Letters to the Editor
-
Ben
And Ben:
I understand that you're not trying to bust my chops when you mention Santa Claus. However, look clearly at what I'm positing:
That there may be an overarching consciousness that can survive outside of the human body.
St. Nick coming down the chimney seems more implausible, but could be measured, and if several billion people fervently believed in his coming down the chimney, and donated money each week toward organizations that anticipated it, I think it would be a positive duty of some scientist somewhere to prove or disprove it. But, of course, serious people don't believe that, for the most part. However, many billions of people have felt and give credence to what they deem as intuitional revelations, whether from God or not. Perhaps these are all delusions, every last one. If it's costing so much in the way of money (to the believers); wasted time (to the atheistic scientists, presuming that God does not exist, or even if God does and the ban on stem-cell research is stupid, as it is, in my opinion); and energy (from atheistic writers who become enervated enough to take their time and anger out writing here, as, let's face it, you and impatient and many others here have). Impatient figures it'll go away on its own. I say this is lazy, when we have the means to disprove these religions, if not to prove them.
Does the consciousness that I posit, outside of the receptacle of the human brain pan, really seem as ridiculous and implausible? Why? If my computer can transfer an unseen, untouchable, inaudible email through thin air, to be reconstituted in another machine similar to my computer, then is it so ridiculous to think that thought might be transferred in a similar way? Remember, before you answer: if you'd written 200 years ago, you would think email was ridiculous too, because you hadn't the tools to measure it. And that was during the Enlightenment. Why implausible, then?
-
It would be easier to disprove logic itself
Anon2: "I didn't mean to imply that the proof of telepathy, for example, would confirm the Abrahamic religions, only that the _disproof_ of it would conclusively _disprove_ Mohammed's channeling of Gabriel, and therefore the entire basis for the Islamic faith."
Unfortunately, the fundamentalist mind does not work that way. You would have to disprove ALL telepathy, if there turns out to be different kinds. And even then, someone who still believes the vagueness of the texts will only counter your proof with yet another evidence-free explanation. "Well, Mohammed channeled the angels using DOUBLE SECRET TELEPATHY!" In other words, it's turtles all the way down, Mr. Smartypants.
The impossible task at hand, unfortunately, is to disprove all of superstition. A pretty big challenge when the adversary is holding the rhetorical magic wand.
-
I don't care what you atheists say!
All the atheist arguments here can't dispell my FAITH that Thor, the Norse god of thunder is constantly watching over me.
Why can't people be agnostic about Thor? You don't have any proof that he doesn't hide behind clouds and initiate thunderstorms. Until you do, I think you better shut up.
People who don't believe in Thor- or deny the possibility that he exists are bigots. But I don't blame them- I just feel sorry that they have Thor missing from their lives. Of course, some of the posters are probably under the influence of Jörmungandr.
People have asked me if I've actually seen Thor, wielding his hammer and travelling in his chariot. That's such a simplistic question- and one I haven't deigned to answer in my 14 books on Thorism and Thoristic philosophy. And don't get me started on Ragnarok! That's completely irrelevant to the wider religious issues.
By the way- I can't stand that arrogant atheist Karen Armstrong. She completely dismisses Thor- as though he doesn't actually exist! Isn't she aware that the Nazis and Communists were atheists too? Even Saddam Hussein didn't believe in Thor. Can you really tell me that if they had let Thor into their lives they would have still killed all those people?
Excelsior!
-
Two sides of the same spiritual coin...or, the knife cuts both ways
"It is really unfortunate that Armstrong left the Catholic Church. I hardly recognized her description of it. But Catholic doctrine, ironically, permeates her comments in the interview."
Would that be the doctrine that condones sexual abuse of children? Or the one that still sells indulgences?
"The rosary offers meditations on different sets of events that comprise the heart and soul of Catholic doctrine. Those events are called "mysteries." No one can explain them. No living person can verify them. One can only meditate on them in order to try to connect with their relevance to one's life and the essence of God."
In my experience I've seen very few Catholics actually 'meditate,' more like repeat the Rosary at the same speed at the disclaimers at the end of used car commercials. Mass to the masses I've spoken with is something to get through, not celebrate.
"Catholicism adopts a critical approach to reading the Scriptures. That is, to accept the essential truths but to read and reflect on the text in the context of the times and the interpretations as passed down through the scriptural and early apostolic traditions. Not even the canonical Gospels are considered to be "all-inclusive" or a comprehensive biography of Jesus Christ."
Yeah, that explains why the Catholic Church is so understanding regarding birth control, women in the ministry, and homosexuality.
"The one thing that is certain to me, in reflecting on this mysterious, perplexing, frustrating, and ultimately fulfilling faith is that none of us can capture the Essence of a limitless God. Jesus often spoke in parables and allusions. Perhaps it was because he sensed that the essence of God was too big for us to grasp, so He used terms and themes that we could understand."
Or perhaps the numerous people writing ex post facto in His name and a few languages removed from English felt the need to write in cute stories since most folks were illiterate up through Luther's time...except royalty and clergy...hmmm?
"Ultimately, the essence of faith is belief without knowledge. I cannot offer any quantitative or ontological proof of a God. You want proof of a carpenter who fed thousands, cured the sick and the blind, and rose from the dead after 3 days? I can't give it to you, player. But I believe in it, and in the Idea of a God that requires constant meditation and personal evaluation."
Nothing here any decent atheist couldn't take apart in maybe 3 minutes, tops. "Belief without knowledge." That would be synonymous with "stupidity."
Thanks for playing. Next time give us a challenge.