Forgive me if the following doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm kind of tired but I want to respond to this.
At the end of the day, there has to be a leap of faith, quite simply because the opposite is possible.
I agree that being an athiest requires a leap of faith. That's why half of the time I say that I'm agnostic.
You simply assume that "religion" is a system of worship. Which, of course, is nonsense. I put it to you that religion, if you want to include such a phenomenon as Buddhism in its definition, is simply this: a doctrine that explains life and existence.
I disagree. Religion is a system of worship. A belief system is a doctrine that explains life and existence. For example, my current belief system is Darwinism and the Big Bang theory. That explains life and existence. We exist because we evolved. You cannot possibly call Darwinism or the Big Bang theory 'religious' theories. Just because a religious theory explains life and existence, does not mean that ALL theories that explain life and existence are religious.
What I mean is: even if I managed to show you, with all my skills and experience as a historian, that the early Christian documents are, as I believe they are, records of fact, even if you accepted as a fact that they were written in the first century, you would still have one resort open to you: "I don't believe it."
Well, documents are documents. People lie. If I saw with my own eyes, Christ being killed and then him walking again a few days later, then I would believe. Provided, of course, that people around me didn't tell me that I was insane and lock me in a mental institution. If you showed me the early documents, I would accept that yes, Jesus was a person. Yes, there was a lot of faith in him. Yes, he did good things. But him as a son of God beggars rational belief.
You ask me to examine the facts rationally. Okay. Suppose you showed me the documents. I accept that they exist. I accept that the people who wrote it believed in what they were writing. I accept Jesus existed. However, rationally, I have never seen anybody rise from the dead. I have not ever seen of miracles that have been scientifically proven. So rationally, I cannot accept the doctrine of Christianity despite the fact I accept that the documents are authentic.
Christianity is not the Church buildings, or the clergy, or the laity, or the daily and weekly rituals; these are, at best, its manifestations.
Part of this is accurate. Yet, the buildings, the clergy, the rituals, they all represent Christianity. Without them, Christianity is just a nebulous concept that isn't differentiated from Islam, Hinduism, etc.
When Ayla Pascal declares herself dissatisfied with the current state of mankind and hopes in some sort of eugenic revolution
*blink*
I don't believe I've ever expressed those sentiments. Not in those precise words anyway. I do wish that humans would be better people though.
In other words, the one thing that you cannot reasonably do is exclude the possibility of a true religion.
Again, if you take religion to be a belief system then I give to you my true 'religion': Science.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-06 10:48 am (UTC)At the end of the day, there has to be a leap of faith, quite simply because the opposite is possible.
I agree that being an athiest requires a leap of faith. That's why half of the time I say that I'm agnostic.
You simply assume that "religion" is a system of worship. Which, of course, is nonsense. I put it to you that religion, if you want to include such a phenomenon as Buddhism in its definition, is simply this: a doctrine that explains life and existence.
I disagree. Religion is a system of worship. A belief system is a doctrine that explains life and existence. For example, my current belief system is Darwinism and the Big Bang theory. That explains life and existence. We exist because we evolved. You cannot possibly call Darwinism or the Big Bang theory 'religious' theories. Just because a religious theory explains life and existence, does not mean that ALL theories that explain life and existence are religious.
What I mean is: even if I managed to show you, with all my skills and experience as a historian, that the early Christian documents are, as I believe they are, records of fact, even if you accepted as a fact that they were written in the first century, you would still have one resort open to you: "I don't believe it."
Well, documents are documents. People lie. If I saw with my own eyes, Christ being killed and then him walking again a few days later, then I would believe. Provided, of course, that people around me didn't tell me that I was insane and lock me in a mental institution. If you showed me the early documents, I would accept that yes, Jesus was a person. Yes, there was a lot of faith in him. Yes, he did good things. But him as a son of God beggars rational belief.
You ask me to examine the facts rationally. Okay. Suppose you showed me the documents. I accept that they exist. I accept that the people who wrote it believed in what they were writing. I accept Jesus existed. However, rationally, I have never seen anybody rise from the dead. I have not ever seen of miracles that have been scientifically proven. So rationally, I cannot accept the doctrine of Christianity despite the fact I accept that the documents are authentic.
Christianity is not the Church buildings, or the clergy, or the laity, or the daily and weekly rituals; these are, at best, its manifestations.
Part of this is accurate. Yet, the buildings, the clergy, the rituals, they all represent Christianity. Without them, Christianity is just a nebulous concept that isn't differentiated from Islam, Hinduism, etc.
When Ayla Pascal declares herself dissatisfied with the current state of mankind and hopes in some sort of eugenic revolution
*blink*
I don't believe I've ever expressed those sentiments. Not in those precise words anyway. I do wish that humans would be better people though.
In other words, the one thing that you cannot reasonably do is exclude the possibility of a true religion.
Again, if you take religion to be a belief system then I give to you my true 'religion': Science.