volition said:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the good life", but if the good life has nothing to do with God, then its fine to teach what you think the good life is. I think these are two separate issues.
You could think about it in relation to the Socrates' question 'how should one live?'. When some manner of living is termed 'the good life' then it will often be a way of life which is seen to satisfy Socrates' question. In other words, I am saying that religions often have a lot to say about how we should live our lives. It is not that the good life has nothing to do with God at all, but the two issues seem roughly separable. Thus I agree, they
are two separate issues (God and the good life). But this is why I think you should temper your criticisms of religion, since much of religion deals with how one should live and I don't think that your criticisms fully address this aspect.
volition said:
For the most part, this is what I am charging them with. They claim the existence of a non-empirically verifiable being, so the burden of proof lies on them. There is no rational proof for God (it does depend on what we're defining God as), belief in God fundamentally requires a bit of idiotic blind 'faith'.
Fair enough. I also tend to feel that no adequate proofs have been provided for the existence of god. However, I would avoid calling belief in god idiotic in general (though it can be) - some people I have spoken to have presented fairly sound reasons for their belief. For example, one can question the traditional notion of knowledge as justified belief and suggest that knowledge may be gained through other means (for example revalation or faith). Such an argument has been made by
Alvin Plantinga. I don't agree with such arguments myself, but I nonetheless don't feel that they properly warrant the label irrational. The points with which I disagree are foundational ones (e.g. 'what is knowledge?') where it becomes difficult to applye labels like 'rational'/'irrational'.
volition said:
Not entirely sure what you mean, so I'd like an example if you don't mind.
One of my own beliefs is that it is wrong (in a relative sense of course) to cause animals pain. I don't think my claim is properly true or false, thus it is somewhat arbitrary. Prescriptions regarding how we should live, as provided by religions, can be seen as arbitrary in the same way.
