The key thing about ‘God’ is its vague definition: by one estimate, ‘God’ means not a single model but a landscape encompassing around 10^500 different models. Which means it’s just not a falsifiable scientific concept. Such a large landscape of possibilities makes ‘God’ theology sufficiently vague that one of them is likely to be a close ad hoc representation to some features of the universe, by chance, and we can learn nothing that way. Similarly, the earth-centred-universe of Ptolemy had a landscape of epicycles large enough that one model was quite a good ad hoc fit to what we now know is really a solar system.

People don’t believe in ‘God’ from scientific evidence because there are no incontrovertible observations of divine intervention in human affairs. They believe either because they like to believe supernatural tales, or they believe because they join a groupthink syndicate of organized religion where they go to weekly celebrations with bread and wine, or because they think that mysteries should be worshipped rather than scientifically resolved. Some religious people are genuine, and join a religion to do social work like teaching, but overall I believe that the majority of string theorists are just in it for the mutual appreciation society, the bread and wine, power and glory.

An arsonist has set fire to a building. At great sacrifice the fire department has got a ladder up to the window of the room where you are trapped. Do you

a) scream abuse at the firefighters, accusing them of starting the fire?

b) deny the existence of the fire?

c) say, “Oh good, a ladder! I’m safe!” and stay where you are?

d) decide to go down the ladder at some time more convenient to you?

e) quickly and gratefully go down the ladder?

Let’s assume that an all-loving God puts out this fire and every other fire that could cause death or pain. What kind of a world would that be? Would anyone like to live in it?

I imagine that would be rather like living in a town with a really good fire department. What a nightmare!

Are you saying that you would prefer to live in a town where a few people burn to death each year, just so that you can feel a bit of a thrill? What kind of a sicko are you?

I’ve always thought Andrew Sullivan a pretty nice guy, and one who I do not find a threat to civilization. His writing on this subject is full of the kind of sentiments that strengthen this feeling. However, I must say that his comments on religion strike me either as an appeal not to force the ignorant to choose between reason and fantasy (which I agree may be a reasonable political stance, but doesn’t make imaginary people or things any more real), or as an irrational argument that reason and belief in Jesus Christ are reconcilable. I see no reason to take this step. This doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s a lovely guy - he reminds me of many many close friends - but I do think he is wrong and takes an intellectually indefensible position.

On the topic of respect, I would say that I respect the way he conducts himself as a human being (and this is by far the most important thing), but don’t respect his views on religion, although, of course, I tolerate them and support his right to hold them and speak out about them.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/peace_now.html

Well worth reading for those who believe that religious points of view are not worthy of any respect.