There are a lot of very smart people who spend a lot of time creating very clever narratives about why Religion--more specifically Christianity--is a form of Revelation that is rock solid. The most truthful of true.
These are very smart people who are far smarter and better educated than I am; so maybe there is just something I don't quite understand.
I mean; I accept the a priori existence of God through the rules of our language, the likely a priori of its biological existence in our brains, the usefulness in the early development of our economy--its organizational and sociological capabilities.
But why do intellectuals adhere to it?
Some argue its a political alliance--a decision to pick one cultural faction over another, some say its needed to create and sustain community through the harsh truth of living, some argue that it is a useful means of explaining in narrative form important views to allow less educated people to flourish--which to me seems condescending of people and inaccurate aside from abnormal developments of some humans.
It just doesn't seem to add up. Doesn't inaccurate information harm our productive possibilities and humanistic capabilities? I don't know the answer to that one... any one care to give it a go?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Do you discount "divine revelation"? The making known of the existence of a Supreme Being through actual experiencing of that existence? Just a question. Keep the faith,
Don't deny it as possible... but thats subjective experience and how do you know one persons is anywhere near the same as anothers...
"If Lucy believes that Rock (Hudson) is to die for, and Desi believes that Rock (music) is to die for, they really don't agree on anything, do they?" --Daniel Dennett
Words are tricky little things...
I will grant that "divine revelation" is, indeed, subjective. But that removes the existence of a Supreme Being from the sphere of empiricism and into the realm of "faith". Actually, divine revelation would, by definition, be different for each individual. I am not sure that I could deny anyone's claim of divine revelation. What I would deny is the false understanding that "God told me to do it". God's existence is one thing, God's direction is something entirely different. Keep the faith.
Being bi-polar means that my chemicals are a little off from the norm. Some ways thats good someways bad...
One thing I get to expereince some times is a moment of complete Euphoria and feelings of connections with the world. others have similar expereiences during religous cerimonies or even drug use.
Scientists have found patterns in the brain that show religious expereince as something empirically visible. But how can I tell the difference between someone who is explaining that and someone who is just using that as a way to gain power politically. I can't and no one else can either. I can explain via scientific, and social scientific methods explanitions of religion without getting into unverifiable and probabilities that are so high as to be unlikely to put it mildly.
If I said there was a purple monster who protected me in the sky... but that you can't see him and he only talks to me. You couldn't disprove it... but I couldn't prove it. Who are you likely to believe? It was an argument we used in the Anti-war movement. Bush said Saddam had weapons. Saddam said no I'll prove it by letting you in. The UN couldn't find them... Bush said that just proves he's covert. Bush was saying Saddam had to prove a negative... which is impossible.
Occam's razor states there is no good reason to use a more complex expanation when an easier more realistic explantation can be used.
Its not that it couldn't be right... its just that its not verifiable so why do anything other than know it for yourself. Why do we feel the need to demand others see our side. Why would we want others to see our side? Why would we need others to see our side? I claim when people do they are making a political move which has nothing to do with religon or god. Hence I can go to church... get something from it... and leave still being an atheist confident that eternal life is living in the moment, behaving the way one should towards their fellow man, and not pushing a political agenda to prove it. We unify be being silent about that which cannot be shared or understood by others unless that behave in a certain way. Jesus was a person of action... not politics. Call it whatever you want to yourself but why not take the political terms out of it since most others haven't caught onto the curve. Those are just my thoughts... I'm generally wrong about such things! But its always fulfilling to discuss such complex issues that matter so much to our personal lives in a respectful and open manner. Thats why I always liked you Peter!
Post a Comment