God & the Fairy Tree

Isn't that just another way of describing the "God of the Gaps"?And isn't it questionable how much choice is involved, when we consider that most people of faith believe in pretty much the same thing as their parents, which makes it look as though childhood indoctrination plays a big role in what people may describe as "choice"? I may've misunderstood you here, but no, I'd never really noticed that. I think that if people of faith really did challenge their own beliefs, they wouldn't be people of faith for very long.

Obviously not. I've seen plenty of examples of religious people making desperately silly arguments to justify their faiths to themselves and the world (there are a few on this thread), but not one single example of one of them really challenging his or her own faith.Otherwise, I would've witnessed another conversion to non-belief, by definition.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

My definition of real challenge is built simply on knowing many people who have actually challenged the religion that they were brought up in, and seeing that the result is invariably that they no longer believe in it. Not one of the world's faith based religions can stand up to scrutiny and a real challenge without seeming ridiculous in the eyes of the challenger. If your religion doesn't seem ridiculous to you, then that means you've never really challenged it. Religious faith is just a form of self-deception, so why not be honest with yourself, and try challenging yours?

You mean my "self-deception" description? You're welcome. Would you like to try and give us your preferred view of what religious faith is without practising self-deception while doing so?

“People who admit the possibility of something” in this context is a description that fits agnostics, and many who are described as atheists, Richard Dawkins, for example.Parasomnium will correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression of the O.P. was that he was asking religious people to explain what appears to him to be an inconsistency in their attitude towards English garden fairies and their attitude towards the God that they firmly believe in. He was talking about people who believe in “X”. English garden fairies have specific attributes. They are very small (measured in inches rather than feet) supernatural flying entities with translucent wings, beautiful and generally benign, although mischievous at times. They can come with optional extras, of course, but that’s about the basic description.I cannot think off-hand of a religion which demands only the admission of a possible something. Parasomnium uses the word God, singular, and all the monotheistic religions demand faith in specific Gods with specific attributes.For example, in Christianity, the God is a creator of everything, has an interest in us and wants to be worshipped by us, particularly favours one middle-eastern tribe and sends his son amongst them by means of an immaculate conception, is omniscient and omnipresent, etc. To people of that particular faith, He is not just any possible something that might possibly be there, and I think it’s to such people that Parasomnium is really addressing his O.P. Specifically, the type who say things like: So I think that you’ve been slightly at odds with the O.P. in your discussion.In both cases, the English garden fairies and the Christian God, there’s no evidence that they are anything other than human inventions. There’s plenty of evidence that it’s a characteristic of our species to invent supernatural entities of many different kinds, and that we’re easily capable of believing in our own inventions. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a famous believer in the garden fairies of this magic isle in the early 20th century.But perhaps you won’t agree that there’s no evidence for a God of some kind, because of this: Did I miss a post in which you described this indirect evidence? If you didn’t, I’d be genuinely interested to know what it is.Incidentally, I think it’s important to distinguish between people who think there’s no evidence for the existence of supernatural entities, and those who claim to know that such things cannot possibly exist. I’m one of the formerPicking out any supernatural entity or entities with the characteristics of a human invention and having faith in it or them is what’s delusional. Conan Doyle fell for some fairy photos faked by two kids as a result of his latent desire for the supernatural. Admitting the possibility of “something”, as you put it, and speculating on that something (or things) isn’t delusional at all. I’m sure there are possibilities way beyond even our fertile imaginations.

Not one observation? By the eighteenth century? It's off topic here, but if you want to start a topic on the history of astronomy making that claim, it might be interesting. Accepting the existence of such a force would hardly be difficult to cultures which had navigated to all hemispheres of the earth, and observed that nothing falls off it! Modern people with a naturalistic view consider the theories that best fit observations to be the strongest, so they would certainly have considered Newton's (seventeenth century) theories to be strong had they lived in the eighteenth century.It seems strange that you choose to imagine otherwise.

Someone further up the thread suggested that you should set up a topic on the subjects you've been discussing here, and I agree. Several people (myself included) have wandered off the fairies and Gods topic, and the author of the topic has made a justifiable complaint. Your first post on this thread might serve as a base for that topic (just a suggestion!).Unless, of course, you're suggesting that studies of the fairies and gods should get scientific research funding. Perhaps, in a way, you are?

I've never thought I've found it, or had any hopes of doing so, except perhaps under the influence of excessive quantities of alcohol.