Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

44922Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or, how society fails to work

Expand Messages
  • nitaisundara
    Aug 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      > Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion
      always goes
      > onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,
      meaning, law,
      > etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and
      Nietzsche do
      > here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'
      will not be
      > any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in a
      > room.
      > My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think that
      there is
      > a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite big
      ear and
      > blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive (and
      > primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any
      other sky god touted
      > by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how such
      a belief
      > dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether little
      > will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky
      daddy watching
      > over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will
      > absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it
      > No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is
      absurd, if
      > not irrational and insane.
      > Wil
      Wil, do you suppose that you have taken the strictly rational and sane
      stance in proclaiming your atheism? Both theists and atheists are
      persons of faith. For either view to be adhered to one is committing
      the logical fallacy of "negative proof" (X is true because X can not
      be proven to be false, and visa versa). Agnosticism is the only
      strictly rational stance in this regard. I am interested to here
      others' thoughts on this point.

      Furthermore, as an adherent to a monotheistic Vedantic tradition, I
      can say, at least in regards to my own practice, it is not inherently
      a problem that my tradition requires some trans-rational adherence.
      This is so on account of the concept of grace. How might an atheist
      harmonize their deviation from reason, considering the phenomenal
      world is the all-in-all?

      I feel it important to note that many atheists I encounter including
      many on this list seem to be narrowly reacting to only Abrahamic
      traditions. Your "blame-meister.....sky god" comment illustrates the
      point. It is the responsibility of any practitioner of a tradition and
      all deep thinkers in general to separate the essential philosophical
      propositions of a given tradition from the sociocultural baggage that
      is no doubt attached to every tradition. Vedanta in particular I find
      to be an incredibly rich and analytical philosophy and theology,
      whereas I must agree in many ways to the negative reactions to
      "western" traditions which are notably less comprehensive.

      Logic and reason are not objective, they are colored by our own
      desires. I absolutely do believe in objective reality, but it is not
      ascertained via the whimsy of our minds. Arguably, a deity in the sky
      is more rational than making a deity of one's own reasoning
      capacity...at least we don't have experience of the "sky-god's"
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic