I have no intent of wandering into religious studies. Reading semi-historical texts of debatable accuracy has nothing to do with whether or not a god exists.
"We may know these things intellectually but we are not strictly speaking able to understand them."
I disagree. Regardless, my point is that people don't even understand their own belief on an intellectual level (as low as you imply that that is).
"BTW, did you know that G-d has a proper name?"
What you mean is that a god of a particular faith as a proper name. The other side of the argument is that any argument for a deity is an argument for multiple deities. Claiming that all other deities are simply an expression of the 'one true deity' (I'm not saying that you're making this claim, but that it is made) is nothing more than an act of conceptual imperialism by the monotheists.
"The only way to understand G-d is through mystical experiences -- that is, it must be experienced."
And the difference between this and random neurons firing is.....?
Just out of curiosity, why do you type G-d? Does this mean the same as God, or the same as Yahweh? Just wondering, I've seen it around the place and never really understood what it's meant to mean! thanks.
I was raised in Ireland, and by 12 was quite seriously considering entering Seminary.
"only to explain why the lack of a full understanding of Him is not an impediment to either His existence or our faith in Him"
Right. And that is an analogous argument to one the schizophrenic makes.
If religious people want to claim they are different from schizophrenics (when the claims of both are otherwise almost identical), then they need to demonstrate the difference.
"they're a bit patronising/vitriolic for my tastes"
"If religious people want to claim they are different from schizophrenics (when the claims of both are otherwise almost identical), then they need to demonstrate the difference."
The same is true of *all* people. If x wants to claim that they are different from y (when a superficial glance (or indepth study) doesn't reveal a difference), then x needs to demonstrate the manner in which they are different from y.
If someone appears to be a schizophrenic, or displays schizophrenic behaviour, yet they don't wish to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, then they need to demonstrate the difference between them and a schizophrenic.
[Edit to clarify: by which I mean everyone involved is simply using the same word, they are not sharing the same concept/idea because the word isn't attached to a concept or idea in any meaningful way.]
You want to use 'G-d' as a proper noun. Fine: proper nouns refer. To what does 'G-d' refer?
If it isn't known to what 'G-d' refers, then 'G-d' ceases to be a reference (due to a lack of referent), and is nothing but noise.
To claim that 'G-d' is unknowable is to implicitly contradict oneself.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
"We may know these things intellectually but we are not strictly speaking able to understand them."
I disagree. Regardless, my point is that people don't even understand their own belief on an intellectual level (as low as you imply that that is).
"BTW, did you know that G-d has a proper name?"
What you mean is that a god of a particular faith as a proper name. The other side of the argument is that any argument for a deity is an argument for multiple deities. Claiming that all other deities are simply an expression of the 'one true deity' (I'm not saying that you're making this claim, but that it is made) is nothing more than an act of conceptual imperialism by the monotheists.
"The only way to understand G-d is through mystical experiences -- that is, it must be experienced."
And the difference between this and random neurons firing is.....?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
"only to explain why the lack of a full understanding of Him is not an impediment to either His existence or our faith in Him"
Right. And that is an analogous argument to one the schizophrenic makes.
If religious people want to claim they are different from schizophrenics (when the claims of both are otherwise almost identical), then they need to demonstrate the difference.
Reply
"If religious people want to claim they are different from schizophrenics (when the claims of both are otherwise almost identical), then they need to demonstrate the difference."
:-)
Reply
The same is true of *all* people. If x wants to claim that they are different from y (when a superficial glance (or indepth study) doesn't reveal a difference), then x needs to demonstrate the manner in which they are different from y.
If someone appears to be a schizophrenic, or displays schizophrenic behaviour, yet they don't wish to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, then they need to demonstrate the difference between them and a schizophrenic.
Ditto for any other y of your choosing.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
[Edit to clarify: by which I mean everyone involved is simply using the same word, they are not sharing the same concept/idea because the word isn't attached to a concept or idea in any meaningful way.]
You want to use 'G-d' as a proper noun. Fine: proper nouns refer. To what does 'G-d' refer?
If it isn't known to what 'G-d' refers, then 'G-d' ceases to be a reference (due to a lack of referent), and is nothing but noise.
To claim that 'G-d' is unknowable is to implicitly contradict oneself.
Reply
Leave a comment