God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@sbcglobal.net]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:35 PM
>To: Glenn Morton
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Reply to Glenn's 9/11 post
>
>
>On 10/1/04 11:06 AM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> But if everyone is busy painting self-delusionary pictures of god, it
>> doesn't seem to be a very productive activity from what I can see.
>
>Glenn, you've done it again. The only choice you offer is a simplistic
>either/or: _either_ 1) Glenn's way of portraying God, or _or_ 2)
>"self-delusionary pictures of God." That is a false dilemma. You have
>categorically dismissed numerous other options worthy of consideration.
>Example: Recognizing that even if we "give it our best shot," our portrait
>of God will be incomplete and inaccurate. Nonetheless, we do our best, in
>humility and candor.

There is a BIG either or, which we all must deal with whether we want to or
not. Something is either REAL or NOT REAL. There is no intermediate. God's
existence is a binary quantity, he either is or isn't. God is not a cat in
Schroedinger's box! God either communicated with man or he didn't--once
again a binary option. God either told the truth or he didn't--binary. God
either sent his son or he didn't--binary. God either created the world or he
didn't. There is no position in which God was 25% the cause of creation and
naturalism 75% of the causation for creation. Fuzzy logic and/or quantum
indeterminacy doesn't apply at all to these things.

You seem to think it is consistent for God to tell one man to chop off heads
of non-Muslims but tell another to love your enemy. If God does both, the
cynic in me wants to ask if He is setting us up for easy slaughter.

>>
>> Give a cogent, objective definition of how we tell silly
>nonsense from truth
>> when one can say such things as we are all painting our own
>pictures of god.
>
>1) What is the judgment of a larger community of people?

Of what value is that? You seem to endorse the logical fallacy of ad
populum. The majority judgement of the 14th century people was that there
were witches and that the earth was created by god in 4004 BC. Where are the
crucial experiments (experimentum crucis) which determine truth?

Frankly, I can't believe where you have gone with your theology. It is truly
sad.

>
>2) Does this portrait of God lead to the enhancement of the life experience
>of those who hold this portrait and those with whom they interact?

The head-choppers think so. Who can deny them that view? Consider what was
in the Wall Street Journal this week:

        “Who are we allowed to seize as hostage? Who are we allowed to kill?
        “For the past few weeks these questions have prompted much debate
throughout the Muslim world. The emerging answer to both questions is:
anyone you like!”
        “Triggered by the tragedy at a school in Beslan, southern Russia, last
month, the debate has been further fuelled by kidnappings and ‘exhibition
killings’ in Iraq. Non-Muslims may find it strange that such practices are
debated rather than condemned as despicable crimes. But the fact is that the
seizure of hostages and ‘exhibition killing’ go back to the early stages of
Islamic history.”
        “In the Arabia of the seventh century, where Islam was born, seizing
hostages was practiced by rival tribes, and ‘exhibition killing’ was a
weapon of psychological war. the Prophet codified those practices, ending
freelance kidnappings and head-chopping. One principle of the new code was
that Muslims could not be held hostage by Muslims. Nor could Muslims be
subjected to ‘exhibition killing.’ Such methods were to be used solely
against non-Muslims, and then only in the context of armed conflict.”
        “Seized in combat, a non-Muslim would be treated as a war prisoner, and
could win freedom by converting to Islam. He could also be ransomed or
exchanged against a Muslim prisoner of war. Non-Muslim women and children
captured in war would become the property of their Muslim captors. Female
captives could be taken as concubines or given as gifts to Muslims. The
children, brought up as Muslims, would enjoy Islamic rights.”
        “Centuries later, the initial code was elaborated by Imam Jaafar Sadeq, a
descendant of the Prophet. He made two key rulings. Whoever entered Islam
was instantly granted ‘full guarantee for his blood.’ And non-Muslims, as
long as they paid their poll tax, or jiziyah, to the Islamic authority would
be protected.”
 Amir Taheri, “Exhibition Killing” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 2004, p.
A16

The article goes on to say that the only reason there is any condemnation of
shooting school children in the back in Breslan, Russia is that Russia has
supported the Arabist cause. Yeah, they paint a good picture of God, and
given the fact that Islam is a growing segment of the world and constitutes
around 1/5 of the world population, it would seem that they do have God on
their side.

To answer your question, it would seem that their god does give them an
enhanced life experience. It is death to ever leave Islam.

>
>>
>> There is clearly a difference between certainty and uselessness.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Howard. I see little reason to believe illusions or self-delusions.
>
>Agreed.

I don't really see how you can agree with this given the idea that anything
goes with painting a picture of God.
Received on Fri Oct 1 19:57:56 2004