<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1028" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1><pre><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Ted,<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font size=2
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>You are correct; if there was a properly functioning belief producing mechanism (undamaged) in each and every human being that triggered the belief in an Almighty Creator upon the ‘evidence’ of the beauty and grandeur of ‘creation,’ then each and every human being would be a monotheist. But of course, we know this is not true. But the fact that there is therefore no such belief forming mechanism is not the only alternative. We could propose a highly damaged belief producing mechanism: one that sometimes hardly works at all, or at other times even when it does work, it is so weak and faulty that self-deceptive mechanisms take over and the belief in an Almighty Creator is suppressed (e.g. “but it would be best if the Almighty didn’t exist so that I could sleep with Sally tonight”). With most, unaided and damaged ‘reason’ produces simply something like a Western God, with not much specificity. C.S. Lewis for example, makes a good argument in precisely the opposite direction of your argument, as did Cicero and Augustine. With amazing regularity across cultures and time, man is a deeply religious being, a worshiping being, having the experience of the ‘numinous.’ Even in the earliest Hindu texts we find a Creator God varuna, faithful to His Covenant, giving grace to his worshipers. All of this is in fact the Classical Christian view, and it seems somewhat immune to this particular argument of yours.<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>I also agree with you that there would seem to be a logically possible eternal World/God dualism. If you wanted to opt out of Scott’s Philosophical Materialism and also opt out of a Creator God, then this might be a logical option open for you. But as you yourself say, not many humans in recorded history have opted for this third option. A logical option is not a probable option or an appealing option. Above, you argue from the statistics of belief; this same argument would not appear friendly to this third proposal. Scott mentioned the existence of other religious proposals, but there is nothing wrong with a broad cultural debate limiting the ‘alternatives’ to those which are far more appealing or probable to the majority of people. More could be said about this from both points of view I’m sure…. Also, arguing from the “impossibility of the contrary” is always open; arguments can be made for limiting the options to only two, as does Phil Johnson, thereby making him immune to Scott’s charge of a ‘false alternative.’ <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>I think you would need to give some further reasons for supposing that man’s traditional religious beliefs are political/ideological rather than a sincere embrace of what is considered as ‘true.’<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Thank you<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Michael Metzler<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>