Monday, December 14, 2009

Donald Clegg Spokesman Article

Mr. Clegg recently wrote an article in the Spokesman-Review titled “Readers ask agnostic to define a God he could believe in”.

Clegg seems to say that he could only believe in a god that wouldn’t impose indefinite life on him, i.e. when he dies that’s it, no afterlife.  He also says that he could only believe in a god who is good, just and omnipotent.

This seems to me highly irrational.  I would like to ask him “Even if there was unassailable evidence for a god you would not believe in him/her/it if he/she/it was evil or unjust?’.  That seems like a good reason not to worship/follow a god but a very poor reason to not believe in one.  If you choose not to accept something simply because you find it distasteful, regardless of the evidence than you might as well join a religion.

It also seems that if there is a god he/she/it while maybe not malevolent is at least uncaring.  As evidenced by the harshness of life, especially animal life, but it’s not walk in the park for humans either.

Whenever I’m asked what type of god I could believe in I simply state “One for which there is well established and widely accepted evidence”.

1 comment: