untitled
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:11:50 -0400
From: Mike Ryder
Subject: Re: Rationalist authors - my response
To: [Family member B]
Cc: [Family member A]
Hi there,
I read your email with considerable consternation and am very unsure on
how to reply. On the one hand I am tempted to respond at face
value, but I am concerned that to do so will precipitate the
denigration of a largely intellectual discourse into personal
attacks. On the other hand you have made some rather dramatic
statements upon which I would like to make some comment.
Concerning the visions. As I understand it these were not
corporeal beings, but constructs of your brain. I think you are
suggesting that you were awake at the time, struggling for sleep with
an over-active brain. Is this correct?
That you believe these beings to be real is self-evident, that you find
them terrifying is disturbing. I idly wonder why they terrify
you. Doesn't Christianity teach that God protects and comforts
humanity (or is that just 'true believers')?
What really troubles me is the two paragraphs following "I will
therefore say this:". Am I to conclude that these statements are
a result of your vision? They surely cannot be a result of
anything the demon(s) told you. By your definition demons are evil and
malevolent. Surely then you are not going to believe anything
they say? Perhaps you could enlighten me here.
Your statement: "The rationalist position is demon
inspired." First this presupposes a belief in demons. I
take the following as a working definition of a demon:
"In folklore, mythology, and religion, a demon or demoness is a
supernatural being that is generally described as a malevolent spirit,
but is also depicted as a force that may be conjured and insecurely
controlled." (Taken from Wikipedia)
Is this reasonable?
I need a working definition of rationalism too. Could we all
agree on the following? (also lifted from Wikipedia)
*********************************************************************************
Rationalism, also known as the rationalist movement, is a philosophical
doctrine that asserts that the truth should be determined by reason and
factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching.
Rationalism has some similarities in ideology and intent to humanism
and atheism, in that it aims to provide a framework for social and
philosophical discourse outside of religious or supernatural beliefs;
however, rationalism differs from both of these, in that:
* As its name suggests, humanism is centered around human
society and achievements. Rationalism makes no claims that humans are
more important than animals or any other part of nature. There are some
rationalists who strongly oppose the anthropocentric philosophy of
humanism.
* Atheism is the condition of being without theistic
beliefs and alternatively the lack of belief in deities; rationalism
makes no statement either way regarding the actual existence of deities
although it rejects any belief based on faith alone. Although there is
a strong atheistic influence in modern rationalism, with all prominent
rationalists, including scientists such as Richard Dawkins and
activists such as Sanal Edamaruku holding atheistic views, not all
historical rationalists were atheists.
**********************************************************************************
That 'the rationalist position is demon inspired' seems to be a
statement of your opinion (and belief). You are of course
entitled to your opinion, but I hope you will concur that it is not
incumbent upon anyone to agree with it. Should you care to share
the reasoning and (hopefully) evidence to support this statement I
would be happy to review it objectively. As it stands I consider
it incredible, ie lacking credibility.
Next statement: "The trouble with the rationalist argument is
that they have no understanding whatsoever of the spiritual
dimension." Repudiation of a concept does not equate to a lack of
understanding (and even more so to "no understanding whatsoever".
That a rationalist is likely to reject any spiritual dimension is
almost a matter of definition. As for what is meant by "the
spiritual dimension", that could go anywhere. If I may be as bold
as to split the two I would comment that there are many many forms and
interpretations of spirituality, and the concept of (extra-)
dimensionality is something I personally find fascinating and wish I
were better able to wrap my head around.
As an aside, my favourite book of all time deals with the complex
concept of dimensions. It's a short book, written in 1898 by A.E.
Abbott called Flatland: A romance in many dimensions. It's not
relevant to this debate, but on the plus side, it probably wont be
judged to have been demon inspired. I thoroughly recommend
reading it. That is if I have any credibility left in your
collective eyes.
Next: "and to make it worse they deliberately close their eyes to that
which is obvious". Surely a rationalists eyes are wide open to
anything that can be seen and examined? I guess this is not the
'obvious' to which you refer, and the eyes are probably metaphorical
too. I guess you are referring to an aspect of Christian
philosophy, but I'm not exactly sure what.
"and [close] their hearts to the voice of conscience, so as to be
without excuse". I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps you are
saying that they are deliberately doing something they know is wrong,
and then convincing themselves that it is right. Am I even close?
"To make matters even worse they seek to attract others to their one
dimensional view." Setting aside the 'one dimensional' comment,
what could be objectionable about a group explaining the nature of
their philosophy? It is up to the individual to accept or reject
all or part of the argument based on its merits and the individual's
views.
As you correctly point out, your final point rests squarely on the
supposition that the bible is correct. Assuming for the moment
that it is true, imagine the plight of the non believer. For one
thing that will be the vast majority of past and present humanity. We
are talking many billions of people. Assuming we are not judged
one at a time (as this would take many years), we would, I guess, all
be judged at the same time (God is everywhere). I certainly can
see that it would be embaressing, but I can definitely imagine many
more miserable predicaments, any library shelf is full of them.
And what happens to the bad people anyway? If they are immediately
rekilled then what was the point of raising them in the first place?
Sadistic pleasure? Or are they condemned to an unpleasant eternal
existence? (thus granting them eternal life)
I'm sorry to hear about the power cut. I've resent the attachment.
I hope this didn't upset you too much. I do try to be objective
and gentle, but sometimes it's tough.
Cheers
Mike
bravenet.com