by sandy82 » October 4th, 2005, 2:36 pm
I know the feeling, Dave, but don't despair. Goldragon, I see the source of your irritation and I remind you of your closing comment yesterday. Lack of civility is a descending staircase. Dave ended with an impersonal comment about leaving before he said something offensive. I understand why you didn't like that. But then you introduced second-person language and issued two orders. I don't think that the two of you have a "history" of which a new participant would be unaware. Therefore, I doubt that there are pre-existing tensions on either side or both sides. Let's not descend the staircase any farther. Let me try a possible middle-of-the-road approach--and perhaps get hit from all directions.
It seems to me that all positions on this issue of God/no god start with an unprovable premise. Stated slightly differently, the arguments begin at the end. When you think about it, that's the most likely way for the argument to be framed because there is no empirical data on either side.
I use this example. Is there a bat in the vacationing neighbor's house? I don't know. But since I don't whether one is there, I also don't know whether one is not there. I suppose I could go look (I have the key), but the game has an additional rule. I am forbidden to go anywhere near the house. Therefore, I don't even have such evidence as an open window or an absence of insects on window sills. I can't get close enough to hear the flapping of wings after nightfall.
I don't mind the unprovable premise-turned-conclusion. I do get irritated at some of the half-baked "reasons" given in support of one position or the other. I had a camp counselor once, a pre-med student, who said that the structure of the human hand was so complex and so wondrous that there had to be a God. Something about that statement wasn't satisfying when I was 11 or 12, but I didn't know what it was. I do now. It's two things basically: the mixing of the subjective and objective, and the intensity of belief being directly linked to the limitations of the observer. Because the pre-med student thinks the human hand is so wondrous (subjective), there must be a God (objective). That process, with different ingredients, can lead to Hitlerism and Stalinism...or almost-anything-ism. And if the pre-med student had known considerably more about the hand, he might have been less impressed with its wonders. Being impressed through one's own lack of knowledge extends from looking at hands to the first sight of burning gunpowder to thunder and lightning.
On the other side, some of the secondary arguments are surprisingly similar. Because I can't use my five senses to experience the presence of God, then there isn't one. That's the logical equivalent of saying: I admit that all my five senses are limited (sight between infrared and ultraviolet; hearing between 20 and 20,000 KHz, olfactory sense that's pitiful compared to a dog's, etc.), but because I can't experience something that may exist far outside those limits, then that something is not there.
Many of the pro and con arguments are extensions/extrapolations of threshold positions stated more precisely, I'm sure, than I have expressed them.
What holds true for God/no god applies to the Bible. Speaking personally, I have never found the Bible very interesting. And I quickly add that, if there is a God, he may not find me very interesting. (That statement alone should be enough to make some site users into instant true believers. :wink: ) The arguments about whether the Bible or other holy books are the work of God are fine, but they don't lead anywhere. The Bible is interesting as a record of the incremental civilizing of one gradually expanding area of humanity. The beginnings are very simple, concrete and straightforward. The concepts are easy to understand, even if technicaly inaccurate. Whether or not the author was God or the scribe/priest of the people, the story of creation is broken into "days" like a book is broken into chapters or paragraphs. A new idea for each day. Man is shown/realizes that killing one's own son is not necessary. Then a clear-cut series of rules. Justice, fire-and-brimstone harangues, then mercy. Parables that deal with abstract ideas but use 100 percent concrete imagery. The first real taste of abstract philosophy comes with a Greek-educated Roman citizen of Jewish background, years after the death of the historical Jesus. That's quite a record of two-layer history. The upper layer is the viewpoint of the writer; the second layer comprises the happenings and viewpoints of the characters/subjects/actors in the underlying story.
Despite the efforts of some politicians to make points by discarding knowledge, a big disagreement over irreconcilable viewpoints isn't worth it--except to the politicians.
There's one thing we can all agree on. If there's a God or if there's not a god, there's nothing we can do about it. None of us makes much difference in the larger scheme of things anyway. How many of us will be remembered a century from now--any of us?--as this same debate continues, seemingly forever and ever.