Harris also brought up the point that 44% of America believe that within the next 50 years, Jesus is going to sweep down from the skies and save the world like a superhero. And of course he states this effects the social policies that we create, the wars that are waged and overall define society. Furthermore he states that most people also believe in the "God" who says that martyrdom is a direct to pull to heaven and that condoms are evil. He says that because of the respect for religious authority we cannot call a spade a spade and criticize the church for their sanctions. Isn't that what you've just done, Mr. Harris? But again, the point is being missed. What Harris is arguing about are the dogmas that have been created by the political church. (Political in the sense of being related to the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental body). Christianity and religion in its truest essence should be related to the living God, the Holy Spirit that guides us. As humans we are not designed to exactly understand the ways in which God works in our lives, we can know it by faith. To get stuck in theories and semantics is just silly; it is the same as saying I cannot breathe in oxygen because I do not understand how it is processed by my lungs. People were breathing long before this was understood. But even so, as I mention earlier, people are fallable, and our own dogmas are fallable. Living a Christian (and religious) life is far more than following and criticizing rules, it's accepting that which you cannot see - if we could openly explain it all away of have a concrete set of rules we would be trying to bypass its very function in our lives.
Regardless of the biases any of you readers have, I urge you to consider yourself what you think when it comes to all this. Are we expecting too much to want to have all the "good reasons" ready and available? Personally, I'm glad to accept that I don't know everything and that not everything has an explanation. It's nice to have certain mysteries. I do not go to a play to see the director, as soon as he steps on stage the theatricality is interrupted. In the same way, I do not expect to see God physically in this life because, as C.S. Lewis says, "When the author steps on to the stage the play is over".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Felic,
I'm not going to turn your comment thread into a rebuttal. Not my business. I think you did an alright job attempting to address his points. Though, I think that to get a better sense of his arguments you might want to read his book. Obviously he's editing for time and content on comedy show.
As for the historical worthiness argument. Comparing historical figures who wrote down their arguments etc and have had volumes and volumes of material written about them by contempories is vastly different than the accounts in the Bible. A better comparison would be someone like Socrates, who wrote nothing down himself, and relied on disciples to relate his teachings. My two cents.
Either way, as we both know, religion comes down to faith. Either you have it, or you don't. I think most atheists would argue that the argument of religion doesn't hold for them. I guess it comes down to where you put the burden of proof.
It's a good debate at any rate.
Chris "The Atheist"
I'm a fairly liberal atheist in terms of it doesn't hurt me any you choose to believe. Believe what makes sense for you and your life. I would never try to argue anyone out of it (I did, I confess question believing friends in the past, but mostly because I don't understand it so I was trying to gain an understanding.) because I don't want to be prostylized to either. I view Christianity and most beliefs in God similar to how I view the Greek Gods... nice theory and in 3,000 years from now what will people on Earth believe in. The only thing I take issue with is the politicalizing of religion and beliefs and the forcing of one groups' morals on another.
Post a Comment