Ham Priday,
I apologize for not getting to this earlier.
>Akshay has made two assertions that seem ludicrous to me:
>> The existence of God is of relatively low importance. We only
>> have to define God and then find out if such an entity exists.
I do not deny that they seem ludicrous, however, if you really attempt to
ponder over the question, "does God exist?", at some point you have to
define the word "God".
I also did continue with a brief analysis when I made those statements,
anticipating how the word God could mean different things to different
people, especially ethically (the Problem of Evil etc.).
The pursuit of philosophers has hardly been to understand God. It has only
been their choice of words ("I'm trying to find God" can sound very
interesting). The central aim has been that of realization/comprehension of
the structure and functioning of the universe. God is the highest-level
generalization of everything in the universe -- God is said to be
omnipresent and omniscient. You are asking (when you question the existence
of God) if there is an entity that creates and commands this world, and
knows all. God is usually defined along the lines of ultimate power/strength
and knowledge. Even if atheists nominally say they do not believe in God,
can they abandon concepts like control, law and power? Whether such an
entity exists or not does not truly make a difference to us (coupled with
the agnostic opinion), unless of course it is an entity that answers all our
wishes provided we pray to him enough.
The second statement simply points out what is the best we can do. Debating
can go on endlessly, because there are often loopholes in our a priori
anticipations of reality, whereas when we actually "check it out", it turns
out to be different -- a whole new dimension opens up.
What I meant by my first statement was that it is very obvious that there is
a highest power governing this universe, who is to the universe what a
dreamer is to the dream. I believe that atheists only nominally abandon
theism. What then, according to an atheist, controls the universe? Maybe the
answer from him is "the universe needs no controller, it is run by itself",
well then that's exactly it, God is equal to the universe. If we consider
theism, then there is a level above the universe, wherein there is a more
fundamental being that is in charge of the universe. You could add many more
layers of power and end up with an uninteresting hierarchy, what difference
would it make about the question of existence of a higher power? This is
what I meant by my first statement.
I hope that my clarifications have made it look less ludicrous. I welcome
all comments and criticism.
Akshay
On 22/01/2008, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve, Akshay, Ron, Platt, and all --
>
> It seems to me that trying to categorize Faith as Religion, Intellect, or
> a
> "social pattern" complicates the issue. Faith is simply what we as
> individuals believe in, whether our belief requires intellect, religion,
> or
> esthetic appreciation. If you are a rationalist, you believe in
> conclusions
> drawn from logical reasoning. If you're an objectivist, you believe in
> the empirical world as the primary reality. If you're an theist or a
> mystic, you believe in an entity that transcends the empirical world. If
> you're an MoQist you believe in Dynamic Quality and its four levels of
> patterned phenomena.
>
> Akshay has made two assertions that seem ludicrous to me:
> > The existence of God is of relatively low importance. We only
> > have to define God and then find out if such an entity exists.
>
> If the existence of God is "of low importance", why do the atheists
> protest
> so vehemently against theism?
> Why, indeed, has belief in a divine being been fundamental to the history
> of
> virtually every nation that has survived to become part of Western
> Society?
> Is it just coincidental that the concept of individual freedom and human
> morality is rooted in the Judeo-Christian beliefs of the Free World
> nations?
>
> Akshay's second assertion is easier said than done. By all means, let's
> find out if "such an entity exists" and then define it. Theologists,
> prophets,
> mystics, philosophers, and cosmologists have devoted their lives to
> "proving" and/or "defining" God for at least seven thousand years, yet
> mankind is no closer to a definitive answer in our technological era than
> were the medievalists. What has taken us so long? I might offer a
> reasonable answer, but in deference to Steve's wish that "Ham should not
> see
> my quoting him as an invitation to tell me more about Essentialism," I'll
> simply suggest that perhaps we were not meant to know.
>
> It's far easier to profess atheism today. It doesn't require any
> intuitive
> reasoning or belief in a supernatural source. It doesn't contradict
> experiential reality or the findings of Science. It can't be criticized
> as
> making dogmatic or idealistic pronouncements, setting up false idols, or
> analyzing platypuses. Like egalitarianism, it's also "progressive" in
> that
> it does away with magic, superstition, discrimination, spirituality,
> wonderment, and all the other ideas that have wrought such evil in times
> past. (I guess that's what is meant by "the end of faith".)
>
> Good luck to all,
> Ham
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
