Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 04:15:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1100 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Here is where I think the "intellectuals" stumble: Say for argument's sake
> > that there actually is a God who created us all. This God is unseen because
> > it is infinite and cannot be comprehended by finite beings.
>
> Given your assumption, I would certainly agree that the infinite is
> incomprehensible by the finite.
This is what perplexes me about fundamentalist religion. Given that God is
infinite and transcendent, how can any human claim to have perfect or
privileged knowledge of God? How can anyone of faith actually be sure that
he or she has found the one true path?
> > Now, how could an intellectual or a scientist ever hope to believe this God
> > exists?
>
> Don't put yourselves (as Christians) down; intellectuals and scientists, I
> imagine, would believe through Faith just like any other Christian, though I
> suspect you're appropriately drawing a distinction between ability to
> believe through Faith and the scientific necessity of empircal evidence.
> Fair enough, in that case.
Well said: as an evolutionary biologist I believe through Faith just like
any other Christian. Since my Faith doesn't depend on empirical evidence,
neither does my belief in God. The non-empirical evidence that leads me to
accept God's existence is based on spirituality and the natural world.
If I may interpolate Larry's musings:
(see http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7644 )
> This is one of the central tenets of the agnostic/atheist thesis: Adding god
> doesn't explain anything additional, hence the system doesn't *require* the
> existence of god, although it certainly doesn't preclude it.
>
> Remember the test of a good theory: It has to explain things.
I don't think the existence of God explains anything at all, and for that
matter neither does a lot of our music. But these are still important, if
largely irrational, ways for humans to express their understanding of the world.
> As I've said before, I'm willing to admit the possible existence of a god
> that has no tangible effect on the observable universe and cannot be proven
> or disproven to exist. (this god either permeates our universal structure,
> or exists in another set of dimensions or parallel universe, your choice)
I'd go for permeating our universal structure myself. Unless we have some
non-theoretical evidence of parallel dimensions, I don't think our system
*requires* their existence ;^).
> But for a god to be of any significance (other than as an internal comfort
> to those who *must* have some higher power to believe in, and that ain't me)
> that god must be able to have tangible effect on something. And *that*, no
> religion has ever been able to prove.
How about the effect that faith has had on the lives of billions of people?
Maybe for most believers it is a comfort rather than a challenge, but I
think that the truly inspired spirituality of many people is difficult to
explain away as mere neurosis.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
