"I am no fan of obscurant religionists, or theologies. This is why I am not a tradional theist."
But theism, traditional or not, is the epitome of obscurantism. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but matter-of-fact.
"I do not understand calculus, or the physics ot television."
Very good. You do not understand these things. Do you attempt to apply them to your philosophy or your theism?
"However, I know and have some confidence in the fact that there are those who do. Television manufacturers do make TV's. Engineers do build bridges and other marvellous structures with the help of maths."
Excellent! You don't have to know how to build a bridge or make a television in order to use them. Let's say that I proposed the following topic of discussion, "Bridge design proves atheists are correct," but I had not studied engineering in college. (In fact, I have studied engineering, and took a courses in statics and materials science, but that still doesn't qualify me to comment on bridge design. Let's just say I have zero background.) Now, Dan and I don't get along, him being so religious an all. Let's say Dan doesn't have a background in bridge design either, but Dan actually does have some modest background in engineering. Dan has had numerous classes in materials science and statics and physics. Moreover, Dan has held a position of some responsibility in a firm that builds bridges and has done extensive reading on the subject, from a historical, a technical, and a theoretical perspective. Dan reads my first few sentences and realizes that I'm missing something. So Dan refers me to something that will help me bridge the gap in my understanding. I come back relatively quickly to Dan and say, "Dan, nothing in that reference appealed to me, but I'm going to persist in making my argument anyway."
How should Dan respond to me?
"I have a theological concept which I think of as transparent."
I'm not sure what you mean by transparent here.
"I call this concept G?D."
Still confused.
"I am testing this concept, on a daily basis,"
Are these tests that could conceivable disprove the existence of God?
"For me, it works."
I'm very happy for you. No kidding. No sarcasm. I am happy for you. But science isn't about what works for individuals.
"I do not pray in the traditional way, because it does not work."
It doesn't work for you. There are people for whom it does work (after a fashion).
"BTW, I find the kind of dialogue offered above, quite stimulating, and civilized, even where I disagree, which is not all that often."
I can imagine. I congratulate you for not getting upset with me. I know I can be very irritating at times. But I'd rather be irritating than patronizing.
"I always try to look for points of agreement.":
That's a fine quality in a human being.
