Either the nature of the is real is clear, or it isn't. If the nature of the real isn't clear, then all thought and dialogue ends, as there would be no way to determine what actually is the case, and therefore there'd be no way to determine that the way you go about determining meaning is the way meaning is actually determined, because in saying that your preferred method of determining meaning is how meaning is actually determined, you are saying that your preferred method corresponds to some feature of how the world really is, but this would be impossible if the nature of that which is real weren't clear.<-- I love this sentence! Have fun unpacking it!
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. *rofl*
Well, okay, my thoughts here:
I think what you're doing here is the "all or nothing" case... which is similar to the slippery slope fallacy in that it only posits two binary extreme outcomes.
I think it's pretty clear that life is not like that. Our two options are not, "Either we know everything with certainty" or "We know nothing and cannot make any educated guesses."
My quibble in religious conversation is that I see many people saying, "I know all this is true," when the fact is that (hopefully) it's an "educated guess" based on their best understanding on the data.
With the former, there is no need to accept any more outside data; there is no need to listen to another human being's insights (except as a hollow gesture); there is no need to continue to learn or grow or keep searching. This sort of mentality also automatically drops into a "defend the borders" approach to outsiders and dissenters, where the "truth" must be defended, xenophobic fears have fertile soil to grow within, authoritarian government rules, and interactive community can't help but break down. These negatives are implicitly enabled and encouraged by holding a position of certainty in a world that is diverse and often ambiguous.
With the latter, one can hold an opinion but is still able to engage others meaningfully and learn from them and not calcify one's position. Because the understanding is that we might hold a particular view currently, but that we accept that -- even if the general patterns might seem to be true -- there is much that we might not understand, and anyone is capable of providing us more insight that could lead to our understanding becoming more accurate and fruitful. This approach necessitates and fosters communication (it's the primary medium of information exchange and growth), inclusion, preservation of variety and imagination, and so forth.
So I think it's possible to live life on the basis of "educated guesswork" that can constantly be updated upon need, rather than being forced to hold a very specific set of doctrinal beliefs that are by nature inflexible, certain, and immutable. I think fallible human beings trying to hold to infallible beliefs is a recipe for disaster, long-term; if we were perfect, then our understanding might be perfect, but we are not perfect, so our understanding is imperfect.
So my quibble is not that religious make claims at all, that's fine, but it's with the basis for the claim(s) coupled with the degree of granularity that is even possible in an imperfectly understood world by intellectually limited human beings that bothers me. I mean, there are people's lives and happiness and expression of self being irrevocably impacted by people laying claim to religious values that really cannot be shown to be true but supposedly give permission for interference/intrusion by others, and that's where it this all hinges.... not in the theoretical but in the tangible impact of self-contained and imposed religious beliefs upon the welfare of other human beings.
/As for interpreting the meaning of this or that scriptural passage, I don't think we could even go there: we've too many disagreements of more basic issues. But think of this: if it were clear that God existed, yet you failed to believe in God, what would that say about the seriousness of your spiritual condition?
The problem really is what case can be proven.
If it was clear that God existed but you couldn't perceive him,then that would mean you were really screwed up... and to the very same degree that, if God didn't exist but you DID claim to perceive him, you would be really screwed up.
Which is it?
We don't know.
So why do some people insist they do know, and feel justified in imposing themselves on others... just because they "believe" something? This is how people are violated in the world: One person believes something that isn't true, and not only follows it themselves but feels compelled to somehow force another to comply with it as well.
Of course, I'd say the world needs a savior because the people actually need to be saved. If the people didn't need to be saved, there'd be no need for a savior.
Yup. it's quite the conundrum.
But it definitely impacts one's view of the universe and humanity. What does it mean to REALLY believe that every human being is essentially depraved at heart? Incapable of any good whatsoever? Always out to appease their own motives? (Which is what Romans Roads Christians claim to really believe. Our righteousness is filthy rags, our throats open graves, we're given over to sin and licentiousness on our own, we are murderers and liars and thieves and gluttons and whatever else you'd like to name... and yup, it's all in there in great detail in Romans and Psalms and wherever else.)
I don't think anyone truly believes this, or the world would be far crazier than it actually is and we'd each be holed up in our own private bunkers and not coming out for anything. We might LIKE to think we believe this, and people in church constantly quote and read these verses... but isn't the truth really that we think other people are "okay" but just a bit misguided, or dumb, or selfish at times, etc? That's how we interact with them. Not as the former, but as generally reasonable but just imperfect people.
And that's not the scriptural position, nor is it the position I see inherent in what you are arguing (with insisting that the world needs a savior). We claim to believe one thing, but if you watch how we behave, then our actual beliefs are obvious.
And I think not taking one's beliefs to their logical conclusions is a cop-out, because it muddies down the intellectual conversation and lets us cobble together half-truths that obfuscate the natural ramifications of certain beliefs. Which leads back into the "hell" thing... Either we believe people need a savior and are going to be suffering eternal torment, so we're working endlessly and tirelessly to get other people to believe the way we do... OR we have to accept that maybe we really don't believe that (OR we're unloving OR uncommitted to the faith). To claim to believe in original sin, human depravity, the need for a savior, and whatever else, and then not be out there tirelessly confronting people and trying to win them out of damnation --as far as I can see -- is a moral/rational failing.
Either change our doctrine or change our behavior.
