Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Peter Boghossian

Quote by Peter Boghossian

“If there is a god maybe it rewards those who don't believe on the basis of insufficient evidence--and punishes those who do.”

Quote by Peter Boghossian

Create image

Author

Peter Boghossian

Peter Boghossian is an author known for his work in philosophy, critical thinking, and the scientific method. Born in 1966, his academic background includes philosophy and cognitive science. He has held teaching positions at several universities and has published articles on philosophy and the scientific method. Boghossian is recognized for his contributions to critical thinking and scientific methodology, with his books 'The End of Faith' and 'A Manual for Creating Atheists' having a significant impact both in academia and among the public. more

You May Also Like

“The traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers. But the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God's existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God's existence is known in some other, non-rational way. I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another, so that the theologian can maintain his position as a whole only by a much more extreme rejection of reason than in the former case. He must now be prepared to believe, not merely what cannot be proved, but what can be disproved from other beliefs that he also holds.”

ReasonPhilosophyAtheismArgumentTheologyIrrationalInconsistentProblem Of EvilAtheist ArgumentAtheistic PhilosophyRejection Of ReasonPhilosophy Of AtheismRational ProofArgument From EvilRational Support
Author:J.L. Mackie
Create image

“One of the recent arguments from design, that based on the so-called fine-tuning life of some fundamental physical constants, founders on the following objections: an extremely small prior probability merited by the God of theism in light – if that is the right word – of the Problem of Evil; the fact that it is not unreasonable to place a substantial probability on the hypothesis that a future theory will fix those values; and the sheer incoherence of computations of the ‘chances’ of fine-tuning were there no fine-tuner.”

ReasonPhilosophyValuesAtheismTheoryProbabilityHypothesisCoherenceProblem Of EvilAtheist ArgumentsFine Tuning DebunkedArgument From Design DebunkedGod Of Theism
Book:Objecting to God
Create image

“[On Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz] The answer is unknowable, but it may not be unreasonable to see him, at least in theological terms, as essentially a deist. He is a determinist: there are no miracles (the events so called being merely instances of infrequently occurring natural laws); Christ has no real role in the system; we live forever, and hence we carry on after our deaths, but then everything — every individual substance — carries on forever.”

ReasonScientistDeismNatural LawsLeibnizLeibniz Religious BeliefsDeterministNo Miracles
Author:Peter Loptson
Create image

“Following feeling, relying on liking or wanting, we are not free. The freedom to "do as we like" is not freedom of choice because we are ruled by the powerful property of feeling; we cannot choose apart from liking and disliking. Likes and dislikes may be articulated in the form of sophisticated-sounding opinions, but the decision is made for us by feeling. The Western world places a high value on personal feelings and opinions: Each individual "has a right" to an opinion. But rarely do we question how we have arrived at our opinion. Upon examination, we may discover that opinions tend to stem from convenience, familiarity, and selfishness–what feels good or what is pleasing or comfortable to us. Upon this basis, we act, and receive the consequences of our action. Even if we compile a large number of such opinions, there is no guarantee that we will develop a wise perspective as a ground for action. Often this process only creates a mass of confusion, for opinions of one individual tend to conflict with the opinions of another. If there appears to be agreement, we tend to assume this agreement will remain stable. But agreement only means that the needs of the individuals involved are temporarily similar, and when those needs shift, agreement will evaporate. To make certain decisions, we rely on logic or scientific findings, which are supposedly free from personal opinion but are still weighted with the opinions of a particular culture. This style of knowing is founded on particular distinctions and ignores other possibilities. The evidence is clear that the scope of modern scientific knowledge is limited, for this knowledge is not yet able to predict and control the side-effects resulting from its own use. Its solutions in turn create more problems, reinforcing the circular patterns of samsara. Only understanding that penetrates to the root causes of problems can break this circularity. Until we explore the depths of consciousness, we cannot resolve the fundamental questions that face human beings.”

SelfReasonOpinionBuddhismWillIndriyas
Book:Ways of Enlightenment
Create image