A The problem is not with God. B The problem is with religion. C Humanity by nature is selfish and egotistical. D Evil came by way of man, not God.
Hi Santiago. Here is the problem as I see it. There are essentially 4 premises in this set of statements you made in your introductory paragraph. A seems true. B also seems true. C is not always true. D is certainly not true if you read your Bible and believe it (who is Satan and Who created him? ).
Together, you are using these as arguments to support your position. When you mix reason and logic with statements that are false or sometimes false you get an argument that linguistically looks plausible but is logically incoherent.
First, I recognize your belief. All that others of my ilk would ask is that your belief be bounded by its circle of influence. When others besides the believer are affected by the belief, then it is potentially immoderate and can be likely to evoke a hostile response from others who believe differently.
There is truth where well-intentioned people can find common ground. I agree with your 3rd and 4th paragraphs, for example. I hold only one premise that is unprovable: "The world can be understood by reason." Reason and intelligence are, IMO, what separate sentient creatures from less sentient creatures. But it is a continuum and the truth is, sometimes really wild and outrageous things happen. So, even though these things appear to be irrational I believe them to be ultimately rational. Under normal circumstances (and even under unusual circumstances) rational causality exists. I may not know all the facts, but IF I did, it would be causally related.
The 1st and 2nd paragraph are a metaphysical discussion of the nature of your faith (belief) and are really quite independent from the following ideas. That is fine too considering this forum, but just realize that it is YOUR belief and it lacks universality to those who believe differently.
If I am a child of your god, it is that god's responsibility , IMO, to let me know what he/she wants of me. This is not a responsibility that can be delegated. Think of your own house and your children. How do they know what's right? It is what they learn from you. If they hear tolerance and reverence for that body of knowledge they DON'T know, they will learn that. If they hear that people who aren't Christian are not as worthy as someone who doesn't accept the dogma of your religion, they will learn religious intolerance.
In my naturalistic "religion" one only has to look at the consequences of an act to do the moral calculus. How many people are hurt? How many are benefited? Is the balance rational? These questions and openness to the possibility of us being wrong about our "principles" lead us to truth because when we make a statement, we need data to establish the truth of the assertion. Assertions without data don't get you near truth. |
