[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez, wow it was easy this time. Nothing hard to understand. I taught you well to edit well - lol.

Anyway, I think I follow all that you say. I also think I agree with it. I want to review it all before I give you my "imprimatur". *

Before then, for now I did want to tell you this:

I am not assuming you are referring to any particular religion in you posts. But for your edification, I will point out to you that if one understands modern-day Catholicism, one has no conflict here.

We do not follow because of the evidence (and, too, our God is not like your other quotes). In fact it is almost the opposite for us. Jesus said "Blessed are those who have believed and have not seen." He was referring to (doubting) Thomas who would not believe until he put his hands in Jesus’ wounds after the Resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

No religon that admits it requires faith can ever be shown to be wrong by rational argument, as you've pointed out yourself. Against that, no-one can be critised or justifiably punished for not having that faith.

The type of religous view I have in mind are those that insist they must be believed because of evidence which is itself very weak, and then they say if you're not convinced by it you will be condemned by a god who is good.

DS argues against such religons by Baysian inference or appealing to the views of the most intelligent. DS's result is stronger as it also deals with religons that aren't morally repugnant. However I think his methods are more contentious (not saying they're wrong)

My method is a logical proof (a correct one I hope and claim. I've made the arguments as explicit as I can so that others can find any flaws) but does not touch religons which demand too much from the evidence but are not morally repugnant.

chez