View Single Post
  #17  
Old 18-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Mind's Eye
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIFE
Not really, and I'll tell you why? Making a absolute positive statement is radically different from making an absolute negative statement. Deductive (eliminative) reasoning is predicated on the formation of decisive statements of negation.

An absolute statement about the inerrancy, literality, and "divine inspiration" of a particular religious book cannot be made identical to absolute statements to the contrary.

Example: If I happen to find some really large animal tracks in the woods- something completely unknown and unlike anything I've ever seen- negative statements about the identity of that animal can be decisively made, while positive statements cannot. For instance, I will know beyond any doubt that those tracks were not formed by a sparrow walking along the ground, a snake slithering, etc. In other words, I cannot tell you what that animal IS, but I can tell you what it IS NOT.

Similarly, if there is a "God", then I cannot make an absolute concretist statement about what "God" is, but this does not mean I cannot make statements about what "God" is not, or cannot be, for that matter. The two should not be confused. The inability to make a positive statement does not preclude the ability to make a negative statement. They are not direeclty correlative in this way. (see: apophatic/negative theology, which can be found in all spiritual traditions).

For instance, we may not be able to agree on what or if "God" exists, but we can almost certainly agree that it is not a gigantic pink elephant that lives in the clouds. Am I right? We can probably safely deduct that.

In the same way, I don't know what God is (or more specifically, what is represented by the term "God") but I do know that it is not the tribal diety that is described in the bible, interpreted in an orthodox manner through a literal reading. That much can be decisively said, in my opinion.

What you are saying is true in its context, and also differs from a frontal assault launched by someone because they are ticked off at religion. It is a different animal to say, I disagree with some of your concepts about God because... as apposed to; you are a fool or an uneducated redneck for believing the way you do. Name hurling and blanketed judgmental statements have no place in apophatic/negative theology as far as I am concerned; and neither do statements that teeter on the threshold of being intolerant or insulting.

And as far as the tribal deity of the Bible goes; most folks who use such terminology or view the Biblical God as a blood thirsty tyrant, are generally folks who have never read the Bible, or do not understand it. The writings of the Bible are actually layers deep and it takes years to uncover some of its hidden meanings and mysteries. There are also so many passages that harken back to or explain other passages that one cannot grasp, nor even remember such complex theologies in a casual reading of the book. This alone is why someone can't read a book written by someone who can't stand the Bible and then go about spouting what they read in that book as fact... because those facts are often lacking in real substance and are just being presented buy someone who was the victim of a lop sided church.

Education is the key, and you can't get that by taking casual glances at a subject, taking as gospel what someone else says about it or looking at toothless numb skulls handling poisonous snakes. Nor can we leaf through the Bible and read a few gruesome stories in it and think we comprehend the wider picture as to why that gruesomeness took place... If most folks understood what the book was presenting, they would have a better platform from which to speak... and then they could enter into a more appropriate dialogue over the subject. And then they could agree to disagree on certain subjects that are based on the facts, not just on hearsay and personal prejudices.
Reply With Quote