I think that Andy has captured the spirit of what I'm getting at rather well. As I read Ken's posts, I can't help but notice the repeated use of concepts that, in order to be valid, require the existence of the Christian god, or Jesus, or some other aspect of Christian scripture. At the heart of the matter, therefore, is the question of how to verify these that these prerequisite things are real and true—after all, from a neutral perspective (not even atheistic—rather agnostic in the strictest sense), it makes sense to look before one leaps; what if it's not only a lie, but in fact, the Norse gods are real, and they condemn devout Christians to the basement of Niflheim? How can you possibly know for sure? What if you're wrong?
Constructing beliefs around a fundamental uncertainty, and then using those beliefs to make the uncertain seem certain is one thing that I can't stand, from a philosophical point of view—the circularity of it lends it credence, because everything seems to fit; upon reflection, though, it is apparent that everything builds upon uncertainty, with the sheer volume of the belief disguising the fact that it is all conjectural, hinging upon that uncertain premise. (Hence, "We Recycle"....)
For example:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken Wittlief
Christainity teaches there are three things God cannot do:
1. He cannot change. God is holy and perfect. If He changed in any way, He would no longer be holy, or perfect. This means He does not take back His word, He does not take away what He has given to us, and that includes our freewill.
2. God cannot learn, because He already knows everything. I have already stated I dont think God knows what we will do as individuals, but He does know all the possibilities, so there is nothing we can do to surprize, or teach God.
3. God cannot change the past - to do so would negate our freewill (boy freewill keeps coming up a lot! :^)
|
It is clear that, to accept these points as valid arguments in support of Ken's concept of omnipotence, one would have to accept a slew of premises concerning the nature and existence of God—to me, since I am unconvinced of those premises, citing teachings that build upon them without offering any proof of their own seems to add volume, but not substance.
I think that Ken feels that his creator was God, and that that god set down some specific principles that Ken should hold in high esteem. The trouble with faith, applied injudiciously, is that it can justify anything. For example, the suggestion that "[i]f love is being poured out on you like a river, it must be coming from somewhere" was used to imply that God exists; but why couldn't it imply that Gaia exists, or that one's loving family exists, etc.? Even if we accept the premise at face value, why assume that it is a reflection of God, when, in fact, it could be a representation of any number of concepts, or maybe just a coincedence signifying nothing special at all?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken Wittlief
if the application to your personal life proves to be correct, then does it validate the source? Does the source really matter?
I guess at some point you would have to figure out how a carpenter and a couple of simple fishermen 2000 years ago had such a profound insite into human nature, or how Moses knew the universe had a beginning. If the information did not come from them, then from where?
But the information itself stands on its on merits.
|
Indeed, if you don't care about the veracity of the source, you can make a strong case for religion—but religion stripped of the legendary aspects becomes (principally) a set of moral and societal values. If, by chance, these are reasonable values, why even associate them with their sources; let them stand on their own merits.
Morality is not the sole domain of religion; the fact that the "golden rule" is accepted widely could be the result of Jesus's proselytization, or it could be the result of the fact that such a rule tends to benefit societies in specific ways, regardless of religion. (The supposition that it was a new concept is also strange—I'd be willing to bet that it predates Jesus by at least a few centuries in written form, and that it could be argued that similar—but uncodified—conventions of behaviour have existed in nature for far longer still.) In short, Christians like Ken seem to attribute their morality to religious influences; I prefer to take a less radical stance, and not assume the existence of excess components. In the end, I do suspect that, from a moralistic point of view, much will be held in common.