Years ago, scientists (such as Issac Newton) began to uncover the mysteries of nature because they assumed Law in nature, and they assumed Law in nature because they assumed a Lawgiver. Today, atheists, such as Huldane above, seem to want to keep the Law and throw out the Lawgiver. One wonders how long they will keep the Law.

But on a more practical level, Huldane *should* assume that no divine intervention occurs. But how this mitigates against the Lawgiver is beyond me. We would expect that miracles (if they exist) to be far and few between. It no more mitigates against God as does the fact that I don't interfere with a piece of software mitigates against the existence of me, after having left the building.

One wonders where Huldane believes the laws of nature came from, and why he assume they are consistent enough to count on.

Ilíon: There isn't a single 'materialist' who actually lives his life as though 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics. Or, to be more precice, IF there is even a single 'materialist' on this earth who actually lives his life as though 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics, we can never, ever, know it. For, as soon as he tries to make us aware that 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics, he denies that it is the truth about the nature of reality.
.
Deuce: It's a long argument, but whenever a person says that something is true or false, basically any time someone states a proposition, they are behaving practically like a non-materialist.

bFast: I have found God to be really quite directly communicative. I need, and frequently enough experience, God communicating directly.
chaosengineer: Lucky! I never get that at all. It bothered me when I was younger; I felt left-out. Sometimes, when I was more feeling more confident in myself, I decided that it just meant I was doing OK on my own.

The renowned atheist Jean Paul Sartre stated, "Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not" and "Man is a useless passion."

Sartre on Dostoevsky, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible! That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He cant start making excuses for himself. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses.
Then at the end of his life, Sartre shares this with his ex-Maoist friend, Pierre Victor, "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."

From George Bernard Shaw, "THE ELDER [rising impulsively] Determinism is gone, shattered, buried with a thousand dead religions, evaporated with the clouds of a million forgotten winters. The science I pinned my faith to is bankrupt: its tales were more foolish than all the miracles of the priests, its cruelties more horrible than all the atrocities of the Inquisition. Its spread of enlightenment has been a spread of cancer: its counsels that were to have established the millennium have led straight to European suicide. And I–I who believed in it as no religious fanatic has ever believed in his superstition! For its sake I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now look at me and behold the supreme tragedy of the atheist who has lost his faith"”his faith in atheism, for which more martyrs have perished than for all the creeds put together. Here I stand, dumb before my scoundrel of a son; for that is what you are, boy, a common scoundrel and nothing else."(Too Good to Be True)

Finally one last quote from Bertrand Russell "The root of the matter is a very simple and old-fashioned thing, a thing so simple that I am almost ashamed to mention it, for fear of the derisive smile with which wise cynics will greet my words. The thing I mean"”please forgive me for mentioning it"”is love, Christian love, or compassion. If you feel this, you have a motive for existence, a guide in action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty." (The Impact of Science on Society)

The old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by the frost. "“ T.
No, the other T. J.R.R. T.

bFast: I have found God to be really quite directly communicative. I need, and frequently enough experience, God communicating directly.

Lucky! I never get that at all. It bothered me when I was younger; I felt left-out. Sometimes, when I was more feeling more confident in myself, I decided that it just meant I was doing OK on my own.

Sometimes I want to agree with Haldane that the whole thing is just a mass delusion…but I just can't quite bring myself to deny the validity of other people's experiences.

Mostly I just try not to worry about it too much.

Ilíon: There isn't a single 'materialist' who actually lives his life as though 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics. Or, to be more precice, IF there is even a single 'materialist' on this earth who actually lives his life as though 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics, we can never, ever, know it. For, as soon as he tries to make us aware that 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics, he denies that it is the truth about the nature of reality.
.
Deuce: It's a long argument, but whenever a person says that something is true or false, basically any time someone states a proposition, they are behaving practically like a non-materialist.

Deuce, if you can find the time to write up that long argument, I'd like to read it.

In the meantime, I'll try to find time to write up what presumably will be the short argument

It seems logical that if God wanted to be taken into account, he'd be able to make that known directly. (Instead of speaking through a bunch of middlemen who keep contradicting each other.)

I agree. As for my own experience, I have found God to be really quite directly communicative. I need, and frequently enough experience, God communicating directly. I still find a lot of value in what He has spoken through the middlemen.

No"¦this isn't the philosophical question, "Does God exist?" It's the practical question, "Should I take the possible existence of God into account when planning my day-to-day life?"

In that case, Haldane's point is rather meaningless. After all, no one needs to take the possible truth of abiogenesis or evolution into account when planning their day-to-day life either. Perhaps another word for "˜practical' might be "˜superficial'? But it leaves me wondering why Haldane needed his lab experience to conclude something about his everyday life.

That would depend on what God wanted. There are different works of fiction that portray different possible worlds. Jack Chalker's sci-fi novel "And The Devil Will Drag You Under" has an interesting portrayal of one of them"¦sins are detected instantly and punished in a proportionate way, but apart from that people have free will. Most people are reasonably comfortable and happy. I don't know that I'd want to live there, but it's not a dystopia, either.

Haven't read this book. Okay, so say Bob tells a lie. In what way is this sin detected instantly and appropriately punished?

No"¦this isn't the philosophical question, "Does God exist?" It's the practical question, "Should I take the possible existence of God into account when planning my day-to-day life?"

Should the dream-character worry about the existence of the dreamer? Or just live his dream-life as if the dreamer didn't exist. . . Who is the dream character, really? Who is experiencing the dream? . . .

No…this isn't the philosophical question, "Does God exist?" It's the practical question, "Should I take the possible existence of God into account when planning my day-to-day life?"

It seems logical that if God wanted to be taken into account, he'd be able to make that known directly. (Instead of speaking through a bunch of middlemen who keep contradicting each other.)

If so, could you spell out what a typical day would look like in such a reality? "I get up in the morning and"¦.."

That would depend on what God wanted. There are different works of fiction that portray different possible worlds. Jack Chalker's sci-fi novel "And The Devil Will Drag You Under" has an interesting portrayal of one of them…sins are detected instantly and punished in a proportionate way, but apart from that people have free will. Most people are reasonably comfortable and happy. I don't know that I'd want to live there, but it's not a dystopia, either.

"I get up in the morning and"¦.."

You hear:

Good morning, good morning…
Going to work don't want to go feeling low down
Heading for home you start to roam then you're in town
Everybody knows there's nothing doing
Everything is closed it's like a ruin
Everyone you see is half asleep.
And you're on your own you're in the street
Good morning, good morning…

In that universe, the fact of God's existence would be immediately obvious, like the force of gravity. And it would be likewise obvious that there aren't any consequences for worshipping or failing to worship. (So people won't worship for purely pragmatic reasons.)

But this is really no different than the fatal problem which plagues Haldane's logic. Are you saying that if God exists, his existence would be "immediately obvious?" If so, could you spell out what a typical day would look like in such a reality? "I get up in the morning and….."