has little scope.
- Phoenix QuillLv 71 decade ago
Religion exists & persists because it conveys a survival advantage on those who believe.
Russian thinking has been relentlessly contaminated by the idiocy of Marx who saw Religion as an opiate. A tool of the evil Capitalists to oppress men's minds. Russians believe in the 'science' of Evolution - but then turn around and ignore the fact that Religion EVOLVED and never ask why?
The only Darwinian reason for reason to be displaced by faith is when a given aspect of faith works better than reason in terms of survival. Understand?
The first way our reason attacks our will to survive is our capacity to foresee our inevitable death. If we all die in the end why bother? Religion addresses this with the promise of an afterlife.
The second place reason gets us into trouble is when the desire for personal gain inclines us to cheat the social contract. Religions cheap "God is watching" is just more effective than the expensive actuality of threats to insure good social behavior.
But Russians are FAR too clever to see this. Even as their desolate souls drink themselves into oblivion. Even as corruption rips their economy to shreds. Even as massive youthful brainwashing is needed to insure the patriotic loyalty which Religion naturally engenders,
Ah yes if GOD were to show up then 'Faith', the active ingredient in Religious opium would be rendered ineffectual, and no one would want to get high anymore. God would be the death of Religion - my what a clever phrase. - but it's just mental masturbation.
Religion exists & persists because it conveys a survival advantage on those who believe.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- WillyTKLv 71 decade ago
I disagree. An infinite god could indeed present itself in any manner it chose since they made the rules. S/he/it could appear to us as a human and do any cosmic parlor tricks we asked s/he/it to do to prove godhood. It would never have to reveal itself completely. I'd really like to see it change the orbits of the planets or some such. Bet Blaine and Copperfield together couldn't pull that off!
- 1 decade ago
It makes me think of this quote from Douglas Adams "HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy."
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof in the NONexistence of God.
The arguement goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore by your own arguements, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
- PDizzleLv 61 decade ago
I don't aggree with this quote.
If a god showed himself, most followers of religions would simply say they misinterpreted their teachings and would adopt this new god into their religion.
They've been brainwashed as kids to think their religion is right, no matter what. Any proof their religion is wrong will be met with a counter answer by them to pretend they're right, even if it's god him/herself.
- sparton223Lv 51 decade ago
It's true. Religion is only existent because nobody has seen a god, making him this mysterious and seemingly all powerful being.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
True.. the human imagination knows no limits.