Where to find me online

Monday, August 12, 2013

Debates about God do not have to be fruitless

Although theists and atheists can mention numerous things in their attempt to demonstrate how their position is coherent and reasonable, both conclusions are actually very weak. Neither position can sufficiently compel the other because there always remains a reasonable workaround to every point.

Consequently, when they debate with each other, a lot of theists and atheists are actually investing in their conclusions; they're not really discussing the relevant issues. It is as if neither side is comfortable facing the fact that all the arguments both rely upon are weak.

Hopefully as they discuss they can arrive at a point of genuine respect for how the other position, though lacking in a compelling logic, can be held to by a well informed educated thinking person.

Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness ... really!

When two disagree as to what is truth, how do we know which one has suppressed the truth? Many would argue that the very essence of fundamentalism requires a suppression of academic truth in favor of claims that they have divine revelation that trumps science, morality and psychology. 

Atheists could, for well educated reasons, insist that it is the fundamentalist who suppresses truth. 

If truth be truth, it seems to me that no actual truth ever trumps another truth. And furthermore, demonstrated dismissals of truth indict the claim that those of a contrary opinion launch towards alleged suppressors of truth.

Personally, I do not see how the context of Romans chapter 1 applies to the specific statements Atheists make when criticizing the character attributed to God in the text. Many people, such as myself, are highly critical of the biblical texts and would prefer to distance the inconsistent, fallacious, evil found in the text from the God the bumbling authors intended to describe.

The atheist conclusion is only strengthened by the insistence that the biblical text does not often speak of a petty, unjust God, guilty of ethnic cleansing, and unbridled vengeance who acts like a control freak.

There was a day when mankind in his relative immaturity thought such a God made sense. And so it does not surprise me that those who genuinely sensed God's presence centuries ago could so easily assume that such character traits ought to belong to God.

But if theism is to continue to exist, it must arise out of its flat earth era mentality and move forward updating theoretical theology with assumptions more appropriate to mankind's present level of maturity.