Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
Thanks for a good explanation.
I don't think this type of deadlock will ever be resolved. At some level, religious participation requires faith in supernatural forces that are just that - supernatural and unexplainable by natural laws. Let the believer believe and the rationalist doubt, but when they debate each other it's maddening since they're not applying the same rules and methods. It's like they're playing cards, but one side is playing blackjack and the other side bridge.
I'm always bothered by the literalist impulse I see in certain Christian sects (and many LDS I know). Today's believers are really hung up on 'fact' [the earthly realm] and not so much on 'truth' [the spiritual/philosophical realm]. These concepts are not identical.
As Plutarch put it, "It is silly to mix earth with heaven." (Life of Romulus 28)
|
And for some of the reasons declared by you, I choose to believe, even if it does not withstand pure empirical observation. When the doubts have me against the wall, after examining the balance of good and bad, I can either doubt it all and live accordingly, or believe it in part to an extent that I am benefitted.
So for that part, I choose faith for covering those things which appear contradictory or contrary to reason. It does not stand to reason that a man or God rose again, but in using it in my dialectic, I benefit. It is a good life, even if I believe in things which are not as I conceive them. So the myths, traditions and historical events of our ancestors benefit me today and hopefully in the future.