What is your perspective on, for example, fear of the proposal in terms of, what if it is true. Now I know there are posters who may reply that there is a zero likely-hood of it being true.
Right. That was my first reaction. It would be like asking me “what’s your fear of waking up tomorrow and having a horse’s head in place of yours?” None… because it literally is not a possibility. (And, even better, that’s just a
natural impossibility; the confidence in eternal life is given to us
divinely.)
Dawkins, and others, believe we (humanity) has manufactured God because of our fear of death.
I think it would be necessary for them to
prove their case, rather than merely
assert it. And, there’s really no way to prove that assertion, but the best they can do is say “humans fear death” and “therefore, humans therefore fear lack of eternal life”.
You know how it goes: “freely asserted, freely denied.”
The Dawkins style atheist proposes the fear among humanity was so great, we invented religion to relieve our fear.
That’s what’s most illogical about the proposition: it’s like saying “I so fear that I’ll run out of ice cream that I invent the notion that there’s a chocolate cake in my dining room.” How does the cake mitigate the fear of the loss of ice cream, especially as it does nothing to prevent the loss of ice cream?
At best, I suppose, I could reason that one invents the cake in order to serve as a substitute for the ice cream. In that case, wouldn’t it be more rational to invent the idea that “when I die, I get ice cream forever”? Why invent
something else rather than what I want? Better yet, why invent something that’s
conditional on behavior that neither helps me nor helps my “made-up deity”?
In order to follow this notion, one must posit a tortured chain of out-of-the-blue presumptions, none of which is substantiated by any evidence.
