Re: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

I'm back on line again, so I'll try to pick up a portion of the conversation
that Glenn and I were having.

In response to a comment by Glenn, I had asked: "Where did I say that all
human portraits of God were equally valid????"

Glenn replied:
 
> Here: " Both the text and the
> interpretation of the text are thoroughly human products."
>
> If that is true, then all religions are equal.

Sorry, Glen, that line of reasoning just doesn't hold up. Let's try that
same logic on some other thoroughly human endeavors.

1) All pianos are thoroughly human products. Therefore they are equally good
musical instruments.

2) All violin concertos are thoroughly human products. Therefore they are
equally good music.

3) All poems are thoroughly human products. Therefore they are equally good
literature.

4) All landscape paintings are thoroughly human products. Therefore they do
an equally good job of representing a particular landscape.

Am I communicating yet?

> Please explain why this does
> not make morally equivocal Christianity, and the religion I want to make up
> with the worship of Oogaboogah? (for oogaboogah fans, all you have to do to
> believe is send me all your money).
>
> I would contend that belief in Oogaboogah is exactly a thoroughly human
> product, as is the interpretation of what pleases Oogaboogah. What I see
> you saying is that the Bible and its intepretation are thoroughly human
> products. Howard, please send me all your money, it will be a
> life-enriching experience (for me).

No, I will take responsibility for evaluating your humanly crafted
"Oogaboogah religion" and, for a variety of reasons, reject it as unworthy
of my belief. I think you would do the same. That's the kind of human
judgment I'm talking about. We both use it.

Are you claiming that your portrait of God is not a humanly crafted product?

Howard
Received on Thu Oct 7 20:09:53 2004