I was reading an article, specifically
this, which seems to address the issue to some extent, MetalSlimeHunt.
And to me, at least, it makes quite a bit of sense. Whether or not the literal beliefs espoused by the Bible and the rational end product thereof is logically consistent is irrelevant, in this case, for most people, as can be seen by the actions of a vast plurality of people.
Actually, wait. Let me make a bit of a caveat here. I am quite good at doublethink. I take some amount of pride in my ability to hold multiple viewpoints simultaneously, or, to put it another way, to twist the methods of logic I usually take into something vastly different than their default. So when I say that it's irrelevant, I'm not arguing from the direct position of logic. I'm trying to argue from the standpoint (and I will make it very clear right now that I have never once read the bible in it's entirety, so I am in all likelihood shit at arguing any point concerning it, as I have only secondhand sources, regardless of the cultural saturation) of someone who would be religious and a doctor.
There is, of course, first off, the idea of taking the Bible figuratively. If you ask Jesus in your heart to do it in the name of God the Father, who is to say that His method is not via your hand? Or a Christian doctor's hand? The mountain will move, but many faithful might desire it to move.
Now here's where I could either make a quantum technobabble argument, a physics technobabble argument, a definitionbabble argument, or an actual at least decently legitimate argument, which I'll do because the first two fail to address any sort of point and don't actually help me fill my role here as God's Advocate (
).
Jesus is not trying to trick us. Trying to say that he's purposefully using poor language is stupid. For one thing, it's an english translation of a latin collection of works nearly 2,000 years old, the earliest surviving copy we actually legitimately know of being from several hundred years
after the events it describes, written by humans, who are innately fallible and sinful. So it's not His fault if we misinterpreted, unless you wanna go for a "God is Lazy, therefore Evil" argument, but that gets into free will and I already skirted that subject and my viewpoint on the matter is that it's essentially a null question anyway. (Good is described as Godliness. Thus, if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, and everything is part of His plan, everything, eventually, will resolve in some good.) For another thing, it is entirely possible he was being metaphoric, and if text in the modern day with emotes and all doesn't translate irony or sarcasm well, then, well...I suspect ancient Latin will encounter similar problems. I also doubt Jesus, being the Son of God, was less capable of using figurative language than your average high schooler, and if I'm trying desperately to get people to listen to me of their own free will because I have a limited time on this Earth and those who don't must be bound into fiery condemnation for the rest of time...figurative language evokes emotion, and emotion is what allows us to connect with God. He is beyond our ken; attempts to apply puny human logic simply cannot apply. You might say, 'well isn't that convenient for your argument when all argument is useless', and I would respond 'yes, this is why faith is important; the application of logic, at it's purest form, leads to obviously poor rationals, even when done with the best intentions'. There is an eminent nature in humans, that while likely explainable by biology, is no less the important for it. If God led us to notice patterns, and thus use logic, he also led us to have emotions which can confound this logic, to what purpose it is hard to tell, at times. Perhaps it is to prevent either from keeping us from reaching God, whenever we may.
To put it, perhaps, more simply:
Yes, it seems illogical to accept any part of the set of rationalizations and beliefs that, when properly articulated, 'click' together coherently, when the world also clicks with none of them present. That is why it is called faith. The choice is to believe, or not to believe, and both, when initiated independently, seem perfectly rational. One simply happens to hold positive beliefs in something
being, that, when some portion is called into question for one reason or another, causes the entire system to appear to fall apart, and so seems the less rational.
On the same note: Logic can be deceiving. The senses lie through their teeth, swearing up and down they're reporting the world accurately. Statistics can be biased, misread, or simply erroneous by no fault of the statistician. The argument that science has been wrong therefore it could be wrong therefore it likely is wrong is a logical fallacy. The argument that science has been wrong before, therefore it is likely to be wrong on some things now, and the possibility that these considerations are some of those, and that when you don't discount emotions and their purpose, this appears (I may be misrepresenting the logic process on this bit by not having considered some possibility, but if anyone could account for everything, they would be God) to present a different default from the typical assumption, that is also apparently sensible.
This has been me, attempting to present a credible presentation of a logical argument for Christianity, without knowing very much about the intimate details of the subject matter. I probably did a terrible job, as I know that I am confused by my wording, if nothing else, mostly because it was difficult to find accurate diction that doesn't skirt about the issue horribly.
Also in case anyone was wondering, which almost certainly no one was, I've rather come to despise the dissection and spaghettification of posts in arguments here on b12. Statements are made in context, and nitpicking and pointing out logical fallacies does not actually in itself present why the other person is wrong; only why they aren't right. And those are not quite the same. Also, it's really annoying, both to do and to deal with.
Poll
70 (27.6%)
Author
Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion (Read 582441 times)