God or leprechauns..we could never be certain they don’t
exists. Science cannot disprove their existence. But the implication of the possible
existence of God is weightier. In my observation, it comes out in the academic
world in debates and thesis, not counting the amount of books written. ‘...eternity had been set into our heart’ (the
Bible Ecclesiastes 3:11), and it gnaw into our private thought. We can choose
to position ourselves to reject it, but we just cannot dismiss it. It does come
back again and again.
We can try to drown this thought by structuring our lives with
seemly more urgent issues and concerns of the present. It will still creep in.
We try to claim of having intellectual integrity by not
accepting what we cannot manipulate or replicate in the laboratory. Then we
have a long list of other important things that we had accepted as real to reject. We
even have to contradict the philosophy of science that we hope will support our
claims. So much for intellectual integrity!
What we perhaps can only claim is the selfish lack of
revelation by the transcendence. If IT would not show up, don’t expect me to
conclude.
Before that we should explore and test the claims of revelations
in the belief systems that exist. We
need to define even the concept of ‘revelation’.
"But the implication of the possible existence of God is weightier"
ReplyDeleteVeracity has little to do with implications. Using you logic, one would have concluded that something that is unimportant, banal and trivial is not worthy of existing, or has its existence known. A "thing" would exist regardless of the weight if its implication, or amount of debate generated.
"We can choose to position ourselves to reject it, but we just cannot dismiss it."
The polemic Christopher Hitchens once said, that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
"Then we have a long list of other important things that we had accepted as real to reject"
What are these things, exactly?
"Before that we should explore and test the claims of revelations in the belief systems that exist. We need to define even the concept of ‘revelation’."
I think "God" needs to be defined as well. What is it and what are its attributes and qualities?
What are the evidence for God, who is widely regarded as a transcendent, all powerful, fantastical being? (this is not a rhetorical question - any response is greatly appreciated).
1. Sorry the logic was not more clearly put.
ReplyDeleteThere are relative importance of a search of say a leprechauns, a alien or God does not implied that the one that is view as of more importance should therefore exist, or has a greater chance to exist. What I observed externally, is that mankind throughout history and in all culture is obsessed with the inquiry of the transcendence. Internally, I believe many would have the same reflective struggle as I have.
2. I agree with Hitchens, but how do you define ‘evidence’? Will all the weight of evidences, and even a confession thrown in, if a clever defence lawyer can come out with another possible explanation (however improbable it is), would the Swedish shooter go free?
3. Of what we can be certain as real? Even if we used the deconstruction technique, and coupled with reductionist observation, we are still searching for answers in the material world to basic questions.
4. I confessed that I had benefited from the dialog. I came into my belief through an experience, and had thought it through from an internal critic. These dialog and readings (on other views) had allowed me to see from an external perspective. Although very good counter prepositions were put forward, the hope to be stumped, or cornered had not happen yet. Of course maybe the biasness blinded me too.
Perhaps at your suggestion, I will also share my journey as an internal critique. Let me think through and frame it. This will be a very personal perspective and may contain leaps of faith, and I don’t mind being questioned, provided it can be accepted that some answers may be difficult to come by.
1. "What I observed externally, is that mankind throughout history and in all culture is obsessed with the inquiry of the transcendence"
ReplyDeleteThe psychology of religion is a relevant topic here. Our ancestors, despite the absence of scientific rigour and method, were no less inquisitive about the origin of the universe and life than the modern men. To make sense of their surroundings - the unyielding, unforgiving and untamed wilderness (often fraught with danger) - they concocted religion to sooth their raw nerves and create an illusion of control over nature.
Religion was humanity's original cosmology, anthropology and biology. It provided explanations for the origin of the world, of life, and of humans. - J. Anderson Thomson
As for the ubiquity of religion/deities, Dawkins postulated the theory of memes. You would have read that in his book 'The God Delusion'. Religious ideas are prevalent, no doubt, but that doesn't make them true. It is perhaps more revealing of our insecurities as a species.
2. "I agree with Hitchens, but how do you define ‘evidence’? "
The standards of evidence http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Evidence
"Will all the weight of evidences, and even a confession thrown in, if a clever defence lawyer can come out with another possible explanation (however improbable it is), would the Swedish shooter go free?"
The side who presents the strongest and most convincing evidence should prevail. Or should the fate of a man be decided on faith alone?
3. "Of what we can be certain as real? Even if we used the deconstruction technique, and coupled with reductionist observation, we are still searching for answers in the material world to basic questions."
Belief comes in varying degrees of certainty. A solipsist is only certain of his consciousness and nothing else.
Humanity doesn't have all the answers to the material world, but how is that troubling? Not knowing is more comforting than pretending to know.
4. "Although very good counter prepositions were put forward, the hope to be stumped, or cornered had not happen yet. Of course maybe the biasness blinded me too."
Cognitive dissonance has to be resolved, one way or the other. This applies to atheists and theists alike.
"Although very good counter prepositions were put forward, the hope to be stumped, or cornered had not happen yet. Of course maybe the biasness blinded me too."
ReplyDeleteAn article on how to stage a Crisis of Faith, which is also of particular relevance to atheists like myself.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ur/crisis_of_faith/
"This will be a very personal perspective and may contain leaps of faith, and I don’t mind being questioned, provided it can be accepted that some answers may be difficult to come by."
I have three questions:
Within the context of religion, is faith - that is, belief without evidence or in the face of contradicting evidence - a virtue or vice?
Is The Bible an infallible book? Should it be interpreted metaphorically? Or literally?
What makes Christianity the truer religion in relation to other monotheistic faiths, like Islam or Judaism? What are your grounds for rejecting those two religions?