Theodicy
I'm amazed at just how slippery pro-God arguments can be. I mean, a whole industry, both ecclesiastical and academic, is based on ignoring the really, really obvious question and taking an untenable (and some would argue meaningless) concept and running with it. They argue about the properties of their particular Moloch, when they just choose to brush off the fact that the very foundation of their inquiry is sketch.
Perhaps I'm being unfair, and not at all humble about this. What makes me think that my feeling is right and all those academics are wrong? Well, if they had come up with an airtight proof of YHWH, Moloch, Allah, or whatever the new hotness is, I feel it would be blared out across the TV screens and in all the journals. I'm sure it would be elegant in its simplicity, much like the really good scientific theories. And I'd say: "OK. Good." Because we all want that belief, even the most unreprentant sinners, even the hopeless libertines, or the people like me, who contend it would make no difference. Who wouldn't want an invisible brother-like superhero to look out for them? But that has not happened. The only "arguments" I see used are logical fallacies form the 12th century, arguments from design that attenuate with each advance in scientific thought, other arguments that read a lot like the "definition of "is" defence" used by a former US president", and of course endless waves of circumlocution. That doesn't strike me as elegant at all. And elegance is a vague concept that we can all agree exists.
Or am I wrong? Send me your thoughts.
There are at least a dozen buildings dedicated to Molochology at my university. I don't get it. But I guess I've been deprived of the childhood indoctrination that normal kids receive. Poor me. Left with all these nagging doubts.
Consider: "au lieu de pain / je mange les etoiles" (I'm missing an accent on the last "e".)
Perhaps I'm being unfair, and not at all humble about this. What makes me think that my feeling is right and all those academics are wrong? Well, if they had come up with an airtight proof of YHWH, Moloch, Allah, or whatever the new hotness is, I feel it would be blared out across the TV screens and in all the journals. I'm sure it would be elegant in its simplicity, much like the really good scientific theories. And I'd say: "OK. Good." Because we all want that belief, even the most unreprentant sinners, even the hopeless libertines, or the people like me, who contend it would make no difference. Who wouldn't want an invisible brother-like superhero to look out for them? But that has not happened. The only "arguments" I see used are logical fallacies form the 12th century, arguments from design that attenuate with each advance in scientific thought, other arguments that read a lot like the "definition of "is" defence" used by a former US president", and of course endless waves of circumlocution. That doesn't strike me as elegant at all. And elegance is a vague concept that we can all agree exists.
Or am I wrong? Send me your thoughts.
There are at least a dozen buildings dedicated to Molochology at my university. I don't get it. But I guess I've been deprived of the childhood indoctrination that normal kids receive. Poor me. Left with all these nagging doubts.
Consider: "au lieu de pain / je mange les etoiles" (I'm missing an accent on the last "e".)
posted by A. D. at 12:50 AM
14 Comments:
If the theist has no difficulty accepting an uncaused god, then why does he object when asked to accept an uncaused universe?
Beats me.
I'd actually rather there isn't a god or any other industry-supporting diety. It skews my leanings, but i'm very at ease with the elegantly simplistic and somewhat awe-inspiring world I currently feel I reside in.
Let's drink coke and eat baby.
that's a very modest proposal.
I’m up for eating baby, but coke is bad for you.
I see the question whether there is a God as largely irrelevant. There's no way of knowing either way. You can't prove that God exists (like you argued), nor can you prove that he doesn't exist (absence of proof is not proof of absence). I myself tend to think there is no God; my sense of logic and reason tells me not to believe in anything that cannot in any way be substantiated. But like I said, that's irrelevant. (A lot of people DO believe in God, and that makes it interesting.) You can't definitively answer the question about God. I don't understand theists, but I don't understand rabid atheists either.
The real issue, I believe, is that RELIGION is real. Believing in (a) God is a "human phenomenon," that much cannot be refuted. Religion IS real. Humans have a need to believe in a higher being; they always have and they always will. Religion is valuable somehow, there's a deep-rooted need for it in man, otherwise we would've gotten rid of it ages ago (especially seeing how (organised) religion often causes so much misery).
I like that. The focus for me has always been on what is observabe, therefore religion is the really interesting question. I have no doubt that it serves its purpose, but I'm reluctant to make sweeping generalizations that people need religions. Illusions haven't served us very well, while trying to empirically approximate reality (while not without its problems), has been, to make an unsertatement, productive. (I call it the Argument fro iPod. Prayers can't make iPods. But that's missing the point.)
People will always need that sense of Awe, that Cosmic Wonder and feeling of connection with our fellow humans. Some say that is the universal basis for religion. But I don't like to call it that; in the end, it's Wonder and a need to belong. We generally can't live life without it, but some of us have managed to live the lives without appending invisible superheroes to our outlook.
Cheers!
Atheism, in my view, is simply the case against god. It is not the quest to refute God, but it is the position one takes when one sees no evidence for God’s existence.
If I say 2+2 equals 4 then I must show with my fingers that indeed it does. I cannot attempt to prove it by saying that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5 or 6 or 7 or 8…
Therefore, the person who makes an assertion (claiming that God exists) is responsible to providing evidence for his claim. Failing to do so results in the atheist’s right to dismiss the concept of God as completely bogus.
I can understand it when you say that “ the absence of proof is not proof of absence” but, to me, this makes sense only for the tangible world not the world of imagination—magical creatures, creators and so forth.
I am not justified to say that unicorns exist, since you can’t prove they don’t.
or am I?
yo,forgot to ask,
I don't understand your position of considering God's existence as 'irrelevant' or ‘making no difference.’
if I find proof that Allah exists, I’m getting down on my knees and imploring his forgiveness,for I’d rather not have molten tar down my throat in the next life.
"I don't understand your position of considering God's existence as 'irrelevant' or ‘making no difference.’"
I'm glad someone called me out on that. Maybe I'm going too far with that claim, but what I was getting at is this.
If it is in fact the case that God exists (what we mean by "exists" is not entirely clear to me), then there is the whole "the heathens will burn for not believing" argument. But that doesn't make sense. I thought Moloch judged you based on your moral character, not based on how much you worshipped Him. And it is generally not contested that most people think of themselves as fundamentally moral, even atheists. It's the whole Pascal's Wager fallacy.
And then, of course, we have the fact that there is no essential link between God-belief and moral behaviour. Oh, sure, you can make many more explicit moral laws, but that does not thranslate into behaviour. And as far as morals are concerned, I think it's what you do that matters, not what you intend.
I could quote Luther's rant against Erasmus that eloquence doesn't make your argument true, but I think Ben Franklin may be more appropriate: "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do."
-Sara
Alas, that quote cuts both ways. I'm reading the Qu'ran right now, and there are way too many passages to that effect. But they're baseless ad hominem attacks. And I fail to see how asking questions is foolish.
Cheers!
word
Good design!
[url=http://bybuduas.com/ilve/etgq.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://bhocvhex.com/npmo/rdjt.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
Well done!
http://bybuduas.com/ilve/etgq.html | http://ghdxylrl.com/jahd/tfhg.html
Post a Comment
<< Home