In considering the above question (for which my thanks are due to your generosity and hospitality in inviting my response), I have complete confidence in replying in the negative. This is for the following reasons.
...
I cannot, of course, prove that there is no supervising deity who invigilates my every moment and who will pursue me even after I am dead. (I can only be happy that there is no evidence for such a ghastly idea, which would resemble a celestial North Korea in which liberty was not just impossible but inconceivable.) But nor has any theologian ever demonstrated the contrary. This would perhaps make the believer and the doubter equal—except that the believer claims to know, not just that God exists, but that his most detailed wishes are not merely knowable but actually known. Since religion drew its first breath when the species lived in utter ignorance and considerable fear, I hope I may be forgiven for declining to believe that another human being can tell me what to do, in the most intimate details of my life and mind, and to further dictate these terms as if acting as proxy for a supernatural entity. This tyrannical idea is very much older than Christianity, of course, but I do sometimes think that Christians have less excuse for believing, let alone wishing, that such a horrible thing could be true. Perhaps your response will make me reconsider?
Read more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was extremely disappointed with the debate, as both sides fell very short (in my opinion) of approaching the topic at hand. Instead of addressing benefits and deficits on society caused by Christianity, the discussion devolved into a discussion of generalized religion, of atheism, and of Christ (noting that a discussion of Christ is different than a discussion of Christianity). The debate had some moments, but overall it was a less than sincere exchange of ideas. It had the potential to be a very interesting discussion of history and society.
Post a Comment