There is, of course, nothing unreasonable about Christianity, given the premise that God does exist. You may choose to deny that premise, but that is a statement of belief no more or less rational than the opposite.
@macdoctor - the premise itself is unreasonable, therefore your argument is fallacious. Otherwise I could provide any crazy premise to justify any unreasonable course of action. There's what is, and what people believe there to be. Things from group two (things believed to be real) don't get to cross over into group one (things which are real) without a solid theory and a body of supporting evidence. Once something does cross into the real group, it's part of reality and behaviour based on it can be adjudged reasonable or otherwise.
@rivoniaboy If one person stops, steps outside their practice-without-thought, and things "hrm, he's right you know. Why should there be a god? Perhaps I should use my brain for reason instead of mysticism!" then I'd say the worth of that "cheap shot" is high. After all: downside of the comment? None ('offense' doesn't really count. Religion offends me on a daily basis. I have to deal). Upside? One more reasonable person in the world who can think beyond "but god(s) did it!".
Aetheists miss a big point in Christianity. Its not about "how" but about "why". It then becomes a question that can be considered without crashing into science as many Christian literalists are obliged to do because they don't read the bible from a suitable cultural viewpoint. Expecting an old document to reflect modern science is simply foolishness but the life lessons in the parables are beautifully written and valuable today. The parables were in conflict with many of the cultural positions of the time and hardly likely to have arisen from enlightened locals who frowned on them at the time..
@ Greig. : You can only be offended if you take offence so maybe need to get over yourself.
@rivoniaboy No need for more pondering. I did that for many years. I concluded that's there's zero evidence FOR a god or gods and plenty against. Like any rationalist, show me the evidence for a god or gods, and I'll weigh it against the evidence against and change my mind if it's convincing.
@3:16 Heh, I try mate, I try. ;) Seriously though, I do find it an affront (perhaps offense is the wrong word) that people "choose to believe" without a shred of evidence. It seems to me like the switching off of higher cognitive functions and letting a primitive desire for (immortality? comfort? myth and legend?) take over. I find that akin to choosing savagery over civilisation. Of choosing to kill your neighbour for what's theirs because it's easier than earning it yourself. So yeah, I guess it is offensive.
As you say, the bible has a place as a piece of literature. I've read it though, and consider it confused, contradictory, morally questionable, and poorly written in many parts (though it has parts of extreme beauty also). I think that whilst some life lessons contained therein are excellent ones, others are utterly reprehensible. It takes morality (derived from reason) to recognise which is which. Thus, the bible isn't the source of any of this good. It simply regurgitates existing wisdom.
8 comments:
There is, of course, nothing unreasonable about Christianity, given the premise that God does exist. You may choose to deny that premise, but that is a statement of belief no more or less rational than the opposite.
Cheap shot Peter, this type of comment tends to lessen the worth of your Blog!
@macdoctor - the premise itself is unreasonable, therefore your argument is fallacious. Otherwise I could provide any crazy premise to justify any unreasonable course of action. There's what is, and what people believe there to be. Things from group two (things believed to be real) don't get to cross over into group one (things which are real) without a solid theory and a body of supporting evidence. Once something does cross into the real group, it's part of reality and behaviour based on it can be adjudged reasonable or otherwise.
@rivoniaboy If one person stops, steps outside their practice-without-thought, and things "hrm, he's right you know. Why should there be a god? Perhaps I should use my brain for reason instead of mysticism!" then I'd say the worth of that "cheap shot" is high. After all: downside of the comment? None ('offense' doesn't really count. Religion offends me on a daily basis. I have to deal). Upside? One more reasonable person in the world who can think beyond "but god(s) did it!".
@ Greig
"Why should there be a God?" Perhaps you would like to ponder the question over your next brew.
Aetheists miss a big point in Christianity. Its not about "how" but about "why". It then becomes a question that can be considered without crashing into science as many Christian literalists are obliged to do because they don't read the bible from a suitable cultural viewpoint. Expecting an old document to reflect modern science is simply foolishness but the life lessons in the parables are beautifully written and valuable today. The parables were in conflict with many of the cultural positions of the time and hardly likely to have arisen from enlightened locals who frowned on them at the time..
@ Greig.
:
You can only be offended if you take offence so maybe need to get over yourself.
3:16
Thank God there is a God!! I would hate the here and now to be the be all and end all!!!
Oh this tweet made me smile. Well put.
@rivoniaboy No need for more pondering. I did that for many years. I concluded that's there's zero evidence FOR a god or gods and plenty against. Like any rationalist, show me the evidence for a god or gods, and I'll weigh it against the evidence against and change my mind if it's convincing.
@3:16 Heh, I try mate, I try. ;) Seriously though, I do find it an affront (perhaps offense is the wrong word) that people "choose to believe" without a shred of evidence. It seems to me like the switching off of higher cognitive functions and letting a primitive desire for (immortality? comfort? myth and legend?) take over. I find that akin to choosing savagery over civilisation. Of choosing to kill your neighbour for what's theirs because it's easier than earning it yourself. So yeah, I guess it is offensive.
As you say, the bible has a place as a piece of literature. I've read it though, and consider it confused, contradictory, morally questionable, and poorly written in many parts (though it has parts of extreme beauty also). I think that whilst some life lessons contained therein are excellent ones, others are utterly reprehensible. It takes morality (derived from reason) to recognise which is which. Thus, the bible isn't the source of any of this good. It simply regurgitates existing wisdom.
Post a Comment