Thanks for the detailed reply, iano. I'm not going to be able to match you in length and detail, I'm afraid, but I'll continue delving into your point of view...
When athiests say they have considered the idea and rejected it, the most frequent basis for saying this is that "there is no objective/empirical evidence". What they have said in essence, is that God is not to be found on terms that they themselves decide are the terms by which God must be found. And if his existance isn't established on those man-defined terms then he doesn't (or likely doesn't) exist.
But on what basis do they think that God must meet their terms?
I think you provided the answer yourself in Message 168:
iano writes:
The question of correct (or true) answers ultimately is not about whether a thing is true for others - no one will believe you for the same reasons that you don't believe them. What matters is what you believe is true. You are the only one who can decide this. No one can do it for you. Others truth cannot be made your own be they creation stories or talk of a causeless origin to the universe.
It seems that if somebody has considered the idea of God and rejected it, be they athiest or former theist, in your view that they either:
- could not have considered it properly (or with an open mind) or
- never have been found God anyway,
and the way to find God is to approach him with an open mind and follow the journey. Could the same conceivably be true for atheism, i.e could it be true that the reason that you are theistic is because you haven't approached atheism with an open enough mind (or "found" atheism, to coin a term)? How can you distinguish between the two (to pre-empt, there exist atheists who, having discovered athiesm would never entertain the notion of embracing theism again)?
If, of course, you do not have an open mind about atheism, then is it fair to say that you think atheists should have an open mind because they lack something that theists already have?
Thus if one experiences previously unknown, personal-to-them absolute truths (and the onus is on themselves not to manipulate grey-truth so that it becomes white (but they'd be only fooling themselves if they did) then the person can be sure that it had to come from something which is outside man. This might cause them to think God.
I don't understand how a personal-to-them truth can be an absolute truth if truth "is always something that exists outside of mans influence".
Its very difficult to be
sure about anything - if somebody's personal truth gave them the Norse creation story, then surely that wouldn't make it true? How do we go about separating an absolutely true personal-to-them truth from a false personal-to-them truth?
The question of whether these 'absolute truths' can be demonstrated to others is irrelevant. The only person that can know this kind of absolute truth is the person themselves. This may sound like a dodge. But if you think about it, you would see that if absolute truths about God could be proven, then there are no more personal searches to embark on. Everybody HAS to believe a surefire proof -without meeting any of Gods criteria (should he have some).
How do you go about demonstrating an 'absolute truth' to yourself? In the examples of absolute truths you gave (speed of light, absolute zero, certainty of death) - these are all concepts where the absolute truth of which can be determined externally (and are in fact dependent on experimental data which could still render them false) - what you seem to be saying is that absolute truths can also be determined internally. If this is the case, how do we resolve the situation where two different people have conflicting "absolute truths"? Presumably, they can't both be true?
In other words, how do you know that your "absolute truth" is THE "absolute truth"?
Humilty means what it says. It means we may have to get down off the throne in deciding what the evidence should be and how the evidence should be evaluated. Like, if God is to be found, it is not unreasonable to expect he might partake in the exercise. Maybe he has some ideas on what evidence is appropriate and how and when it will be presented. We shouldn't exclude the possiblity of his input from our search.
Isn't humility a value-laden term? Some may find it more humble to consider themselves not chosen beings or part of any special creation, for example. Or, similarly, that if a hierarchy of gods exist and mankind is at the bottom of the tree, then that might be the most humble position. I'm guessing therefore that humility is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for keeping an open mind about a creation story. I don't see anything which is particularly brash* about the Norse story. Should it still be considered with an open mind?
PE
* where "brash" = opposite of "humble"
edits for punctuation
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-23-2005 09:24 AM
™ Version 4.2
