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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@sbcglobal.net]
>Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:57 PM
>To: Glenn Morton
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: 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?

Yes, but theological truths are not pianos, nor should they be human
products. Theology, if it is a human product is no better nor no worse
than a philosophical system. Try to tell me why Schopenaur's is better than
Ficte's, or Locke is better than Hume, or better than Descarte? The fact is,
that there are no tests to determine the truth of the philosophical system.
Thus, since each one is internally consistent but contradictory with the
next fellow's views, there is no way to determine good or bad in a
philosphical view, other than by internal inconsistency. Given that these
systems are internally consistent, they are all equally unverifiable and
equal in all metaphysical respects. Theologies, made by humans are no
better than philosophies made by humans.

Am I communicating now?

>
>> 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.

What if, Oogaboogah is real and doesn't like unbelievers like you?

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

If all I have is a Portraits-by-Glenn(TM) image of God, then I have little
more than a self delusion.
Aren't you aware that there are people who believe they have spoken with
aliens from space? Is their portrait of the aliens really so much different
than what you are advocating for a portrait of God?
Received on Fri Oct 8 15:43:09 2004