Go read this

Tristan's done a great post on "ignosticism", and has delivered a pretty powerful argument against faith. A snippet:
When the purported experience of God is assumed real, as theists so often profess, we are faced with the challenge of describing that experience, which according to the theist is impossible because that would require us to give a definition of God, but as the sophist theologians love to harp, we cannot pretend to understand God--he is beyond our understanding. 

So in order to first communicate the experience of God, you have to know what God is, or at least describe God, in coherent terms which are comprehensible otherwise you cannot talk of having an experience of "God."
This is a great angle to take against people who claim that their faith is based on the experience of God – like, I dunno, William Lane Craig. Or shoot, even me circa 1997 or so, when I was certain that I had felt God's presence many times.

I don't know if it's the best argument against God ever, as Tristan suggests, but it's a good one – especially if you've had the amusement of watching theologians struggle with theological noncognitivism

Read the whole shebang here.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is bullshit, part 1: The Bible is stupid

Why Christianity is bullshit, part 2: The Bible isn't true

There is no such thing as sophisticated theology