My point is, instead of scratching out heads we should seek to understand. the atheist is not an idiot, not is he insane. He holds a false presuposition that logically leads somewhere. We care called to compassion right? it is my thiinking that full compassion can only come through attempting to understand. maybe i'm wrong... but the sadness is not that they are idiots, or that they believe in foolish conclusions.. but that their brains do work.. that God has given them the ability to see the conclusions of their starting points.. that if I was in their shoes I would probably follow a simular line of thought, and that we by nature, are just as likely to be blind. The sadness is that if our faith is justified then it is happy circomstance or by devine luck that I have had my eyes cleared and they have not. The saddness is that I am no more special the hitler, no more worthy of the bennifits of faith then nitzche... at the end of the day, the great tragedy is that It was i that had my eyes cleared to see the truth and not a million others... that if men who have done evil had at first seen the truth and been alowed the clearity to seek to understand then things might be better. The tragedy is that my salvation is absurd. The tragedy is that instead of crying and morning for them.. we scratch our heads and laugh. We judge and condemn. That is our greatest evil.
.........................................................
I think it is given that we should not be so prideful as to distain people for believing foolish things since we too believe in something foolish to others. What I was getting at had to do with the thing we seem to be taking for granted. There are 2 types of people in this church. Those born into the world of our presupposition... and those who have some to it later. Had we had a different upbringing, or had different experiences, it is quite possible that we would be on the other side of this argument. I am coming to realize the shame of my salvation that comes hand in hand with the bliss of thankfulness. That this foolishness I believe is not to my merit at all but to my happenstance. It is absurd that I have some to light and they have not, and since we collectively create the happenstance of others... it is universal I, not God, who comes to blame for the persistence of the contrary happenstance that lands the masses to very different logical conclusions. Every step I take is a disaster to another persons soul. That I cannot learn to tread more lightly... that I do not live of virtue but instead try to force faith on others (and thereby destroy them).. that if I or anyone truly believed in God every second would be consumed by light... That I judge when I have no merit.. since my salvation is not of my doing... since I despite everything It is I more then them that should be on the cutting block. I think my point here is that I am more to blame in my correctness then in their foolishness. it is because of the light that I find myself in that I deserve hell and they do not. How can someone without a lightbulb who lives in eternal light ever be punishable for never turning on the light? How can I who have been given the lightbulb from the beginning, the instructions, and a guiding hand to the switch, be able to get away with throwing the lighbulb to the ground with everything that I do?It goes beyond not distaining. All logic can do is say "based on your starting point the logical end is this" all I can do is point out the logical inconsistencies.. The starting point is beyond logic since to start is to assume it. the heart of the matter is rather the distain that we should have for ourselves. Instead of giving ourselves hugs and warm fuzzies we should be learning to carry our distain that we might champion it.. that we might transcend it. we even get a helper to carry this cross. For Christ carries it for us daily. And as I get the free ride... those in darkness are under my feet and I am their executioner.
It is funny that it may be I that truly is the evil man.
-----------------------------
you can only "show" thew atheist to be inerror by appealing to your own presuposition. You cannot prove God's existence without assuming it...you cannot disprove it without assuming its defeat as well. I have never come accross a proof for or against that holds any ground. Each arguement must assume its conclusion... or atleast more then it ligitimatly can...to get off the ground. Don't misunderstand me here. Logic in its purity can lead you to a logical end. But it cannot poduce the world. The very basis of placing a presuppotion to the test of reason is that in regards to this presupposition (the existence or non existence of God) once brings into question the very nature of existence. To as the question is to bring all things into existant into question.. including logic. (see the arguements from Pragmatism) Thus, to use reason to prove or disprove the existence of God can only be rhetorical in nature.
---------------------------------------
What I believe is not foolishness to me. In fact, what I believe is the quasi-logical outcome (from my point of view) of my presuppositions. But, what I believe IS foolishness to the atheist who has the different presuppositions. If God does not exist, then the resurrection never happened. If he does, add in our other presuppositions.. And you get the resurrection.
Thus, I can only believe in God because my experience dictates that he exists... That based on the logic within my experience... of the trust in my senses and that I have a working mind, etc. So in the end, what I am saying is that trying to “prove” that god exists or not can be reduced to ego stoking, fallacies, and power games. The only use that “proofs for God” have are the increase of our ability to think critically, and the fact that many people do seem to get saved even through bad arguments. On the other hand, do not accuse me on anti-intellectualism. Once one’s starting point has been set, logic is the tool to show what follows. Logic possibly then, in the realm of God, is on the one side about debunking myth, bad theology, and bad reasoning and on the other side trying to seek God more and to find out based on what we know, where it logically leads.
--------------------------
If someone said that my mom didn’t love me not only would I have all my expereiencial evidence... I could prove it. (Well to the degree of accuracy depending on our level of sophistication in lie detectors) on the other hand I have expereiencial evidence for the existence of God.. The atheist has the same for the denial of that fact. In this case we have to wait for death to have it proven one way or another. I will copy many great man of faith and say that there is nothing that places us at a better advantage then the atheist except that we jump off the bridge willingly... hoping to be caught.. But not having proof that we will and knowing that it is logically possible that we fall to our doom. That my friend is faith. It is not an easy thing... but, it is a wager we take because the reward is great. IF we are right, and we live in faith in that truth.. Then we have the reward of a loving God with all that implies. If we are wrong then nothing is lost since there is no meaning to life then what we give it.. Since a life of faith is a life of love, charity, and hope.. Then, so long as we pursue these things not out of duty but out of want.. Then we still win. We cannot discredit the atheist for his foolishness.. Because remember, to him and his starting point... we are foolish. If having a foolish idea is enough to have it discredited then you are in the wrong religion my friend... for the bible tells us that our faith is foolishness. Returning to the use of the metaphor. Let us turn it on its head. What use does discrediting the atheist if he is being logical based on his assumptions if you cannot prove that God exists? People don’t get saved by logic...in fact people don’t even change their minds about anything based on logic. If people were logical we would not have the world issues we have. People are not irrational either, but use reason, emotion, etc to achieve desired ends. We desire heaven... we desire to experience Gods love. As such we use the tools we have to seek that end... but in the end the initial belief in God is irrational because it transcends it. If God exists then Salvation occurs through the souls sensitivity to the truth... or maybe by the emotional connection to it.. Or maybe a rational exploitation of the irrational moment. So what good does doubting do us? It works for us and against us. We must seek God like children in trust... but as we jump off the bridge by ourselves (for real faith is not a mass action but an individual one) it is important that we are honest about the falling, the ground at the bottom, and the possibility of a sudden stop. Doubt can he disastrous... or it can be healthy. But if it leads you astray then it comes to be asked whether you realized the reality of the situation when you jumped form the bridge in the first place... Faith my friend, is the biggest of gambles.
------------------------------------
There are a few problems inherent in understanding where I’m coming from... The first being “post modern” arguments have been overdone and because I take 1 or 2 steps with the post mod kids it is usually felt that I must on the same page with them.. Or at least on similar ground. This I think has been this issue with a lot of the conversations I have had on this board. I’m going to have to get better at clarity or I’m afraid this will continually haunt me. A second problem which is also related to clarity.. I thought I did infact answer each question that was posed to me.. Though maybe not to your satisfaction. This too maybe will be helped with I learn to de-clog my thoughts. I agree that you and I are in agreement on many issues and it is just some of the details (albeit, important ones) that we disagree. In general the rest is just misunderstanding. Lets start out with our discussion of foolishness. I think you misunderstood where I was going with that. I think we wee on the same page mostly. I did not mean to imply that we should think our own views as foolishness. Rather, keeping in mind from what reference this conversation started (the shaking our heads at the website) I was saying that our views of the website are based on the belief in their foolishness and not in their logic. My premise here was that the atheist is not an idiot and should not be laughed at. Since the “foolishness” of their ideas is a given to us because of our starting point then it is almost stupid to point our that their end points are also foolishness to us.. As points of laughter. Rather, if we are to discuss them at all they must be understood in their own right. They should be understood in light of their own starting points. You are right though in understanding me in saying that neither argument is “better” and that I have no more “reason” to believe then not believe in the objective sense. I disagree with you when you state (kinda) that I can line up the atheist starting point and its logical end and the Christian starting point and logical end and say that we have the better argument without assuming that we are right to begin with. If this was true then we could save people merely by writing down the argument and showing them. You might say here.. Well they could still choose not to agree. Here is where your tree argument erks me. Assuming that the person is in the same mental state as you, that they are not brainwashed, are in their full capacity, etc, then your “better” argument comes from your ability to make them touch the tree.. I could bind their eyes open and make them look at the tree.. And attach that lie detector to them to see if they actually see the tree. (Of course it could still “not exist” but I would have a better argument as you say...The proofs for the existence of God don’t work that way. Not only is there no way to prove it one way or another.. (as you agree) but there is no way to make one a better argument then the other. My issue with your view is that you claim the atheist to hold an irrational belief.. My point I have repeated many times is that since neither starting point can be shown to be better in a logical sense without assuming their conclusion. (Theism is the better argument because I find the arguments more convincing based on my own experience with what I hope is the Devine.)the rationality of the theist and atheist position can only be weighed on in their own right.. So where does this lead me? The next question you seem to ask is then if I cannot show that it is objectively better to believe then not to believe then why believe? I have tried to give you my reasons. They are not post modern. I am Not saying that they have their truth and I have mine. In the end only one thing will end up as true. I am saying that A. To use our starting points to judge the reason of an argument that does not agree with our starting point is bad reasoning and moreover doesn’t save people. (Though of course God could use it) B. That because, without assuming the conclusion neither argument for the existence of, or against, is logically better, the first moment of faith is an irrational one. I agree with people wiser then me who have spoken of faith that seeks understanding. For the initial leap into faith is not done based on reason but rather based on reason’s calculation of past experience combined with the irrational assent to something that the heart feels. C. In the end I do agree that in actuality we are right and that if we could span out time and space we could prove it by showing the resurrection. But sine we can, all we have is our faith.. And the reasoning that it springs. As such all we have is interpretation of events which we cannot return to and hope that we are right. Since all is interpretation and the past is dead in the end the irrational leap is the only edge we have. The last question you raise has to do with how this kind of talk helps my faith. “ I don’t see what doubting that the Resurrection of Christ, for instance, does for me, simply because there are atheists out there who believe that this did not happen.”I must tread lightly here... doubt is not for everyone.. As I have said. In fact logic, is not for everyone either, and of course some can handle nothing but logic. I mentioned in the last post that doubt can be detrimental to some and to others essential. All I can talk about is my own walk. I know that for me, I do not carry doubt because of what the atheist thinks. I carry doubt because I wish be honest with myself. To be humble in my walk as much as I can. To realize that in all things I can be wrong. To realize that if I am right then all the anguish which I posited earlier on in this conversation see the rumblings in the first couple of posts.)is our real, unmakeuped existence.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
