I've always been kind of puzzled by religious people who claim both that (1) their faith is devout and that (2) they are uninterested in converting people to their beliefs. I feel as though persons of this sort are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to affirm their faith, on the one hand, and be tolerant on the other. In an age where multiculturalism is lauded, this sort of pluralistic worldview can seem ideal. And yet, if you really believe that a person who does not acknowledge God will go to Hell, or that contraception is immoral, how can you NOT urge your convictions on other people? When it comes to religious belief -- especially beliefs which pertain to morality -- can "tolerance" be reconciled with true conviction?

Did teleological arguments give us reasonable grounds to believe in a Creator before Darwin?

From reading these pages it strikes me that almost all philosophers in the Amherst group are not religious (Professor Heck is a notable exception). Is this true of philosophy departments in the English-speaking world, generally? I suspect it is, and, if so, what are the ramifications? Do the religious types know they are right - surely a presupposition of their faiths - and do they consider it their role in philosophy to convert doubters? The 'it-works-for-me' anecdotal/testimonial religious argument is surely as worthless in philosophy as it is in, say, pseudosciences like homeopathy, however. Shrugging one's shoulders because one has absolute certainty in one's religion surely doesn't pass muster if one is a professional philosopher whose job it is to explain one's philosophical worldview to one's students? Is the only recourse to be a proponent of Intelligent Design theory, which doesn't work? I can't see any way round this. Your thoughts are very welcome and thanks in advance.

Does the fact that other religions exist give us reason to disbelieve any one religion, or is this not a relevant piece of evidence?

Is it logical to believe that a proof of God's existence or some other sort of "intelligent protector" is the fact that our society exists, in spite of the ever increasing possibility that it very well should have been destroyed due to galactic tragedies such as supernovas exploding near us or gamma rays? Over the billions of years in which we have been evolving, probability says that we should have been destroyed many times.

Largely the scientific community argues evolution as their leading theory behind the existence of life. The Church argues creationism. What if they are both wrong and in reality it is both. For anything to exist, it seems fair and logical to say - it had to have been created in order to exist and evolution is an obvious factor seen in daily life. So if true, could the two views merge one day?

I have recently been reading in Richard Dawkins' book, the idea that God being both omnipotent and omniscient is a contradiction. I think it is something along the lines of: if God is omniscient then He already knows how He is going to deploy His powers, which means He is effectively bound to act in a certain way -- meaning He is not omnipotent. But I'm not sure I've totaly got my heads around the concept. Can anyone add anything more?

How do you explain the creation of the creators of the universe? It's all well and good that someone or something created the universe, but what created that, and how?

When something disastrous happens, like Katrina, "logic" says: so much the worse for a loving God. But for the believer, what comes out, instead, are things like "God never gives us more than we can handle" and "We have to praise the Lord, and thank him, that we are OK." Why? (Or is this just a psychological or sociological question? Or did I watch too much Fox news?)

Dear all, Am I right in thinking that what William Paley's mistake in his design argument, was not to suggest a designer but he was mistaken to 'specify' how design came about, so he came up with the concept of 'special creation' i.e. design coming instantaneously. Therefore that was his pitfall, not that the design argument is wrong, but just that he was stipulating conditions on how God should create. I think it was Bohr who said 'Don't tell God what to do'. I think to further show my point is where some argued that this creation was special because the earth was the center of the universe, and when this was proven wrong, certain religous figures acted violently because this assumption was proven wrong. Am I right in the above? Many thanks :) Kind regards!