For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[Responding to John Lombard who was responding to ctss.]
Just how well do we understand gravity?
Giving up the conception that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects when presented with evidence to the contrary, is reasonable.
But that is all. It is an adjustment in one’s understanding of the nature of gravity.
This is just a new conception. We will always be adjusting that conception.
Gravity itself is an aspect of nature. Adjusting our understanding of gravity adjusts our understanding of the nature of nature.
This process also applies to the phenomena generically referred to as God. i.e. The origin and ongoing sustainment of nature along with the subjective relationship to it.
“Either there is a god, or there is not. It is impossible for BOTH claims to be true.”
is just like believing heavy objects fall faster.
brmckay responding to mason – “I too am grateful for my guitar and it’s potential to reveal new vistas. (is this faith?)”
Kevin Osborne – “I have a Guild D-35 I bought 44 years ago. Guitar is muscle memory to Glen Campbell. creation for Pat Metheny, and why I’m still alive for Keith Richards. Faith is knowing there is more, my experience.”
Yes! And without it, why practice?
Tom Swayer responding to BeaverTales – “I dont believe he [Mark Twain] was an Atheist but he certainly had troubles reconciling with the idea of a God when he more then most of us could see how evil the world can be. In the end I think Twain was an agnostic. However, slightly leaning towards Theism.”
Tom Rapsas the moderator responding to Tom Swayer – “Yes, that is a fair call. I’ve come to believe that the truth about Twain’s faith exists in the hazy middle ground; he is neither atheist or true believer. Thanks. ~Tom”
Too honest to declare God dead.
UserBaines – “Only very few atheists discount altogether the possibility that some entirely unknowable prime mover exists, or even if they do, this is not the important substantive component of their underlying philosophy with regard to religion.”
Then there needs to be a finer grain of distinction to describe the type of individuals who fall outside your interpretation of atheism.
I’ve been engaging with them for several years and there seems to to be plenty to go around. They are recognizable by their rabid insistence that the fingers of religion are the moon of God.
Any attempt to provide the rudiment of insight required for stepping out of THAT maze, is greeted with cries of WOO!
[Responding to UserBaines’s response to the above.]
I’ll have to start with the disclaimer that the Mark Twain I have read, has been for amusement, and not with an ear for these issues. Based on what I’ve been reading on this blog, I am now looking for a copy of “The Mysterious Stranger”.
I liked your refreshingly clear understanding of your own position. And only have a couple of points to bring up. You have possibly already considered them, but I’ll put it out there just in case.
“Is scripture divine revelation or is it human creation?”
My take is that the human hand will always be in evidence, but this does not in anyway remove the hand of the divine.
This statement is based on my understanding of the ultimate nature of God as All. Not removed from creation.
We human beings have a certain (and evolving) potential to reflect upon, and to express that nature.
God being All, the relationship is ultimately seamless. Though we are prone to an atomized field of perception, it is not a true limit of our potential, or an indication of our fundamental nature.
“Holding religion to the same standard that I hold any other series of beliefs or claims, I have to conclude that religion itself was made by man, whether an unknowable god (the only sort that, strictly speaking can exist) exists or does not.”
As there have been geniuses in all fields of interest, there have been geniuses in this area as well. Their legacy deserves our attention.
As for God being unknowable, that would only apply from an isolated and atomized identification with the body and it’s mind. Which, is not a true limitation.
Without an interest in understanding God, not much of real and lasting value will be “understood”.
Otherwise, ambivalence, antipathy, or even “scepticism and parsimony” set the stage. Such unintegrated understanding being but a flimsy, and transitory thing.