4 ms·

Well it is. Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology; atheism upon a belief in physical laws. But a atheist could believe the former, a

• lisper 8y ago
  > Your implied opposition was that theology is based upon teleology No. Not "is". Could be. Big difference.
  • Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    Not to be pedantic, but you say 'is' in both relevant clauses: 'Your assumption is that the order in the universe arises from causality and physical law. His assumption is that the order in the universe arises from purpose, i.e. he believes in teleology'
    • lisper 8y ago
      That's right. The OP's father assumes [1] teleology and reasons from there to theology. But I'm not saying that if you start with teleology you necessarily end up with theology, only that you can en up there without being irrational. By way of contrast, it is much harder to rationally get to theology without starting with teleology (though not impossible). So most atheists simply reject teleology out of hand, and then go on to conclude that theism must be irrational. It's not. --- [1] Of course I have no idea whether or not this is actually true. I'm just presuming. But it's a plausible presumption that is true of many religious people even if it happens not to be true in this particular case.