a deep, philosophical question

Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Are you referring here to Smith's Wager or Pascal's? Both presume to dictate the attributes and behavior of God (but Smith, at least, doesn't ask us to lie in the process).


Cheers,

 

A good point, Bill, and thanks for the clarification--the original draft of my message referred to evidential apologetics rather than inerrancy, and then I changed it the wording without checking to see whether it still worked.


Cheers,

 

The same way we could tell people apart for thousands of years before we developed the science of anatomy: we trusted our guts. All cogitation involves a certain degree of faith.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

I side with Orson and Smith on this one.

I am a human being, here on Earth. I am confronted with a whole assortment of faiths, many of which make contradictory claims. Some of them claim to be the exclusive "one way".

So how am I to choose between them?

The best course that I can see is to employ my faculties. That means using my head, and going with what makes sense and seems true. And it means using my heart, and going with what seems most beautiful and spiritually sound.

The implication of that is that if judgement is occurring here, it is reciprocal judgement. God may judge me, but I am simultaneously judging God. Or at least I'm judging the human-made funhouse mirror images that everyone oh-so-passionately tells me are God's true and exact likeness.

 

Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Here's what I believe: Smith's description of the "unjust" Christian God presupposes a scandal, in which the innocent are punished. Such a scandal did take place about 2000 years ago, in which an innocent man did take punishment upon Himself for the guilty.

 

Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Here's where reason fails man. Why can't we believe in God and help those who suffer, as was the example of Jesus Christ? Off the top of my head, I would say that John 9:1-5 illustrates this pretty well, though someone may know of other Scriputure that supports it even better.

 

Well Said

 

Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Martin Buber, the most visible representative of Hasidic Judaism in the 20th century, was certainly not arguing that belief in God and compassion are mutually exclusive; he was making a broader point about how atheism can serve the will of God. Sorry about the unclear wording there.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Not a bad response at all.


Cheers,

 

Funny that cessationism focuses primarily on spiritual gifts. Why has knowledge not ceased? And what of love, which is tucked neatly between chapters 12 and 14 of 1 Corinthians? Did love cease when the last apostle died?

Yes, as Steven noted, there will always be points of difference within the community of faith. Just as Bill Grover and I often parlay over predestination, Steven and I would disagree on cessationism. Tom Head and I would disagree on the inerrancy of scripture, and Nosborne and I would disagree on the literality of hell. But alas, everyone can't be right--except in a relativistic society, but then, if this is so, then no one is wrong. Right?

 

My post stated that Marx propogated such a worldview, not that it originated with him. And true, Marx saw the "religion as an opiate" concept more in line with socio-economic systems as opposed to the afterlife.

As for Lenin, I'm sure he was a good little feller who never mean't no harm. After all, it was Stalin who made such a mess of Lenin's family oriented, down-home-values, ideology. Poor little Vladimir got a bad rap, huh?

 

Even agreeing to disagree...if I can ever epitomize this phrase, I'll be a military chaplain yet... :]

Steven King

 

Well, Lenin was a violent revolutionary, so there's that to consider. But there's no evidence that he would have condoned Stalin's Great Terror, or the sort of totalitarian society it created--the whole focus of his revolution was on populism. Creating another ruling class was contrary to its stated objectives, whatever its actual objectives may have been.

As for family oriented values: Ever seen a functional family that used a free market system? ("I'm sorry, Bobby, you can't have any lunch this week; you didn't take out the garbage." "But I broke my leg!" "I know, and you'll have to do the dishes for 18 months to pay off the medical bills.")


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

======================================

Tom I was referring to Orson's quote, sorry I don't know which it was from.

 

Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

=======================================

And in your head there are no funhouse mirrors?

 

Sounds like the family I grew up in, Tom. <grin>

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: GOOD of Roy to recognize...

Actually, this brings up a good point--all metaphysics, regardless of their source, would almost have to be projections of personal influences or experience, because that's all we have. This is why scientists--particularly super-advanced specialists (93% of NAS members identify themselves as non-theists)--tend to believe that the universe operates according to consistent and predictable natural laws, but tend not to believe in a God. Folks who talk about the relatively high number of non-theist scientists tend to hyperfocus on the atheism and overlook what supports it--the rock-solid belief in a predictable universe, a belief that cannot coexist with belief in a personal God. Likewise, "people persons" who live in cultures where theism is a live option are, I think, disproportionately likely to believe in a personal God.

I have no clear answer. A religion is basically a commitment; it can be made by default, it can be made by alleged proof, it can be made based on personal experience, it can be made out of wishful thinking, or it can be made in spite. The same goes for the decision not to be religious.

It's a funny thing. I've never been able to "lock in" on a faith tradition in any meaningfully ironclad and respectable way; I read and identified with Albert Camus The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus before I hit puberty, had a brief quasi-fundamentalist recoil when I hit my mid-teens (thank you, C.S. Lewis), and have pretty much been a space cadet ever since. I've always believed in God, though I have always had--and will probably always have--a serious agnostic streak. But the older I get, the less I think that matters; I could go to a Baptist church now if I really wanted to, or hang with the Unitarians again, or become a Buddhist. My Soren Kierkegaard doubt has become a Thomas Merton doubt. Rather than expecting myself to solve the great mysteries of the universe, I just shrug my shoulders and smile. To folks who say there is no God, I say: You may be right, and I certainly wouldn't expect any God to be angry at you if you happen to be wrong--but for whatever it's worth to you, I disagree.


Cheers,

 

You can come to my church Tom, anytime! Afterwards we can discuss Cobb. In fact, I'll let you write chap two!

 

Thanks, guv'nor--you can rest assured I will, if I'm in town. And kudos on handling this thread so well, I should add--Bill D. and I are basically philosophy boys, and I don't know what his experience is with this sort of thing, but it's a very nice and rare thing to sit here and express deep-seated doubts about the foundations of religious belief with two doctoral students in theology and not get verbally knocked into next week. You're a mensch. Same goes for you, Russell.

Re John Cobb: One of the nicest unintentional compliments I ever received was being published opposite him in the December 2001 issue of Process & Faith. John Cobb on the left page, Tom Head on the right. It had nothing to do with any talent on my part (I was doing a dinky review of Ann Pederson's God, Creation, and All That Jazz), but that's how it paginated that month. Gave me something to show the grandkids in a few decades.


Cheers,