Why I believe.
My dear friend Zach,
I have read and carefully considered the letter you sent me. This is a very difficult subject. I love and treasure the capacity of the human mind to see something, to study it, and then to make conclusions about it that can be repeated to be proven true or false. The world we live in is understandable; it is hopeful, in that sense. And yet, I have a different hope in God that seems to challenge the hopefulness of human understanding.
Dawkins (I will refer to him so informally, because I could not glean from the information online the degree of his education) begins his letter essentially asking his daughter why she believes the things she's been told. The things he directs this skepticism at originally are matters of the natural world. " How do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very far away? And how do we know that Earth is a smaller ball whirling round one of those stars, the sun?" He precedes to explain the scientific method. He says that there are bad reasons for believing, lists those reasons, and then makes the faulty jump in logic: He goes from explaining why one should believe in science to assuming that same method should be used on religion.
Science is the tool of the natural world. It is taking the tools of man (his mind, his senses, and his ability to create) and finding a way to understand the world around us. It's a wonderful way to bolster the security of our species. We know why we get sick, so we can avoid it. We know why storms come, so we can prepare for them. We know the movement of the earth, to we plant our crops accordingly.
But how does one weigh the spirit? How do you measure God? What device can prove or disprove the existence of another realm? Science is for the natural world and it is just that: for the natural world. I strongly disagree with people who wish to teach intelligent design in biology text books. Why? Because I do not believe it is the position of scientists to make judgments about something "supernatural." It should always be their position to seek to find problems and answers that exist on a physical level. In the same way, I do not believe it is the position of scientists to try to use tools of the physical world to try to explain the spiritual one.
This creates a difficult problem: how do we know, then, what to believe or not believe about the spiritual world? ::sighs:: I don't know.
Okay, okay, I won't be that cheap, but it's not an easy question. Here's a process:
1) Know the world you live in.
2) Create values based on that knowledge.
3) Decide if religion is in congruence with that knowledge.
4) For the most part, never allow your decision in #3 change #1 or #2.
I've studied the world I live in. I've met atheists and Muslims. I've argued with republicans and democrats. I've been lied to and I've lied to others. I've seen science experiments and magic tricks. I have done everything in my power to base my belief in things on evidence.
From this evidence, I've concluded a lot of things. I believe the world is understandable and predictable in many ways. Where it is understandable and predictable, I live my life accordingly. Humans have found an optimal means of living. If you share with your neighbors, you get to benefit from multiple fruits of labor. If you stay committed to your friends when they are in need, you find support when you are in need. If you help those in need, they can be stronger and contribute to society as a whole. Not everyone follows the rules, so we have problems, but the point is that there is a way to live that is beneficial. This is a vastly oversimplified version of all the values I've created with my knowledge of the world, but it gives you a taste of it.
From this knowledge, there are two choices: 1) Believe that all of this is simply the way the universe shook out. Or 2) Believe that all of this is the result of design. Both are beliefs. We would have to be able to operate in a spiritual world in order to disprove 2, but we can't. I have chosen to believe 2. Why? Because I want to.
That's right. It is no more complicated than that. I want to believe that there is a God. I want to believe that this world, that I take comfort in its ability to be understood, was designed so that I can understand it. The Creator of this world made a place for my existence where I could learn how to be happy. And, hopefully, there is a way for me to meet Him. Tradition, authority, and revelation are simply means that the idea of God was communicated to me. I chose the Christian God simply because I believe the teachings are that God are the most harmonious to my observation of the natural world. (I believe it has to be harmonious, because any God who creates a world in contradiction to his nature is malicious. Any god that would design a world for me to live in where I had to be destructive of the only tool that allows me to believe [my conscious mind] to follow him is not the sort of god I want to follow.)
Point #4 is the most controversial. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of people in my same religion would disagree with me. I can hear their snickering, "Does she seriously expect me to question the will of God?" Well, guys, what is the will of God? Can you corroborate it? I can give you a list of times that men have used "the will of God" to gain personal power. Wars have started this way. Innocence has been lost because of it. Untold numbers of lives have been wasted to false prophets. And there is no way I can tell any of you apart. Don't tell me to lean on the Bible for understanding, because even the word of God can be taken out of context to make any argument you want. Morality should not be a figment of our imagination. Religion shouldn't be dogma set forth in a cute collection of platitudes. When we act in faith, we should do so with some amount of that faith being based in reality. Don't tell me to throw out my mind for God, because it was my mind that lead me to believe in him in the first place.
So, in a way, I agree with Dawkins, or at least my personal interpretation of his last two sentences:
"And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
I have read and carefully considered the letter you sent me. This is a very difficult subject. I love and treasure the capacity of the human mind to see something, to study it, and then to make conclusions about it that can be repeated to be proven true or false. The world we live in is understandable; it is hopeful, in that sense. And yet, I have a different hope in God that seems to challenge the hopefulness of human understanding.
Dawkins (I will refer to him so informally, because I could not glean from the information online the degree of his education) begins his letter essentially asking his daughter why she believes the things she's been told. The things he directs this skepticism at originally are matters of the natural world. " How do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very far away? And how do we know that Earth is a smaller ball whirling round one of those stars, the sun?" He precedes to explain the scientific method. He says that there are bad reasons for believing, lists those reasons, and then makes the faulty jump in logic: He goes from explaining why one should believe in science to assuming that same method should be used on religion.
Science is the tool of the natural world. It is taking the tools of man (his mind, his senses, and his ability to create) and finding a way to understand the world around us. It's a wonderful way to bolster the security of our species. We know why we get sick, so we can avoid it. We know why storms come, so we can prepare for them. We know the movement of the earth, to we plant our crops accordingly.
But how does one weigh the spirit? How do you measure God? What device can prove or disprove the existence of another realm? Science is for the natural world and it is just that: for the natural world. I strongly disagree with people who wish to teach intelligent design in biology text books. Why? Because I do not believe it is the position of scientists to make judgments about something "supernatural." It should always be their position to seek to find problems and answers that exist on a physical level. In the same way, I do not believe it is the position of scientists to try to use tools of the physical world to try to explain the spiritual one.
This creates a difficult problem: how do we know, then, what to believe or not believe about the spiritual world? ::sighs:: I don't know.
Okay, okay, I won't be that cheap, but it's not an easy question. Here's a process:
1) Know the world you live in.
2) Create values based on that knowledge.
3) Decide if religion is in congruence with that knowledge.
4) For the most part, never allow your decision in #3 change #1 or #2.
I've studied the world I live in. I've met atheists and Muslims. I've argued with republicans and democrats. I've been lied to and I've lied to others. I've seen science experiments and magic tricks. I have done everything in my power to base my belief in things on evidence.
From this evidence, I've concluded a lot of things. I believe the world is understandable and predictable in many ways. Where it is understandable and predictable, I live my life accordingly. Humans have found an optimal means of living. If you share with your neighbors, you get to benefit from multiple fruits of labor. If you stay committed to your friends when they are in need, you find support when you are in need. If you help those in need, they can be stronger and contribute to society as a whole. Not everyone follows the rules, so we have problems, but the point is that there is a way to live that is beneficial. This is a vastly oversimplified version of all the values I've created with my knowledge of the world, but it gives you a taste of it.
From this knowledge, there are two choices: 1) Believe that all of this is simply the way the universe shook out. Or 2) Believe that all of this is the result of design. Both are beliefs. We would have to be able to operate in a spiritual world in order to disprove 2, but we can't. I have chosen to believe 2. Why? Because I want to.
That's right. It is no more complicated than that. I want to believe that there is a God. I want to believe that this world, that I take comfort in its ability to be understood, was designed so that I can understand it. The Creator of this world made a place for my existence where I could learn how to be happy. And, hopefully, there is a way for me to meet Him. Tradition, authority, and revelation are simply means that the idea of God was communicated to me. I chose the Christian God simply because I believe the teachings are that God are the most harmonious to my observation of the natural world. (I believe it has to be harmonious, because any God who creates a world in contradiction to his nature is malicious. Any god that would design a world for me to live in where I had to be destructive of the only tool that allows me to believe [my conscious mind] to follow him is not the sort of god I want to follow.)
Point #4 is the most controversial. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of people in my same religion would disagree with me. I can hear their snickering, "Does she seriously expect me to question the will of God?" Well, guys, what is the will of God? Can you corroborate it? I can give you a list of times that men have used "the will of God" to gain personal power. Wars have started this way. Innocence has been lost because of it. Untold numbers of lives have been wasted to false prophets. And there is no way I can tell any of you apart. Don't tell me to lean on the Bible for understanding, because even the word of God can be taken out of context to make any argument you want. Morality should not be a figment of our imagination. Religion shouldn't be dogma set forth in a cute collection of platitudes. When we act in faith, we should do so with some amount of that faith being based in reality. Don't tell me to throw out my mind for God, because it was my mind that lead me to believe in him in the first place.
So, in a way, I agree with Dawkins, or at least my personal interpretation of his last two sentences:
"And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
posted by Jesi E. at 11/17/2005 12:16:00 PM
11 Comments:
Nice post...
I think most of the trouble in the debate over, shall we call it, Intelligent Design vs. "Evolution" is summed up in those last two sentences. When one demands evidence for something, one expects imperical data, something not always available. I think if our view of "evidence" was broadened there wouldn't be so many problems.
And I love your Four Points... I had an odd gut reaction aversion to them, but then I pondered for a minute and decided I agree in principle. Tried to figure out my initial reaction and I couldn't really find a good reason for it.
We mostly agree on this Ms.Blackandwhite. The point posed is that one should apply the scientific method to religion. This is absolutely true. Religion is an invention of man...god institutionalized. When one applies the tools of logic, all such organizations fall from their mystically elevated heights.
The existance and nature of god on the other hand cannot be examined by the scientific method. Our science, our tools and methods for rationally analyzing the universe, tell us that nothing created can be greater than its creator. Accordingly lesser creatures are incapable of comprehending or discovering their creator on their own. It is only through that supernatural creatures purposeful relevation that man can know of god; not through blind faith which is belief without reason, or through faith which is simply reasonable expectation that truth will play itself out; or through trust in other men who claim to be oracles and soul owners of such knowledge.
It is for each man to use his rational mind to sift through his senses and determine what is valuable to him, and what is probably true.
(All of this depends on the rational nature of god. Since the universe is rational, this points to a rational god, if there is one)
(Post from a previous month)
<<"I am". Because I am aware that "I am" I know that I have not always been; thus I did not exist and at one point I became existent. Rationality based on the primal axiom "I am" would lead me to believe that I cannot will myself into existence because something that does not exist cannot will.
Reason leads me to believe that since I was created, and this cause was outside of myself, that this cause is greater than myself. (a law of chemistry/physics also) Since the primary cause of "I am" is greater than "I am" reasonably there is no way to abstractly determine that cause; that knowledge is not within me.
Reasonably I must believe that the universe around me, reality, also has a cause that is beyond it. The nature of this universe, compared with our best collected efforts, our scientific laws point to this clearly. I cannot create the universe, thus the universe's cause is also beyond me. Thus I have no ability to abstractly determine this cause. Since these causes are greater than we are, greater than everything that we know or are aware of, it would seem that it would be impossible to discover these causes from looking within ourselves, or by looking within the universe. The knowledge of either's creator will not be present, we will be incapable of knowing the cause simply from the lesser products of the cause, nor could we as humans, come to a mental understanding of that which is greater than own capacity to understand.
The only knowledge we may have of this creator is that knowledge which might be purposefully imparted to us by this "Great Cause" if it has the nature, the capacity or will to do so. This revelation to us would require diffusion and simplification to the degree that we would be capable of comprehending it...thus being only a "portrait of God".
This knowledge of god could be imparted in existence itself, that "god's" existence would be self-evident to us in our examination of the universe. We have not yet found self-evidence of god in our examination of the universe. We cannot be sure that if such evidence exists, that our minds would be capable of understanding it, and relating it to god.
The claim of god's direct and purposeful revelation to us in the form of words has existed as long as our history dates; that the "cause" has chosen to reveal to us a "portrait of god" in the form of communication to man, and it's transfer to written or oral language. This purposeful transmission must be meant for a reason, and meant that we can comprehend it. Rationally I can surmise self-evidence of god in such words only if those words revealed truths that were unknowable to those that received them...and that rational men might later be capable of determining the truth of those words. Furthermore it be necessary for self-evident truths to be revealed at the time of the transmission of the "portrait of god" lest men be forced to accept unproven concepts with no reason for doing so; demanding the irrational of rationally created men, an irrational god this would make. Ms.Black&White and I have both touched on the concept of an "irrational god" and what that mean to us. These self-evident truths might come in the form of miracles or acts that defy probability and act in consistency to said transmission.
If those "supposed truths" could not be later verified by future men, and no self-evident miracles are present to make reasonable cause for belief in the their unverified truth, then for future men this transmission would require faith; unreasonable faith. In this case, either that godly transmission was not meant for present man to rationally believe and thus of no importance, was meant to require unrational faith, or only was meant for those who came before us.
So present man must look at the text of these so-called "portraits" and determine the truth of the words or observe self-evident miracles or signs in the sky; thus how these words correspond to the universe that was unknown to the receivers of the revelation.>>
Thanks for your thoughts, Jesi. I worked up a response several days ago but my laptop apparently failed to post it. So here I am again, hoping you had a terrific Thanksgiving, with two questions that form the essence of my response.
My first set of questions is Where do you get this distinction between the natural and supernatural? Can you describe the supernatural, or are we by our very nature incapable of understanding it? If so, how do you know it exists?
When I was at my private religious college trying to figure out whether God exists or I should transfer, it never occurred to me to want to believe in God. My inquiries were purely factual: Does God exist? How can I tell? Does prayer work? etc. I want to discover the Truth, but I work very hard to avoid substituting desire for knowledge.
So my second set of questions is Why do you want to believe in God? Would you be less happy if you didn't believe in God? Why?
Sam Harris, author of the book The End of Faith, has this to say on the subject: "That is the message of all our religions—that death is not a problem. Though you seem to lose everyone and everything you love when you die, you’re going to be reunited with them, or placed in some even better circumstance, as a result of calling God by the right name in the meantime. That is deeply consoling if believed, but you really shouldn’t believe it simply because it’s consoling. For example, say I believe that a diamond the size of a refrigerator is buried in my backyard. If you ask me why I believe that, I would reply, well, it makes me feel good, it gives my life meaning."
By the way, so you know where Dawkins is coming from, he is a zoologist who holds the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. He's written several books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. If you're interested in his work, you can find articles and interviews online.
I did have a terrific Thanksgiving. I hope you did as well.
Where do I get this distinction between the natural and supernatural? I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll give it a stab. It's merely an idea. I've never touched the Great Wall of China, but I know it's there. I may never actually prove its existence in my mind, but I will always believe that it is real. This belief without seeing, touching, tasting, feeling, or hearing, which we do every day, makes one wonder if there are other things that are real without being able to see, touch, taste, feel, or hear it. Anything that lies in that category, then, would be supernatural. Terribly unjust, isn't it? To have an idea of something in your mind and never be able to prove it true, even if you want to. But I could be wrong there. Maybe God can be measured in physical terms, but we just haven't learned how to yet. It doesn't matter. The point is that our current state of nature does not allow us to disprove his existence, because there is nothing that requires that his existence is measurable in human terms.
I cannot describe the supernatural. I don't even know if it exists. In a way, we are incapable of understanding it. Our means of understanding things exist in the natural world. Therefore, if there were anything outside the natural world, we would have no means of describing it. Or maybe we would. I don't know.
I think my whole point was to say that I don't know it exists, but I can't know it doesn't exist.
The problem with your form of study is you believe that you can know if God does or does not exist. Seeking the Truth can be very difficult when you can't break it down into facts. I like the way John Galt put it, "Our science, our tools and methods for rationally analyzing the universe, tell us that nothing created can be greater than its creator. Accordingly lesser creatures are incapable of comprehending or discovering their creator on their own. It is only through that supernatural creatures purposeful relevation [sic] that man can know of god."
Remember, the concept that I want to believe in God comes after my study. No amount of evidence gathering or measurements or even prayer will get me any closer to proving or disproving God. I don't choose to believe every random fantasy that pops into my head, but there is such a desire in humanity to believe in a creator (or creators) that I do not disregard the thought casually. All this belief could just be desperation of the human mind to avoid seeking true understanding, or maybe it is the hand of God reaching out to his creation, trying to communicate to us. I can't prove it either way.
I explained why I want to believe in my essay, "I want to believe that this world, that I take comfort in its ability to be understood, was designed so that I can understand it. The Creator of this world made a place for my existence where I could learn how to be happy." It's sort of like happening across a bouquet of flowers. Lovely, absolutely, but it's different when you are given flowers. They don't simply exist, they were cultivated specifically for you. This world is lovely for humans, and I would rather believe (when no other evidence can give me any more proof either way) that it was cultivated for us out of love than merely a matter of chance.
Would I be any less happy if I didn't believe? No. It doesn't really change how much I enjoy my life as it is. It would change how hopeful I am, however. The universe doesn't spin for me. I exist only for my own benefit. But with God, there is the idea of something significant. There is more to living than what appears on the surface. I wrote about one of my favorite songs once. It's lyrics read:
"You realize the sun doesn't go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round."
Death seems like such a sad thing. Everything that exists with that person, their mind, their love, their work, their being ceases to exist and seems lost forever. However, there is a hope that it is something more; maybe it is just an illusion that the natural world does not let us see.
You Mr. Harris says we shouldn't believe something because it's consoling. True, but he falls into the same fallacy, trying to compare the existence of God to something that can easily be proved or disproved in the physical world. The man doesn't believe in the diamond, he deceives himself into believing something that he could very easily prove false. Grab a shovel and that solves things. The existence of God is an entirely different matter. And there is no connection between a huge diamond and the meaning of life. A universe that is designed exclusively for the purpose of human thought to exist, that implies meaning.
But because the existence of God brings meaning to life doesn't mean it's the only meaning. Perk up those ears, religious folk, 'cause this is important. If tomorrow there were a way for me to know God did not exist, I would not kill myself. It would be disappointing, but I'd get over it and go take some pictures. I'd still hang out with my friends and family, watch movies, and get into fantastic political debates over a Mocha Frappuccino. My life has meaning because I like living it. That's why point #4 is so important. Just because I hope that something interesting is going on outside of my ability to understand this world doesn't change that. And it certainly does not excuse my behavior while I exist in this life.
This is all I'll write right now. Have another stab.
commented on your xanga
Another Take on the Validity of Wanting to Believe…
I disagree that we cannot liken understanding the physical world to understanding God. In many ways understanding creation (whether or not it involves God) is one of the big scientific questions out there right now. I think it is a mistake to liken God to things that we already understand physically, but we can liken God to things we do not yet understand (or, as is the case in my forthcoming example, were not understood at one point).
Let’s flashback to centuries ago when the debate over a round/flat earth was raging. I’m sure sailors at that time who decided to believe that the earth was round found that to be an incredibly comforting thought. No one likes to fall off the edge of the planet. Everything these sailors had personally experienced would lead them to the opposite conclusion though- that the earth is flat. Does this mean that they were wrong to hope/believe the earth was round? Surely most if not all of them were not well educated enough to be able to prove either theory. People of equal levels of education would have been on both sides of the argument. It comes down to belief, does it not?
Essentially, I think the God argument comes down to this- where existence comes from is unknown. The physical proof that something can come from nothing is tedious and inconsistent at best. Additionally, even if that proof is successfully accomplished, the even more arduous task of proving that inanimate matter can spark life waits ahead.
On the other hand, we have this idea of God, a creator. Since it is impossible to prove the existence of said creator or find a satisfying explanation for where He/She/It came from, we arrive at an equally unlikely possibility.
On the plus side for the physical origin argument, even the slimmest possiblity is a possibility, even if it is only the chance that there is a chance. On the plus side for the creator argument, there are centuries of occasional events that would be inexplicable but for the supposed existence of God.
And now Atheists may be swooping in with Occam’s Razor saying, “The simplest explanation is the correct one! Either we cannot explain our existence, or we can explain our existence only through this creator whose existence we cannot explain! Why go that extra step?”
Because, my friends, the earth is round.
The more obvious solution centuries ago was that the earth is flat, not that it is round and there is some seemingly mystical force that keeps us from falling off the bottom.
I propose that the question of God’s existence is no different than any other scientific question that has no current solution. Is there life on other planets? How many dimensions are there? Where did existence come from?
Yes, the most obvious answer is often the correct one, but not always. The possibility of God is simply one of many theories. And that alone makes the choice to believe in God because one wants to a valid one.
I leave you with this: We should not disbelieve something because it is comforting.
Mistake me not. I do not disbelieve or believe in anything because it is comforting. I just have to completely valid options available to me and I want to believe that the world was not spontaneous created. That's not an issue of comfort. That's an issue of mystery. If there is a creator, I like His style. Who is this being? Can I know Him? I think He's left a lot of evidence around to point us in the right direction.
To the matter of a physical presense of God, I will say this: I suppose it is possible for us to prove God exists physically, but I would be surprised if we could. Part of my belief in God struggles with the question of: Well, if He's here, why doesn't He just pop out and preform a miracle. If God, however, does not function in large ways in the physical world, this makes sense. I believe Christianity points towards significant spiritual laws that divide a perfect and entirely good God from communing with those who are sinful. He found a way to fulfill the law, but only in the afterlife. We can communicate with Him through the spirit, but I don't think that He lightly breaks into this world. If He did exist physically, I would have a hard time understanding why He does not make Himself evident all the time. However, I am not so bold as to assume that I can understand the will of God, which is vastly more rational than my short existence allows me to be.
The questio is whether God is science or if He created science. If he created science, He can exist outside of it, and a chang ein human nature could cause Him to be separated from it all together. If He is science, I would just like to know why He isn't tipping His hat around town more often.
To be clear, I in no way mean to imply that God is a physical being. I merely wanted to suggest that although God is markedly different from the physical world, it is valid to apply a scientific process to determine whether or not He created the world.
One possibility is that the world inexplicably began- it created itself. Another is that an entity created it. Both, at this point, are just theories. I think it is valid to choose to believe either.
Science is the study of physical reality. (physical world)If god is markedly seperate from physical reality...then there isn't a logical way to presume that the scientific method would be capable of providing any evidence regarding god.
There are some abstractions that we can consider regarding the nature of god, based off of the nature of the universe as we observe it, but they have little to do with science.
1. The universe seems to operate consistantly according to numerous natural laws; cause and effect. This is the purest form of rational action. We might postulate that only a rational god would create a rational universe.
2. The action of rational god is probably purpose driven. (hence rationality) So this universe probably exists for a purpose. Human beings are by nature a rational creature; our only means of natural survival. A rational god would probably only create other rational creatures for a purpose, and possess a certain affinity for those creatures.
These are philosophical abstractions that might very well paint us a picture of god, but save for god's purposeful relevation to his creatures, that is as far as human beings are capable of knowing of god.
"As if the chair could discover the carpenter on it's own."
Um, the only rationally irrefutable position is niihlism. All religion is a construct of man to explain the world, just as science does... there is no real distinction between the two.. they are jut different methods of explaining the universe and how we fit in it and interact within it. I mean, all religion is myth. people see things in their lives and think, that's some spiritual force. what does that even mean? when you say that the supernatural is somehow different than the natural it's misguided because everything that interacts is connected so we're all just part of the same system... so in a way it is all the natural world... it's just how you define things. Just as we once had myths to explain the wind or a famine or rain or other natural occurances we now have mathematical models... just remember that there's a lot of irrationality in this world.. look at statistics... where you can never prove anything 100%, there is no perfect ruler, no perfect measurement... and that's the nature of the universe. everything is probability. the more you know about an item's velocity the less you know about it's position. so the point here is that rationality and logic are just languages used to describe this world. and since they're languages, there are limitations when new concepts arrise. and i think you all take this too seriously and are making far too many assumptions. nothing's exact and there is no god. plus it really doesn't matter, we're here, and we live. then there's nothing. religion just gives us a place in this world... it's another language.
Dude, I think you've grossly limited the term "rationally." I think nihilism can be refuted. This leads right back to my original argument: Can you know absolutely that God is not real? Can you know absolutely that religion is an abstraction of the mind and not something that was taught? Nihilism is the belief that it is all in our heads, but I will emphasize the word belief. You cannot know, at least not at this time, and therefore it is as irrefutable as the position that God is real.
All of your arguments are based on assumptions about all of existence. You assume that God must be connected in the same system to interact with us. Why? Can the creator of such an expansive universe find a way around such a dilemma?
I love 1 Corinthians 3:19: For the wisedom of this world is foolishness with God. Does that mean that what we gain from this world is meaningless? Absolutely not. I think it means that the wisedom of this world is incomplete compared to the vast knowledge of God. So, yes, I do make assumptions, but I think any thoughts about God are.
I need to go to French. I'll expound at a later time
Post a Comment
<< Home