'Requirements' for atheists to provide logical support for their belief may be an unreasonable expectation. I would not ask such. I merely point out that beliefs unsupported logically may not have validity. A free-floating belief without logical foundation is good enough in modern economic governance I think, at least in Washington D.C.
If the federal government had required that 25% of all gold and silver taken from federal lands went to the government before royalties Fort Knox might be better off today. If atheists realized they had no logical way to prove atheism there might be fewer.
There is a certain pragmatism requisite for philosophers I think. The possibility of a Creator of all things is implicit in the experience of being even if social knowledge increases over time surpassing prior beliefs about causality. One might not want to use sophism to skirt meaningful questions though one must decide if the questions are meaningful.
I recollect sailing a boat and waking up in the cockpit facing the stern. Being in Montana a few days before I was a little out of place and thought the boat was nearly below the surface and I had about thirty seconds before being in the drink-then I realized the situation. Yet as Captain of a small boat one must always be aware of any circumstance, odd noise or whatever-one cannot just disregard any kind of question as unimportant, for the boat may really be in jeopardy.
Living in the Universe could be a critical event with eternal significance though some may not be aware or regard it as such. I have noticed that bureaucracy and establishment in comfort prefer a certain changeless mileau of power and are unconcerned with transcendental concerns (they can probably evolve to the top anyway). Civilizations have collapsed because of the inability to recognize or reform, react to and respond rightly to reality.
Transcendental thought about God isn't dependent upon science or the state of the art of empirical knowledge. Empiricists have now and then sought to make belief in God contingent upon some out-dated physical cosmology or other.
Bertrand Russell took such positions on philosophical questions, yet with W.V.O. Quine one might place philosophical and theological questions within lexical ontology or sets with certain meanings. Obviously some not sharing a given lexicon have the potential for disputing the validity of some lexical sets as meaningful.
Russell working on the Principia Mathematica wasn't inclined, like many scientists today, to give meaning to non-empirical word constructions. One may still use logic to help understand what for some might be regarded as metaphysics, however if one remain purely an empiricist their are probably limits to inferences one might make about being.
One cannot disprove the existence of God. You seemed to agree with that concept, then say that it is not 'what is called for', as if one might or should be able to look into a pluralistic nature of God (more than The Trinity) as one might regard the parts of an automobile from the ground up in order to discover that it is a Car.
I do not believe that people need to comprehend or understand God any more than one needs to understand Einstein's thought process to appreciate G.R. The Son was on Earth and He we may understand well enough through the historical life and works given in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think it is helpful that contemporary cosmology provides many helpful criteria for thinking about the Universe as an entirety, and its simple enough to think of a Divine Being in relation to what one knows or infers of the actual Universe.
Modal logic Universes in infinite number can be considered as one means of God's permutations of purpose in creating worlds or souls to share experience with Him in the eternal mystery of being (not a mystery only for God I think). Yet if an infinite number of Universe can be created in place, or always existed because God is omnipotent and omnipotent-what would be wrong with that, and why should people limit God's potential to simple causal processes that they understand with contemporary physics?
If the entire Universe were given a quantum scale and adjusts from large to small with expansions and contractions exploiting retro-causality because of directional anisotropy of space-time development, would that sort of philosophical cosmology trivia mean that one cannot consider a detached Spirit transcending the quantum disposition of energy or space or of the relationship of the Spirit to one-self?
While physics and physics lexicons may not be up to describing Spirit or the Creator that does not mean that philosophically and theologically minded people can't try a little (even if inaccurately). It is better than living an unexamined life trusting merely that politicians will evolve moral positions before the end of a second term of office and trillions of dollars of public debt.
No comments:
Post a Comment