reply to post by ModernAcademia
What I find baffling is that a person can first, acknowledge that the concept or definition of god is unattainable and second, that they believe in
If you cannot fully know or understand what you believe in, then what exactly is it that you believe in?
I think it goes without saying that the idea of a personal god (one with "humanoid features, language, human emotions and so on, and who created life
with "his hands" is the shakiest of all. And most people, even Christians, who believe in god grant that they aren't sure exactly what god really
is, at least in terms one can put on paper. So their definition of god is one which does not include verbatim some of those humanoid biblical imagery.
So far so good... but then this...
That leaves the notion of an undefinable or infinite god, which is harder to falsify, but is still at least in my opinion extremely hard, if not
impossible to define.
So, I feel the only intellectually honest posture on god is that we do not know and cannot know, and no definitive statement can be made about
To make definitive statements about the existence of god, for or against is extremely arrogant and egotistical because it is beyond what is knowable,
and serves only the purpose of assert oneself as distinct from others, in other words, emerges from the ego. Same motives behind the kind of posture
that leasds people to be "liberal", "conservative" "skeptics" "believers", etc.
Seems that the only purpose of assuming a posture a-priori is to preempt the need to learn or acknowledge anything that may falsify it or enrich its
definition in less than favorable ways.
As for the story about the professor, notice that the student successfully debates him (whether you accept his argument or not, that is the story) an
the professor is humiliated in the end.
I wonder what kind of emotions the OP and writer of this story hopes to stir on those who are believers? it seems like the glee and vengeful
satisfaction that arises from the humiliation of those who are against one's own beliefs is a guilty pleasure tolerated and even encouraged in
That SHOULD NOT be the case for any religion that professes love, and it only serves to highlight that we are really all the same, selfish and eager
to prove our points, and deeply harbor a desire to define ourselves as distinct from some others that we define our enemies. and we then go on to
enjoy their humiliation.
The only difference is that, while the agnostic is fully aware of this flaw (and has a choice to do something about it) only the very most enlightened
religious people realize this.