1. says

    Hi Dr.Mano,
    Headed straight here from one of your responses in the very long and interesting discussion on ‘faith healing’ that evoked mixed responses. And this post is equally interesting. Makes sense to me. All said and done, the world will always have an equal number of believers and non-believers. All that matters in such cases is one’s own conviction. Not only in the case of spirituality or religion, but also in all of life’s activities where there is a possibility of an element of doubt. Thank you very much for your thought-provoking posts.
    Kind Regards

  2. says

    Here’s the Professor’s inconsistency:

    1. (From graphic)

    “I’m not an atheist because I think science can disprove god.”

    2. (From his first statement)

    “…and is consistent with my series of posts on the logic of science.”

  3. says


    I am not sure why you think there is an inconsistency. See my very first post in that series where I explicitly say: “Science has not proved that there is no god, can never prove that there is no god, and does not need to prove that there is no god.”

  4. Manikw says

    Mano, The “graphic” seems to me to be a dialogue between a believer and a non believer and hence, probably advice to all atheists on how to get rid of, or counter evangelists who either try to “convert” or to justify the existence of god by resorting to logic and reason. As I have said previously, belief in a God is or should be based on Faith and Faith alone. Hence “burden of proof” is irrelevant except in the situation referred to above. Apart from this there are many things I don’t wish to listen to and don’t even bother to explain why not. I would merely say the equivalent of “get lost”!

    Yvonne, I am puzzled by your statement that “the world will always have an equal number of believers and non believers. Where did that come from?

  5. Henry says


    To base one’s life on the belief that something exists yet have absolutely no proof of that existence sounds dangerously close to a mental illness.

    At the very least god or religion should never be brought into the public sphere (politics, education, sports) because of the lack of proof.

    You can ‘believe’ all you want but don’t dare base legislation on it. See: Defense of Marriage Act.

  6. says


    The inconsistency is that since science can neither prove nor disprove god, there is no sense in employing the “logic of science”. That is inconsistent. We already know, a priori, that science will not answer the question. So why state that, and then revert to employing it?

    Science plays no role, nor does science have a monopoly on logic.

    The graphic itself is inconsistent on this point. Consider:

    “If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence.”

    No, I don’t subscribe to dogma. I don’t have to follow the scientific method, if I don’t want to. If someone doesn’t want to believe a claim, because I don’t follow the scientific method, that’s fine. And again, if the graphic admits that science doesn’t disprove god, then why should one have to follow the scientific method?

    We all know that god will not be proved nor disproved following the scientific method.

    (The graphic also makes the mistake of stating the burden of proof lies on religion. No it doesn’t. It lies on the theist(s) making the claim. Religions don’t talk, people do.).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *