–noun
the state of being dull; lethargy.
~~~~~~~
Our discussions in class today were centered around Christianity and Jesus’ message. A lot of the dialogue helped to prune images of the Bible as a constant message (which few of us seemed to believe), and iron out Christian ideals. Throughout the entire discussion, though, and perhaps because it would have shifted focus too drastically, never once was the possibility of God’s nonexistence brought to the table.
Our discussion assumed that God existed. In the course of the Q&A, this was not necessary, as the question regarding Christian ethics/Jesus’ message and how they were applied to modern Christian. However, I feel it an absolutely necessary topic of discussion not only for the issues presented in class, but for human nature. Most certainly, our natures would vary incredibly with or without the hand of God.
We all seemed in relative agreement that at least occasionally the Bible was not an authoritative source of truth. Objections were levied as to who wrote the book, how we can trust the accuracy of such an old document, and the many places in which it contradicts itself. But on a larger level, what proof do we have beyond this document (as we’ve already questions the supposed proofs within it) to believe there is a God?
Indeed, a critical or scientific analysis of the world reveals no proof or need for a God. Many places that God was thought to be and many things he was thought to control have been explained through a rational lens. It would seem, in no uncertain terms, that the advancement of rational thinking has produced less and less proofs for God.
While I will probably at some point individually parse them, the ideas of Hell, micromanagement, miracles, supernatural phenomenon, personal revelation and natural proofs for God all fall flat under rational scrutiny. The only place left for God is to be the cause behind the effect of the universe—in other words, the hand that sprung the Big Bang. And even in this instance, though it is certain that there was a cause for that effect, it is not clear or reasonable to assume that that effect was God.
Some might question the veracity of a scientific way of thinking—in fact, this is probably the most common complaint against such clear evidence. But as I suspect (and hope) we will discuss in class, there seems no train of thought more suited to the endeavor of truth. For us to place our trust in faith, we are allowing truth to devolve into something wholly dependent on personal interpretation, a lack of conclusive evidence, and the imagination. It seems to me that truth emerges from demanding of oneself a reason to believe, and that a lack thereof is not virtue.
To round this up, I think instead of discussing details about the Bible, it would be more conducive to question the whole thing, and while we’re at it, the existence of God.
I am already suspecting, however, that there will be no small divergence of opinion. This is my eighth philosophy seminar at MCLA, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered one like ours before.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
2 comments:
Perhaps the (relatively) unlimited nature of the subject explains the apparent diversity of viewpoints.
The so-called cosmological argument for God -- grounded in the idea that all things must have a cause -- self-inconsistently describes God as the "first" (uncaused) cause. The argument fails by its own lights.
Indeed, I'm almost certain that imagination itself is part of our nature, and lends to the belief that the unlimited aspect of it robs the possibility of truth. As Carl Sagan once said, "Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we will go nowhere."
Perhaps now is a good time for me to step back and revel in all the good that imagination can provide. It is through it that we have truth at all--it starts the entire train of thought, science and critical thinking are only filters through which the false is plucked and the truth left bare. I have not sufficiently stressed the importance of imagination to human nature, I think, as in many cases, it proves far more inherent than a need or desire for truth.
Post a Comment