Response to Religious Epigraphs

“Reason can only get you so far in life and it has limitations. At some point we have to acknowledge that there is something beyond us which many would call divine.”

That “many” would call divine, and not “all” call divine, is problematic. That a percentage of unconvinced people exist is reason enough not to have to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.

“You just have to take it on faith that God exists and created the universe.”

Why?

“I believe it because the Bible says it.”

The Bible is a text written with the intention of having people “believe it.” That it has done so for centuries is proof of the power of language. Contrarily, language written on paper is not validation of the supernatural.

“Dear Science, whilst you were busy creating weapons of mass destruction capable of blowing entire civilizations into the history books in a single moment, I was feeding thousands of people in food banks. I kinda think you need a new hobby. Yours, Religion.”

The science of growing food in America has contributed enormously to the feeding of the world. Without science, there would be no way to fill such food banks. Aside from this point, presenting the conundrum that both science and religion can be manipulated by both good and evil intentions, this does not make the realm of the supernatural a reality.

“Don’t you people realize the question is even more complicated, i.e. What is God? No one has a monopoly on the truth.”

In the absence of such a monopoly, any construction of what God could possibly be, remains just that, a construction.

“Why can’t science and religion just get along? Science and religion do not have to contradict each other. Science asks ‘how’? religion asks ‘why’? The Bible says that God created the Universe, science says the Universe started in a Big Bang. I see no contradiction if God started the Big Bang.”

No passages in any religious texts ask anything. They tell everything. Science, actually, asks both. Additionally, referring to God in the third person situates this entity in the realm of second hand representation.

“Jesus died for you.”

Jesus could not have possibly known who I am. The idea that the men of Valley Forge died for me is much more coherent, seeming how I live in a country in which I don’t have to believe that Jesus died for me, and still live to tell everyone about it.

“The mind is far too complex to simply cease to be.”

Self-aggrandizement. The ability to think, with consciousness of such thoughts, does not entitle a state of existence with access to the supernatural.

“Is Christ’s presence really blocked from our senses? It takes a true belief, and being conscious in the moment, to truly make something of the miracle of the True Presence.”

Distinguishing a regular presence from a “true” presence is the same as attempting to distinguish a regular belief from a “true” belief. Both are tautological, and neither of them, being rhetorical schemes, validate the belief or presence of anything. But if the suggestion here is that one should simply let their thoughts ride a lofty wave of supreme willingness to believe in something that cannot be seen, this is both, a form of delusion (which sadly sounds negative), but is also something that can only happen in the mind, which makes it a construction.

“It’s not about religious dogma, it’s about a relationship with God, and what he wants for us.”

Relationships involve more than one individual. In this case, if you desire to be faithful in your half of the relationship, then much is about religious dogma. However and again, the problem of referring to God in the third person is indicative of an absence. When a second party is not available for comment, they must be represented. Representation leads to construction; construction is subjective. As one claim has pointed out, no one has a monopoly on the truth. Ironically, if God existed, no such monopoly would need to exist; we would all know what God is, and what he wants.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, LIfe, Politics, Psychology, religion, science. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Response to Religious Epigraphs

  1. Awesome post. Looking forward to more.

  2. phtasmagoria says:

    Thank you, and you can count on it.

  3. unsavorytruths says:

    Profound thoughts here. I can’t help reading this and wishing I could somehow email it to my past self.

  4. phtasmagoria says:

    Thank you.

    According to Looper, time travel will become illegal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s