Back to Windows...

[Nikolai]

Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:

>> I have thought about it as deep as I possibly could and I have rejected
>> it. Atheism leads to skepticism and skepticism is irrational. I don't
>> think I can embrace an irrational world view (once I know it's
>> irrational of course).
>>

> Not sure I agree with that. What makes perfect sense to me, does not to other 
> people,m and I woudl never claim to be the posessor of truth.

Well, if you are not making any truth claims, why should anybody pay any 
attention to what appears to be as a truth claim (e.g. your belief in 
God)? To say that there's a God out there and then qualify it by saying, 
"I'm not actually saying it's true" reduces your claim to triviality. No 
one should take it seriously, including yourself.


> Religion 
> teaches us to be humble, and that si part of it in m opinion.

Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ehad (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our 
God is one LORD, Deuteronomy 6:4). This is a truth claim for which 
millions of people, Jews and Gentiles, have lost their lives. Being 
humble does not imply embracing competing truth claims, although I would 
also add it doesn't imply exterminating those who make such competing 
claims either.


>>> For me the concept of me believing in a "God" concept is inconceivable.

>> Yet, you have no trouble believing in "Saddam Husein" or any other such
>> concept.
>>

> It is impossible to convince soembody that there is a God. You either believe, 
> or you don't.

True. But so is everything else - you either believe a proposition or 
you don't. Any proposition. Insert there anything you fancy.


> There is nothign rational in belief. It is an inherently 
> illogical process. 

What exactly is illogical in a belief in God? Maybe we have vastly 
different definitions of what is logical? For me, everything that 
conforms to the law of contradiction is logical, i.e. as long as A is 
not non-A, it is logical (I don't want to throw in the pot the law of 
identity and the law of excluded middle, the law of contradiction should 
suffice for this discussion).

For example, it would be illogical from my point of view to accept that 
the street is wet because it was raining if the argument is:

if the street is wet, it must have been raining
the street is wet
therefore, it must have been raining

This is utterly illogical (yet this is precisely how modern science 
operates). Perhaps you have a different idea of what is logical or 
illogical? Maybe you can share it?


>>> I've tried, but I'm quite a logical person and the logic of belief for
>>> the sake of belief seems like Lunacy to me.

>> It is lunacy, yes, you're correct. If, however, you're a logical person
>> (whatever that means), maybe you could briefly outline what sort of
>> logical problems you're having with what you have called a concept of God?
>>

> I coudl outline some of that oens I have, as a believer. I am Jewish. I find 
> it inconceivable that God allowed the Holocaust to occur, and yet he did. We 
> are his chosen people (according to oru Torah) and yet he allowed one of the 
> greatest crimes of history to be perpetrated on us. 

Perhaps you should re-read the book of Isiah, in particular something 
like 46:10 where the Lord declares "...My counsel shall stand, and I 
will do all my pleasure..." and further. If God is sovereign, as He 
claims to be ("my counsel shall stand" clause), the concept of 
"allowing" is totally foreign to Judaism as well as Christianity. It is 
according to His will the events of history unfold and pondering over 
why He "allowed" this or that to happen is utterly fruitless and 
inevitably leads to despair. The question you and I should be asking 
instead is, what has gone wrong with us for these terrible things to 
unfold? Perhaps the answer could be found somewhere here (a rather long 
quote, sorry):

But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be 
drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye 
shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over 
Jordan to go to possess it.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set 
before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, 
that both thou and thy seed may live:
That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his 
voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the 
length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD 
sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give 
them. (Deuteronomy 30:17-20)


> I do not believe that 
> belief in a God is such a simple thing as to be easily demnonstrable (or at 
> all).


Again, as I already mentioned, it all depends on what sort of 
demonstration is demanded. If someone wishes the sun to stand still as 
it did at the battle of Gibeon, then I'm afraid I cannot produce this 
kind of demonstration. But there's nothing illogical to accept as an 
axiom of one's world view a proposition "The Bible alone is the word of 
God." Neither it is illogical to accept any other proposition for that 
matter. Question is, can you defend a world view erected on a 
proposition "There is no truth" or "All knowledge must be verifiable by 
sensory experience?"


>> As far as proof is concerned, it all depends on what kind of proof
>> you're after. Usually, if not always, people demand one kind of proof
>> from those who defend Christianity all the while accepting different
>> kinds of proofs from everybody else. For example, the accounts of
>> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rejected as fantasy all the while
>> similar accounts, and much less attested for, can be easily accepted in
>> a court of law as long as there are no miracles in them. But question
>> is, on what basis the miracles are rejected as impossible while the
>> possibility of miracles is precisely what is at stake? Can you see a
>> problem here?
>>

> There is a problem with the evidence proided in the gospels. Whiel it is 
> evidence:
> a) it is secondary (they were all written well after jesus' death)
> b) There is absolutely no corroborating evidence.

Your a) doesn't diminish the account of those who claimed to witness, or 
in the case of Luke and Mark, to record a witness' account. The death of 
the account's subject (Christ in this case) doesn't render the gospels 
untruthful just like the death of Tolstoy doesn't discount an 
autobiography of his written after he died. Question is, is the account 
truthful (both of Christ's life and Tolstoy's)? In the case of the 
gospels, since they were written shortly after the events took place, 
plenty of opportunities were available to refute those accounts. Where 
are these refutations? (please note though, the lack of such refutations 
doesn't prove the accounts are truthful)

As to your b), you're asking for impossible. Are you expecting the 
authorities of the day to chronicle the events that took place in Judea 
during Christ's ministry? Besides, there are 4 different, detailed 
accounts of what had happened, followed by further testimonies of 
certain influential Jewish theologian who started off as a menace to 
Christians and ended up, after an encounter on the road to Damascus, to 
be the greatest Christian expositor of Jewish scriptures. I'm talking 
about Paul of course. On what basis all of this should be tossed out as 
worthless lies? If there's such a basis, the accounts of Moses should be 
tossed out just as well (which will destroy Christianity just as well as 
Judaism).


> Please note, I am not saying that they are wrong, merely that their veracity, 
> like that of almost any religious text, cannot be verified.


I think I already said enough about verifying. It's a matter of what is 
and what is not accepted. Ultimately though, all truth claims are 
accepted on faith, i.e. you either believe a proposition or you don't. 
Of course so called evidence can and often does play a role but at the 
end of the day people either believe a proposition or they don't.


>> I'm not sure what you're referring to by "atrocities".
>>
> crusades, forced conversions, spanish inquisition, 9/11, the middle east 
> conflict, pogroms, religiosu wars between Catholics and Protestants, the list 
> is almost endless.

Well OK, murder is forbidden, as far as I know, everywhere on Earth, 
yet, people still murder one another. Does it mean that the laws 
forbidding murder are hypocritical? Or is it rather has to do with 
people who disregard the law?

Nikolai