Fallacies of the Human Mind

Well, first I would stop and take a check on my facial features to prevent exploding into the "what the HECK you talking about you IDIOT" expression....then I would give myself a moment or two to look thoughtful (while actually thinking).


First thing out of my mouth, to Mark: "What do you mean ?"


Nearly the entire discussion is based upon where Mark takes it, because look: I know my world view, and I know truth. However, Mark does not, and therefore his warped view on whatever he means by "evolve passed our 'need' for God" could be any number of things. Perhaps he thinks science and technology eliminates our need to believe in something that can protect us or grow us. I mean, with life support and all them fancy medicines, humans can take care of themselves right ? Or perhaps he takes the postmodern view, that claims we cannot know any ultimate truth, and that God and religion are things reserved to the personal, private life, and therefore this idea of God should be purged from society's eyes. Either way really, it is an issue of (apparent) progression of human understanding, whether it be of their mental, moral, or physical/worldly estate. 


Once I understand what his deal is, I can start poking little, subtle, near-painless holes in his ideologies. I can probably assume, having not actually had this conversation, that Mark's statement means he doesn't really believe in God in the first place, and is alittle more annoyed with the idea of his presence than he is threatened by it. So step one at this point: rout him back towards an idea that there must be a God. "Look at what science has discovered: see how intricate it is ? See how beautifully but simply complex? See how it supports this other facet of complex life? Do you understand what science is showing you? We had nothing to do with any of this; just because we get it doesn't mean we are special, or any more advanced, really, than our predecessors. Some of the smartest, greatest men lived well before the time of technology. How could any of these things be an accident? How could the complex relationships of electrons be an accident?" and so on, and so forth. Of course, I would probably not bombard him so, but rather turn some example he used of science or technology, go into detail of it's intricacies, and then ask him, basically, would it not be more probable to say there was some sort of Designer? ...Or perhaps he took the other view, that we cannot know truth. Well, then i'd get all C.S. Lewis on his behind and pull examples of the moral law we all have an understanding of, despite any written law. I'd ask him how he could claim x y or z was wrong if that idea was relative. 


Either way, I'd make the idea of God look abit more logical to him. Then perhaps future discussions will truly get to the heart of his beef with God. It is always a process, hopefully this is a semi-decent first step, be Mark a reasonable man, and Sarah willing to listen as much as i am and would be.