hoppah said:
Zip said:
hoppah said:
Many are the atheists who encountered Religion - usually some form of Christianity - and recoiled at the maddeningly illogical dogma, retreating into atheism as a reaction. "Religion is stupid and God sounds like a total asshole! Screw it, God must not exist." I have coined a phrase, however:
Religion is a failure of reason, and Atheism a failure of imagination.
The challenge to the Atheist, if he or she should choose to accept it, is to imagine a God that fits the evidence. That evidence must necessarily include not only the wonder of the cosmos and the beauty of Nature, but also war, famine, tsunamis, and how it feels when you accidentally hit your nuts with your nunchaku.
H.
One need not posit any unnecessary entities. That is, if an explanation does not require God, then it is more elegant and parsimonious to do without Her.
Again, this is a failure of imagination - I'm not positing a "her", or an old man on a throne directing our lives like a puppeteer. All of those types of definitions are laughably inadequate.
I love the following story - it captures well what I am talking about in metaphor:
Inayat Khan tells a Hindu story of a fish who went to a queen fish and asked "I have always heard about the sea, but what is the sea? Where is it?" The Queen explained: "You live, move, and have your being in the sea. The sea is within you and without you, and you are made of sea, and you will end in the sea. The sea surrounds you as your own being."
H.
That's interesting that you presume you know the contents of not just one person's thoughts, but an entire class of individuals! Anyways, it's not a failure of imagination (unless somehow you do have access to the contents of imaginations and, moreover, have criteria for distinguishing their failure or success at the holistic, group level, to boot! Are you God? That would make all of this more sensible!) -- atheists can imagine all sorts of fun things that are compatible with the lack of a theism (e.g., metaphysical worlds with ectoplasm, biological facts about ghosts, a causally connected plurality of worlds -- think Hugh Everett -- or a causally disconnected plurality of worlds -- think David Lewis -- or both together, etc. In fact, with the exception of ectoplasm, in its form outside of analytic metaphysics, anyways, I know that atheists are responsible for originating these ideas and would be happy to namedrop if you're interested). Again, there is no reason to think that these people are inferior in imagination than you, though I do bow to the powers of your imagination for imagining itself so superior! Haha. Indeed, they are and were some of the sharpest and imaginative minds in their fields. Rather, it's the lack of assent to a belief, and not only that, but good reason not to assent. I think you've missed what I'm saying. Undoubtedly you'll reciprocate the former sentence against me (don't do that! it's unimaginative now that I've anticipated it). And I never said that you posited anything that you might, then, consider "laughably inadequate," though I admit I can't predict what is laughable to you since it would seem to be a large category -- you must be ticklish. If you are seeking a constructive exchange of ideas and not some spitting contest between those you deem laughable, unimaginative, and what not, you might do better to construe it as such -- that is, as an exchange -- or refrain from engaging a dullard like myself since your time is better served elsewhere. Forgive me, but, a lot of the language used here is a tad obnoxious, and I'm not sure what purpose wide-ranging parables serve when the domain of discourse is restricted much more finely. I'd have no problem if it was subsequent to an argument of your own, in order to reinforce it, drive it home with poetic force, which would be standard, but you seem to think it serves as a substitute, an ersatz argument. Though, your parable does hint at monism (think Spinoza, maybe), which, in my first post, I mentioned new-found sympathies towards. This isn't necessarily characterized by theism, and especially not so under the word's traditional use. But, of course, I may just not be imaginative enough to see the encompassing meaning (or certainly at least not how you're theoretically cashing it out other than "this idea seems nice and poetic"). Help me out here! Otherwise, you've a very Cartesian, "you're just not meditating hard enough!", move going on =P Anyways, if for some reason you can't resist from calling the thoughts of other intelligent people, similar to yourself I have no doubt, unimaginative and laughable in further posts, I should be a little courteous to your time and mention that I won't have an interest in responding to them. A mutual level of respect, or something close to it, (after all, we're all trying to figure this thing out together) would be generous of you. Cheers.
