India and Christianity

Pixel Pirate wrote: sigod wrote: This is turning into a really interesting thread It also confirms to me that there is a lot of depth to the people who inhabit the forums despite the huge amount of flippancy on display at times. Well,the curse of man is that he's bright enough to ask the questions but not bright enough to find the answers. All I know for certain is that there's no rhinoceros in this room and that's good enough for me.

Sometimes Pixie you've got to ask the right questions.

And we just keep going around in circles,don't we.... I could write a thesis or 50 with arguments against religion,and immodestly enough,most of them would be intelligent and reasonable but it would all be in vain since the human race is a species that's actually stupid enough to think that truth is a subjective issue. I'm ashamed to belong to such a species. Bertand Russell once had a discussion with Wittgenstein about this. Wittgenstein,a waste of a good intellect if ever there was one,claimed that there was no such thing as empirical truth. Russell then asked him: Is there a rhinoceros in this room? Wittgenstein refused to answer because the only answer he could possible give would be: No,there isn't. Which would prove that his notion that there is no empirical truth was complete nonsense,which of course it is.

I'm too old for this type of thing and my new year resolution is broken already so I'll just say this: Don't forget where all,and I do mean ALL,religious notions stem from. Simply the fact that the human animal is the only one on this planet that is aware of it's mortality. As opposed to every other living thing on this planet,humans know they are going to die. And they don't like it. They REALLY don't like it.In fact, it terrifies them. You can dress religion up in all manner of metaphysical arguement but if you work your way backwards to it's origin you'll find mankind's fear of death. Man is a simple being and simple beings are easily fathomed out. No one can understand anything about religion until they have a thorough understanding of human psychology. If you know what makes the human animal tick,especially it's fears,then and only then,will you understand religion. Without fear,there would be no religion. Know this and you know everything there is to know about religion. It keeps the fear from the door,that's it's function. It tells you soothing lies that this life is not the end. If cows had suddenly aquired the intelligence and consciensness of man,I can guarantee two things:1. After five minutes they would have started a religion (and naturally the cow god would have looked like a cow!) and 2. That religion would immediately have set to work to assauge the cows newfound fear of death.

Complicated beings require complicated explanations as to what makes them tick,simple beings do not. Man is simple. About all he knows is this: He wants food and sex and he's afraid of death. Man is astonishingly advanced technologically and astonishingly primitive philosophically. Once again: I'm ashamed to belong to such a species and I agree with Monty Python: I hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space because there's bugger all down here on earth.

Pixel:

While it may be true that Christians (and other people of faith) adhere to "dogma," consider two things.

First, the dogma that a particular faith-based person espouses can vary radically depending on what one is taught or understands about one's faith, and especially how well one knows the Scriptures.  For example, the dogma adhered to by the so-called "Christian Right" is very different - indeed, sometimes diametrically opposed - to the dogma adhered to by a "centrist" Christian, or a "primitive" Christian such as myself.  Yes, it is ultimately still "dogma," but, as one hip minister once said to me: "You can teach an old dogma new tricks."  (Or, as the 60s slogan goes: "My karma ran over my dogma.")

Second, and perhaps more importantly, you fail to realize that your worldview - and that of other atheists, agnostics, etc. - is also based on "dogma," though of a different kind.  If I am dogmatic about my faith and its underlying texts and principles, athetists/agnostics are just as dogmatic about their lack of belief.  In this regard, to say that "I as an atheist/agnostic am willing to concede that I might be wrong - that it's possible there is a god," but that "There's no way that any religious person will ever concede that HE might be wrong and that there is no god" is both incorrect and a cop-out.  It is incorrect because, after all, how many people of faith have "fallen away" and even rejected that faith later?  We are talking hundreds of thousands, even millions of people.  True, a person who is currently faith-based is highly unlikely to "concede" that there is no God.  But it is absolutely clear that being faith-based at a particular moment in time does not mean that one will be faith-based for life.

It is also a cop-out because you are setting up an impossibly circular, and ultimately fallacious, argument.  After all, faith is just that: faith.  The Scriptural definition of "faith" is "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  Thus, to a non-believer whose "dogma" is grounded in rationalism, "faith" is prima facie "irrational," and not based on (empirical) evidence - i.e., evidence of things seen.

People of faith "believe" because they have witnessed and/or been the beneficiaries of God's grace, mercy and power.  What rationalists call "coincidence," believers call "providence."  As noted, the "evidence" of God's grace, mercy and power are prima facie "unseen" in the rationalist sense, and are thus not open to empirical quantification (yes, I know: "how convenient"...).  It is simply a matter of perspective: you, as a rationalist, are no more likely to change your perspective than a believer is to change theirs.  To claim that you "could" - because you are a rationalist - while they "can't" (because they are "dogmatic" about their faith) would seem extremely disingenuous.

Reed Lover:

First, there is nothing wrong with your debating skills; they are clearly as sharp as a tack.  If anything, there may be something wrong (a term I use loosely) in your approach.  However, given, as you note, the "passion" involved in matters of faith, perhaps that is understandable (to say nothing of forgivable...).

You say, "The obvious errors and inconsistencies pose interesting questions about the infallibility of God.  You seem either to dodge this claim or misunderstand the relevance. If you rationalise my argument you will see that I offer man-made solutions for these errors, a generous position to take. You, however, seem to be unsure as to whether God is infallible or not."

First, I am not dodging the question.  I am simply claiming not to have all the answers - but that, despite all your rational, worldly "arguments," I believe that God knew (and knows) what He was doing in the "dictation" of the Scriptures.  In this regard, I'm not sure that God would agree with you that positing rational, worldly arguments is a "generous" thing to do; rather, I think He would be both amused and saddened that you felt the need to resort to worldly positions to argue for His infallibility and perfection.

Similarly, you ask "If His word is incontravertible, why do we need 4 Gospels? Why do these Gospels differ? This is not a flippant remark, just a question that needs answering."  At the risk of sounding flip myself (to say nothing of dogmatic...), it only needs answering if one is lacking in faith.  However, assuming those questions do need answering, again I beleve that God would not want you to be looking for those answers in the "temporal" world, via rationalism, empiricism and human history.  Again, I do not claim to have the answers to those questions, even from Scripture.  But I have faith that God knew and knows what He is doing, and that there are answers to those questions - though we, as humans, may not be able to discern them despite all of our knowledge and "wisdom."

Finally, I want to thank you - sincerely - for your comment that, "I actually believe there have been productive outcomes to this discussion.  Most of them have little to do with the subject matter and much to do with the individuals involved.  Whatever we may feel about Maani's Faith, very few individuals of a religious nature would have continued this debate for this long. Even if I feel there is a degree of "clouding the issue with dogma" by Maani , he has never resorted to the "that's what I believe and it is personal to me" dodge that so frustrates most debate on this subject."

I, too, believe that, despite the occasional spasms of "intense passion" (), this discussion has been productive, and for the reasons you state.  Because no matter which side of the issue others who have posted may be on, they - and others who may be following this without posting - cannot help but be "enlightened" in one way or another by a serious, thoughtful, reasoned discussion/debate, especially on such a "thorny" issue.  And I am humbled that you would go out of your way to support me with the statement made in the last sentence of that post.

James:

Bravo on a beautiful statement.  It should be required reading for anyone and everyone who intends to engage in any discussion or debate about "faith."

Peace to all.