From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 18:05:20 BST
Chuck,
> Secondly, I define atheism as having “no belief in any god or god(s).”
That is one definition, and the most common one. The other is what might be
called Buddhist atheism, not believing in a personal God the way most
monotheists do, and this is the sort of atheist that Pirsig appears to be.
>
> Having ruminated on this P.O.E. thread for the past 48 hours or so, not
> in an effort to strengthen my position, but trying to pinpoint the
> moment I became so agitated, I’d like to just say this:
>
> I was angry. My sleep pattern was disrupted. Why was I so affected?
> If I’m not mistaken, folks in my camp are relieved the burden of proof.
People of faith did not come to their faith through proofs. Most, of
course, had whatever faith they have thrust on them by their family and
society, and never gave it up. But now there are those like you who have
dropped it, or me who dropped it but then came back to it for some reason
or other. I have never actually come across anyone who came back to faith
because of a proof. My view is that "proof" only works in mathematics. In
religion and philosophy there is only arm-waving, which is not to say that
some arm-waving isn't better than other.
> After all, I’m defending the non-existence of a being for whom there
> is arguably no evidence (I understand that the P.O.E. is merely a
> component of a vast and convoluted “existence of God” debate, but the
> P.O.E. thread evolved into more than just P.O.E., an evolution I did as
> much if not more than anyone here to encourage, I know).
>
> Boiled down and the way I understand things:
>
> Evil exists, which should be impossible if God exists, because:
>
> 1.If God is unaware of Evil in the world, he is not omniscient.
> 2.If God is aware of Evil, but can do nothing to prevent it, he is not
> omnipotent.
> 3.If God is aware of Evil, is able to prevent it and chooses not to, he
> is not
> omni-benevolent.
>
> Where’s the flaw? After all, is this not the God of
> Judeo-Christianity? Is this not the God of Vatican II? Is this not
> America’s God?
The flaw is to think that words like omniscient and omnibenevolent, and of
course God and Evil, have clear meaning, and thus can be used in logical
formulas. Whatever God might be, He is not a He, a being who does things
the way people do but perfectly.
The argument here should tell the theist that he or she is working with
idols, not God. Idols are concepts (or percepts) that one worships as God
in place of God, but God cannot be conceived (or perceived). As I said to
Mark SH, most Christians are idolators or heretics of some sort or other.
They think that they understand what is meant by "God is omniscient" and
so fall into error, the most egregious of which is to think that God is the
sort of being that can be thought to be on our side.
As a side note, the Vatican is between a rock and a hard place. On the one
hand, its theologians are well aware of these problems, but woe unto the
preacher who tries to tell the laity that they are actually idolators and
heretics. Religion as practiced is still mainly a social deal, and the
Vatican is mainly a social/political institution.. (This shouldn't be taken
as if I thought that the theologians have "got it right". I have many
disagreements with most of them.)
> According to Scott, there’s such a thing as a “modern, intellectual
> religion” going on out there of which my knowledge is lacking. Is it
> possible that “modern intellectual religion” does not necessitate
> “theism”? Any books or websites you care to recommend on “modern
> intellectual religion,” Scott? I’d appreciate it.
Some intellectual religionists are theist, some are not. It is all subject
to debate.
You might look at "Why Religion Matters" by Huston Smith. Or "Lost
Christianity" by Jacob Needleman, or "The Heretical Imperative" by Peter
Berger. For an example of what I think is really interesting religious
thinking, I recommend "Derrida on the Mend" by Robert Magliola, who is a
Catholic attempting to show how the Buddhist Nargajuna "mends" Derridean
deconstruction, and then applies this to the doctrine of the Trinity. And I
always recommend anything by Owen Barfield, but his books are hard to find.
I have not been able to find an interesting website. Most Christian
websites are, not surprisingly, of the in-your-face conservative type. You
might look at shipoffools.com, not that it is all that intellectual, but it
at least allows one to question, and not take things too seriously. For
Barfield, there is www.owenbarfield.com.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 23 2004 - 19:02:06 BST