At the party on Saturday night we had a short debate about whether there is a life after death and/or a God. As I was trying to get Simon to listen to my argument (instead of giving me an "Environmental and Resource Studies 101" lecture on the need to avoid coming to conclusions based on our understanding of the universe :) ) I realised this:
I have moved to the point that, though I'm willing to admit the possibility of an active, interested, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe I require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If someone wants me to believe in their interpretation of reality by reference to such a deity then they have to prove to me that it exists. In the absence of such proof (and here I am the final arbiter of what I consider convincing proof), I feel no compulsion to believe in their interpretation of reality.
Furthermore, having hypothetically proved it exists, they must prove that I should see it as somehow worthy of worship or obedience given the seemingly complete indifference or even malice with which it appears to deal with human beings.
And finally, even if we were to have all that happen, I still need some proof that the person claiming authority is a pure and unadulterated channel, unaffected by their own cultural perceptions or personal desires for power or authority.
I'm not completely unread on the various religions and philosophies of the earth, and I'd have to say that nothing I've seen in them can convince me on all three points, and honestly there doesn't even seem to be room within them to address the issues I have. Which isn't a totally bad thing. I don't mind being without religion, though as was pointed out at the party, it does rather cut down on the number of women I meet.
Pingbacks are closed.