RE: Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity
February 23, 2017 at 4:45 am
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2017 at 5:11 am by Odoital77.)
Quote:Kernel Sohcahtoa wrote - Hello Odoital77. I appreciate the thoughtful response to the op. If I may, I have some questions for you.
Odoital77 quoted - I agree, Christians must be ready to provide reasons for belief. I think the existence of a supreme mind or intelligence is obvious from what exists. I also think that the existence of such a being is the best explanation for the beginning of the Universe and its contents.
Quote:Kernel Sohcahtoa wrote -I appreciate and respect that this is representative of your views/beliefs. However, out of curiosity, is this an actual explanation? Could it possibly be seen as the product of a human tendency to prescribe causal agency to complex matters that we currently have no answers to? Furthermore, by ascribing the beginning of the universe to a supreme mind/intelligence, deity, and etc, then is humanity ultimately inhibiting the growth in thought/knowledge that is requisite to answer complex questions pertaining to matters that we do not understand, such as the meaning of humanity's existence, the nature of reality, and etc?I suppose that what you say is at least possible, but many things are possible. The questions that must be answered are things like, is that plausible? Do we have good reason to believe what you’re saying versus what I’ve said? I actually don’t think that what you’ve suggested is all that plausible. I think human beings are wired in some sense, to be able to recognize design versus a simple pattern or mere randomness. In addition, I’m not suggesting that we look at what’s been made, and say to ourselves, I don’t know how this came about, so God must have done it. I think it’s quite the other way around. I think you can lean on your bonafide knowledge and reason from there that a mind was behind it. I’m not a philosopher, theologian, scientist, or significant expert of any kind, but certain things seem obvious even to someone like myself. When I see a quadrinary code that exists and is translated into instructions that form the very basis for life, I have a hard time not ascribing intelligence to such a thing. And of course, by life, I’m referring to its diversity, its complexity, its beauty, purpose, etc… Leave aside aesthetic questions of beauty, which cannot be scientifically proven, where does purpose actually come from? Can you really say that a male and female sexual organ have no purpose in coming together? Or do they possess a purpose and actually come together to achieve a definite end(s)? In reflecting upon these kinds of things that can be seen and known, it is hard for me to say that I’m positing something out of ignorance or as a filler for the same. Typically, I’m reasoning from what I know rather than from what I do not know. I don’t know why the idea of a vast intelligence being behind the creation we see would somehow inhibit the growth of thought or knowledge. I’m wondering, do the Chinese feel inhibited when they are attempting to reverse engineer U.S. technology and figure out how it works and how it was made? Obviously, that’s an analogy that is quite inadequate to describe a far more vast and complex creation of various biological and non-biological varieties, but I hope you get the point I’m attempting to make? I’m sympathetic to your concern over a God of the gaps sort of reasoning that might be used to stifle inquiry, but I honestly don’t think that’s what I’m suggesting at all. I’m suggesting that we start from what we know and what our repeated and uniform experience tells us is the best explanation for the kinds of things that we see in this world.
Quote:Odoital77 quoted –I also think that the existence of God is the only way to ground true objective morality, which I firmly believe is a rock-solid feature of the world, regardless of our various levels of understanding and wisdom in application.If morality is an expression of this Being’s essential nature, then I would say that it is objective. I’m not certain as to what, precisely, you mean by consequentialist. If you mean the morality of something being determined by its consequences, I’d have to say no. The application of the moral law is affected by circumstances, but the rightness or wrongness of something is not determined by its consequences. That’s why I say that the moral law would have to be grounded in the nature of the Being Itself. Morality is not anterior to God or logically prior to Him, but it is rooted in His being. Something is not moral because God commands it, but God will always command moral things because His commands are the expression of His perfectly good nature. Hopefully that makes sense?
Kernel Sohcahtoa wrote -If such a life-form existed, then would the morality connected with it be completely objective or non-consequential? Is it possible that it also needs to make use of various consequentialist ethical approaches in order to know what, when, and how to create/design stuff, especially if its creations will affect reality and the various forms of life in it? Is it possible that this lifeform still needs to rely on some degree of ethical subjectivity?
With that said, thanks for your time and attention. Live long and prosper, Odoital77.
Thanks for the very interesting response.
In His Grip,
Odoital77
~ "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C. S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry?
Odoital77
~ "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C. S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry?