A look at the relevant literature reveals that theologians and philosophers hold a variety of concepts of deity. A number of writers on the subject have pointed out that, even when we limit ourselves to Western-style monotheism, the meaning “God” is equivocal and ambiguous.
By insisting on naturalistic hypotheses instead of falling back on “God did it,” many of the key steps in the transformation from inanimate matter to living cells are now understood in considerable detail. Major discoveries in the past 60 years have already led to creating genetic material, proteins and other biochemical structures that begin to bridge the gap between non-life and life.
The Bahai ‘solution’ to the question of evil represents one way taken by a number of advocates of religious theism in the history of this problem. A number of theologians and religious philosophers have argued that evil really does not exist, but is only the absence of positive reality.
Any cursory look at relevant scholarship on the issue indicates that there are great differences between different versions of ‘Jesus’. This brings us to the problem of identity. Even when we grant that most likely there was a historical ‘Jesus’ — it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to establish which of our numerous references and descriptions might be accurate.
Unless our talk in moral philosophy is empty, we must allow that moral beliefs and moral judgments that we attribute to people are translatable into action. Hence, if we say that the non-theist is compelled to a position of extreme moral relativism, it must be the case that the non-theist in a significant way acts as an extreme moral relativist. * Moreover, if we say that the theist (the moral authoritarian) makes good distinctions between right and wrong and holds correct (true) moral beliefs, then this too should translate into action.
The touted distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism does little to show that science and religion are compatible. The same can be said regarding the claims that “science does not disprove God,” that many scientists are also persons of faith and find belief in God compatible with their work in the sciences. None of these makes much headway in showing that the sciences are compatible with a commitment to a supernatural view of reality.
Agnostics emphasize belief in a supernatural being is outside the scope of human knowledge, and point out that nobody has ever provided adequate, objective grounds for such belief. In other words, our agnostic doesn’t simply deny knowledge of the existence of a deity.
Here the atheist is in full agreement with the agnostic. Both take the rationally-based position which denies any grounds for deity. Their difference seems to be one of emphasis, with one emphasizing that there is no deity because there are no rational grounds for a deity, and the other emphasizing our utter lack of knowledge and compelling evidence for a deity’s existence, and proceeding as if there were none. For all practical purposes, the agnostic “rejects” deity in much the same way as the atheist. He simply is not as emphatic in expressing his rejection
‘God’ does not explain moral values because ‘God’ does not explain anything.
With the issue of the existence or not of a deity, the burden of proof falls on the theist, not on the skeptic.