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

On 10/16/04 6:45 AM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:

> Then explain how we determine via observation, whether God is Allah or
> Jehovah? I know of no way to do that. Since both groups have their gods
> saying different things (Christianity: This is my beloved son in whom I am
> well pleased. Islam: Surah 4:171 "believe therefore in Allah and His
> apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only
> one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in
> the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for
> a Protector. "
>
> These are mutually exclusive statements. Please tell us how you determine
> the truth of one of these statements via observational data.

Yes, you have presented two mutually exclusive statements. That's not
difficult to find among religions, not even within any one of them.
"Observational data" is not really a very useful term here. Human experience
and human judgment is closer to what is needed. Is it infallible? No, but
it's the best we have. What I'm asking for is simply that we admit it and
then do the best we can, with respect for others who are doing the same.

>> I think I understand your position very well, thank you. What I am
>> trying to
>> do is to get YOU to take ownership of it as a _human choice_.
>
> Howard, a CHOICE, is not a PORTRAIT. At least not in any dictionary I have.
> If by portrait you merely mean choice, then I have no problem with your
> position. But portrait implies understanding or knowledge of what the
> object of the portrait is. Do I and you chose to be Christians and my
> cousin-in-law chose to be a shiite? Sure. But that doesn't that doesn't
> mean that what we know about God (the portrait) is merely a human
> construction.

The choice I'm talking about is the choice of how to craft one's portrait of
God. If I understand you correctly, you have made the choice to craft your
portrait of God from selected portions of the Judeo-Christian Bible (assumed
to be a special revelation from God), employing some particular
hermeneutical tradition, and doing all of this in the context of your own
culture and personal history.

Some persons simply accept the portrait of God that they inherited from
parents and their local community. Whether a person is a Christian or Muslim
then depends a lot on history and locality -- genealogical and geographical
accidents. I would prefer to get more self-consciously involved in the
process.

>> Glenn, I'm not merely trying to pester you personally. These are important
>> issues for religion and theology, and they lie at the root of deep
>> disagreements about what the biblical text is able to contribute to the
>> religion/science discussion.
>
> Agreed, but if we merely say it is irrelevant, or that our religion is a
> human construct. Why bother with it.

It's the human condition. We do the best we can and rejoice in all that we
are privileged to think and do.

> Tell me how to differentiate between
> the two theological statements, above (This is my son" and "far be It from
> His glory that He should have a son" How do I tell which is true? If the
> only way is to make a blind leap of faith, then maybe one should become a
> muslim. It seems that they are going to win the world for their position and
> christianity is going to lose. They are far more dedicated than the
> Christians. They actually believe their Scripture.

Is that an advantage? Does loyalty to a text necessarily lead to truth? Does
loyalty to a text lead people to live better lives?
 
> To avoid one possible response from anyone, it seems to me that one can't
> claim automatically that God wouldn't condone the beheadings etc we see
> among the jihadists. They believe that God does condone those things.
> Their portrait of God is harsher than ours. and this is why the question of
> how to differentiate the truth value of the two statemenst above is so
> important.

I know that some terrorists appeal publicly to their sacred text for support
of what they do for other reasons. I'm not at all convinced that such
appeals are honest expressions of actual belief. My suspicion is that it is
a mere rhetorical game, transparently hypocritical.

You can have the last word. I don't think this exchange is doing any one any
good.

Howard
Received on Sat Oct 16 16:03:36 2004