Helm : just reread what I write perhaps.
Sure, I'll do that.
my definition of Religion is as objective as it can be :
You use 'objective' in a very strange manner. I guess it must be your personal lexicon. I will re-read what you write to learn your language some other time, perhaps.
You have a way of always misinterpreting everything I say in extremely negative ways, and I just don't know how to avoid this.
I'm sorry you feel that way. As to how to avoid this, you'd have to realize what a conversation is first. I'll keep re-reading until you do.
I don't claim to be an expert in it, and honestly I really loath the subject.
Well it's not very pleasant to realize that everything is inherently subjective and that there is no truth, is it?
You may claim not to take 1+1=2 as a binding proposition, but you can only say that to support a philosophical argument. In the real world you depend on this proposition every day just to process the world around you, as do we all. When we stop talking and look at practical reality we find that truth exists. If you tried living your life liberated from the notion that 1+1=2, you would not survive.
No, see here's what it is: Of course I will take 1+1=2 as an applicable model since I am sitting here in front of my computer which is made of this binary logic model. But inside of me I know to approach any 'handy' thing that rests on 'handy' truths with a boulder of salt because these things have been shown again and again to be mutable, to be evolving. There is no 'truth' because there is no objectivity of any kind, everything you experience is only what you experience, there is no way to be certain that it's exactly as other people experience it. This is not an academic matter for me, it has really helped me live better to approach reality with this existential humbleness. I think it's a very big neurosis of the modern human that he believes that because he made motor cars and computers and rockets, he now holds in his hands some ever-dependable axiomatic truths. It leads to all sorts of problems for him, this hybris. It's the other side of the God hybris, in a way.
I'm having a really hard time following you through this paragraph. Are you saying that since we can't transplant ourselves into other creatures' experiences, we don't have the authority to claim the existence of God? Not a challenge here, but a request for clarification.
I am saying that since we can't transplant ourselves ANYWHERE but inside of where we are, we can only draw flimsy, empathic parallels between oneself and the outside world and that therefore words are not the way in which something like a 'God' can be approached.
And if he can only be approached through personal experience, then he is not something that should be talked about as if his traits are a matter of public consciousness.
Furthermore, a scientific model, which is useful for interpreting reality in comfortable ways doesn't seem to allow for the overspill of an endless God. The scientific model is not proof that God doesn't exist as the model itself is highly debatable. It is just proof that if you enjoy working within this scientific model to interpret reality, whatever this 'God' being is, does not factor in. You can't have your pie and eat it too.
Science and faith have very different roles. Not opposing. Complimentary. And separate.
When it comes to the human psyche I posit that there are no 'COMPLEMENTARY BUT SEPARAAAATE' effects. I'm sure the part of your brain that deals with a faith in a higher being also deals with an enduring reliability that gravity will be in effect tomorrow. These things make you feel safe, and the search for safety in the animal is holistic, whether it is self-aware or not.
I dislike this often-said quote where science and faith are separate but equal. It seems to me that the people that say this have not looked into what epistemological weights science carries very carefully and are just saying 'MY kind of science, the docile and handy one, not that other one where God doesn't factor in'. I'm not saying you cannot pick and choose, your language is your own and do whatever you want with it, no shame etc etc. Just be honest about it. If the second law of thermodynamics exists in your model of reality, then there is no God. If your god is outside the universe, then he is useless and creates an infinite who-created-the-creator-regress.
So if you saw God face to face you would consider him a hallucination? Are you sure you're unbiased regarding the possibility of his existence?
Yes I am not biased because you see, the probability of a God existing is so small in a thermodynamic universe where if I were to sit face to face with him I'd have to consider all the other (and I mean ALL) more probable scenarios for what I am experiencing before I reach for the 'there is no conservation of energy after all!!' card. Do you understand this scenario I am presenting? I can restate it in such a way: I may take some drugs and see God in all his glory. Then I may come off of the drugs. Should I consider it more probable that I was hallucinating or that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't exist after all?
Also I must say I'd be very disappointed in my subconsciousness if it presented me with a God on the moment of death. I'd have strongly rathered it would present me with visions of carnal excess and happyness, so I may slip into nothingness without these burdens that a highly religious society has impressed on me at a young age. Shame on them for shaping minds in such a way that one may not enjoy their own deaths
Again... this is getting into personal beliefs which would be a bad turn for this discussion to talk. Although I'd be happy to dialogue about that privately. I will say that Christian concepts of afterlife, eternal judgment, etc. are some of the most complicated aspects of my faith and the grossly condescending and inaccurate cliff-notes versions that are commonly passed around are, for lack of a better word, vulgar and embarrassing.
I don't know how your personalized vision of the afterlife or hell looks like, but as long as unrepentant sinners feel some degree of uncomfort for all eternity in it, let me tell you that it's probably embarassing and vulgar for me too. But feel free to expound on some different sort of hell you have in mind.
There are points where supernatural attributes have been credited to natural occurrences, yes. Just as emotions were once thought of as stemming from the heart. Our understanding of the universe changes with time. But again, the fact that God's hands don't manipulate the sun through the sky has nothing to do with whether or not He could exist.
But as more and more is 'explained' (I stress the '' s because as I said I don't think science 'explains' anything, but it does provide a handy model) through science, then what use is your God anymore? Even if he exists, who should care? The use of a God is from my point of view clearly a psychological one, and I won't say it's BAD that people need the metaphysical shoulder to cry on, I certainly cry on different shoulders too from time to time. I just don't think these shoulders should be justified and agreed upon universally as to be existing before you can do your crying. Cry on your great great grandfather's ghastly shoulder, that's far less thermodynamically insulting. He won't mind. He will comfort you also. But a freakin' GOD? Creator of the universe? HE'S the one whom you summon? Isn't that the worst hybris in the world?
I've felt more comfort (not to mention awe) by looking at my little cat cleaning its fur than I've ever felt pondering religion, for one, so it's hard for me to understand where you're coming from, but if you can provide for me some other motivation for summoning the biggest thermodynamic fault you could ever in existence besides emotional support, I'd love to hear it. Cuz
The questions you ask, "Where did we come from?" - "Where are we going" - "What should we do?" - those of us who profess faith in God do not have such simple, trite answers to those questions as what you listed on our behalf. God is the launching pad for the long difficult journey of discovering the answers, not a cop out to avoid them.
You're stalling here and also
Been there and done that. Self examination and faith are two things that tend to co-habitate. If you're searching for an ulterior motive for my advocating God's existence, you won't find one. My belief in God isn't so that He will like me... that's silly because if I didn't believe in Him it wouldn't matter whether He likes me or not. My belief in God isn't because it makes me feel better about life; in fact many times my beliefs has caused me to look at life quite harshly. My belief in God is not an act of will but a culmination of every experience and all the knowledge that I have obtained up until this point.
here. You're telling me I'm wrong in my assumptions (fair enough) but you're not presenting the truth about why you need your thermodynamically challenged God. Those bits of personal information you're hesitating to present to me are what I'm ultimately interested in. I don't want to challenge your faith in the least, really. I want to understand you.