<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;}
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="1027" />
</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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Ted,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thank you<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Metzler<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<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>