You're missing a lot. First you privilege faith over reason, and that's too much right there. God, by any definition, is a claim, and, a large one at that. Such a claim demands evidence and there is none. So, you fail at first principles. The real life corollary is that other humans, claiming not only to know more than they can, will try to inflict their views on others. They do this without proof. To you that may be a whatever detail. To those accosted by these beliefs it is signally more important. Understanding mythology and its workings doesn't require belief in said mythologies. Ascribing credence to a particular version you find acceptable, whilst dismissing the veracity of others, is the commonplace arena for the mental gymnastics employed by all believers. All can see the flaws in the others yet, when assessing their own, they lose their critical faculties instantly. Casuistry pervades the believing community, always has. If you could evidence a deity you would be dining in Stockholm forthwith. I shall not expect a postcard any time soon. A note on Philadelphia. The point was a reference to your 12 step comment. This is known as the Philadelphia Programme. Whether you are familiar with the former capital or not is insignificant, but when you attest to things that you are clearly ignorant of, well, there is clearly something wrong with that.
I think
you’re missing a lot. First of all, you assume much about things of which you are ignorant. And, as a purportedly Wise One once said: “When you attest to things that you are clearly ignorant of, well, there is clearly something wrong with that.”
Now that we’ve got the pleasantries out of the way, apparently, you privilege assumption over reason where the expression of one’s faith is concerned, and that’s too much right there. Of course God is a claim — and it’s not one I claim to understand fully, but it
is one about which I can speculate and reason with via any number of theological disciplines. Such a claim doesn’t require evidence, as you say, for it’s not the full revelation of God that’s important to me, and from which I benefit so much as it is the process of the search, itself. Primarily, for purposes of this argument, I never claimed that “God exists.” That’s something you’ve assumed. In fact, I
don’t claim that “God exists.” That’s OK, O Best Beloved — It’s a foot many others have also shoved into their mouths concerning me.
I don’t claim to know more than I know; that’s a further assumption you’ve made. I don’t “value faith over reason.” And, more importantly, I don’t endeavor to foist my view on others where God is concerned. I will argue biblical exegesis, and I will argue the veracity of theological constructs — those things are logical disciplines that can be (and are) known. I say that God-claims are a “whatever detail” because they really are. We
don’t “know, and we
can’t “know.” We can only speculate and search. As I said: “God is what we make of God.” Everyone has a different perspective and that’s OK with me. For me, that’s the nature of spirituality and it’s the nature of the spiritual metaphorical constructs — we each voice our own truth. I don’t, in fact, “dismiss the veracity of others’ [perspectives]” — I welcome them, for we’re each unique and I feel as though honest perspectives should be honored.
As for what my own beliefs are, yes, I do have a fairly consistent set of metaphors and myths that serve me in that quest for meaning-making, but I fully understand that they are just that: metaphors and mythic constructs that make the spiritual more concrete, so I can better address them.
Honestly, I don’t see where any of that entails “casuistry.” That term is a bit disingenuous; it’s mainly a legal term, and when we’re dealing with the spiritual aspect of humanity, we’re not dealing with the black and white paradigm of the application of law, we’re dealing with intuition and imagination. It’s as if you’re trying very hard to turn a piece of art into a science project. How does one quantify beauty? How does one provide eveidence as to whether “beauty” exists? How does one quantify the importance of the creative process, the self-expression, the emotional impact, the making of meaning that a piece of art provides? Yet, the piece of art exists, just as the mythic God-concept exists.
And please don’t now take the tack that “the spiritual dimension is also a claim.” We each negotiate our interior life in unique ways. If spirituality isn’t your “bag,” I’m cool with that. But you need to understand that my feet are firmly on the ground of reality when it comes to theological imagination and constructs that serve to help me make meaning of my own interior life. And, as I’ve shown you the grace and respect of eschewing the spiritual dimensions of humanity, so I would ask the same of you with regard to my embrace of the same. Remember: when you attest to things you are clearly ignorant of, well, there is clearly something wrong with that. You have no idea what I do, or do not, know. You have no idea what I have and have not witnessed and experienced. You have no idea what I do for a living, or what my area of expertise is, or what my level of education in that expertise is. You have no idea what my God-concept is. You have no idea how the spiritual endeavor works for me. I do know something about putting people in touch with what empowers them; it’s real, it’s effective when it happens, it addresses the spiritual dimension of humanity, and I’ve found that it’s worthwhile in the majority of cases.
My advice for you is that you not make an A$$ of U concerning ME, until you get to know who I am and where I stand. You’re not getting off to a stellar beginning coming off all superior with regard to your tired and ineffective “I-know-you-can’t-prove-God-exists” gambit. Whether or not “God exists” isn’t something I get my panties in a twist about. But I find it interesting that you appear to have made it such a crusade.
Are we clear now, Skeezix?