Now here's a question: how do you email someone who wants to communicate
but appears deliberately to hide any means of communicating? Well..
you can't! Unless, you want to find some kind of 'message in the bottle'
technique, as is represented by this page.
I was elated to find a comment related to my site [Shido's Homepage] which came to me through Geocities' surveying facilities.
[I should explain this before proceeding. Geocities sites can be set up to allow true surveying, that is, guaranteed privacy such that there is a reasonable confidence that the information collected is "true", or unbiased with regard to the surveyor.]
My site contains this feature in two forms, and my "Geocities neighbour" responded to both of them, including his identity and internet address with his response, and suggesting some further "dialogue" through his site, which appeared to have no email references. Ahh yes, there IS a dark side to surveying -- it is not intended for dialogue, and perhaps my "Geocities neighbour" knew this; however, as that would be to suggest 'saddism', I can't bring myself to accept the possibility.
Anyway, I was elated to find a comment but disappointed by the nature of the comment. The thought was 'your site was cool enough but I have no time for its content.' That's okay. I'm not hurt, just curious why the suggestion for dialogue was made. So, like the cat, I investigated. Thanks, CERisE (though I am mostly grateful for the response)! But, here's the thing: I was asked to read a dissertation entitled "Everything About Religion, I Learned From Counting (But Don't Count On It!)", AND I COULDN'T LOCATE IT!!
[Apparently, this was not CERisE's fault. The page did exist, though CERisE had to point it out to me later by email. The fault lay in CERisE's page design, which incorporated some "tech"y software that required a/some plug-in(s) I didn't have. The software blanked out CERisE's content and made reading difficult.]
The result of this confusion eventually became the content of this page; not related to CERisE's dissertation but to the one I could find: 'A Refutation of the "Fingerprint of God"' subtitled '(originally addressed to Rabbi David Meyer)'. Honto!
CERisE confided that he was my neighbour and in fact he is; living one electronic address down from me on the Geocities Athens Parthenon platform. ..Strange idea, ne? But, hey, I like it. Just think we COULD have the beginnings of "virtual countries" here. Land, itself, COULD become a relative concept!!! But I digress - let's get back to the point..
In the interests of good will and better communication, which may or may not have anything at all to do with PHILosophy, I responded.
Atheism. Does it really exist at all?? Hey, this is a serious question! According to Bob Dylan, we all have to "serve somebody". A person, an idea, or a spirit, if not "God". However, we all have been blessed (or cursed) with a freedom of choice, and we can literally choose to serve anything at all! No one will stop us, though the consequences will be entirely ours to reap... If you can live with the consequences of your choice, that may be just fine, from your perspective. But, I can not willingly stand by while a child meanders out into oncoming traffic. Another intervening morality takes precedence. This thinking is, by the way, why Christians appear to be so meddlesome. In no way do I want people to point accusing fingers at me, saying, "if you knew, why didn't you stop me?" We must attempt to save the dignity of people where possible, but we are honour-bound to try to prevent life-threatening personal errors. Anyway, here are the points that Phil rebuttals:
1. Need for an unmoved mover. Was it Rabbi David or some other? I don't know, honest (I am still trying to work out all of the ramifications of Murasaki Shikibu's 'The Tale of Genji'. Talk about multiple reincarnations of 'Days Of Our Lives')! Anyway, back to the laws of thermodynamics, and entropy: over time things fall apart. There was once a thought that time could solve anything, and this was expressed in the thought that if you put a gorilla in a room with a typewriter long enough, he would "accidently" write a Shakespearian play. Unfortunately, nothing happens by accident. And, the kicker is that we all subconsciously know this! Which is why there is a need in our own minds for some thoughtful explanation. St. Augustine, among others, said 'There is a hole in ourselves the size of Jesus.' There is a deep reason why we want to exclude God, and the reason is not based on logic at all, but on rebellion. You see, "deep down" we all want to be King.. [Stephen might say, in his case, that it was a happy accident.]
2. The power of prayer in healing. Supernatural healings (and miracles in general) are not a topic I would personally choose to bring up (but somebody did, right?) The problem isn't necessarily with the argument per se, but there certainly is a problem with the subjective nature of language, and again, our freedom of choice. We, human beings are truly versatile creatures, in that we can simply veto ideas based on personal bias. Phil, actually makes this point himself. This has been called 'relativity' and is easily demonstrated in the words "I don't believe it!" or worse, "I won't believe it unless I see it!" which history has already shown us to be the red herring that it is. I'm sorry, but I must bow to the impossibility of the task before me.
3. The long standing history of.. History and tradition are interesting necessities (not niceties) of culture, which "love it or lump it" are with us. They are not the same thing, but they are related, as they both hinge on acceptance over time.
..Religion What is it, I mean, really?? Religion is a system of rules based on observation of unexplainable events. Religion arises from our basic need to know. As such, it is a natural reaction to being thinking beings in a world we cannot control. I am not saying religion is wrong, only that it is natural. However, religion is not a proof of God. The interesting thing about the Judeo-Christian belief is that God chose to reveal Himself to us. It was not enough that we had 'all of His creation to marvel at' [see point 4.] because we are like children, we just don't have what it takes to make the pieces fit. And, we have "religion" to demonstrate this. When I speak of God revealing Himself, then, we find ourselves back at the beginning of point 3., which is history, and not tradition, again.
Christian scholars have said that God is the god of history. History is our central proof, objectively, of God. There is nothing illogical about the Bible, archeology has been employed to verify the names and places, not recently known except by the Bible. Events have been shown to have occurred. When we prove that there are, at times, logical physical explanations to some "miracles" this does not disprove God, for with God's work there has always been the necessary requirement of faith on some believer's behalf. And there are just too many coincidences to believe in coincidences. The Bible not only historically justifies God's existence but it also reveals to us how we are to live. As such it is a Very Useful Book, to paraphrase A.A. Milne. But how can we trust it apart from experiencing it? The same is true with God. The ultimate proof of God is subjective, not objective. It is the act of taking God at His word, and trusting in Him. There is no mention here of religion. This is not a cultural experience but a personal one, which is why I say that my interest is in: What God is doing in your life, and mine. Can U C it?
4. I'd like to stop here, because the main points have already been made, but the question of objective proof is raised directly with: The Order and Harmony In Nature. CERisE has made use of Bertrand Russell to imply his point, which is that everywhere we look, in detail, there is disharmony. The ISSUE is "in detail". Things are falling apart. But, the disintegration is not yet so severe as to destroy the picture we once had. The demonstration, here, is not one arguing against God, but rather one proving entropy (we call this "sin"); a house was built, we know there was a builder, but it was built oh 'so long ago, the Garden..' This, by the way, is one of Larry Norman's favourite topics.
It seems to me that the proof of God is within everyone's reach, and we can be sneaky like Nicodemus, and come to Him in the middle of the night when none of our friends are watching if we want to. It doesn't really matter. But it does matter that we give Him a real opportunity to prove Himself on fair terms. God is the respecter of no one. This means we are both equal before Him, and also that we have no right to demand. However, because we are important to Him, He will show us His reality.
May God bless you, CERisE. Shido. You can email me at
shido-san@yahoo.com
As I said above originally, I used this page as a message in a bottle. Later,
I did find Phil's dissertation.. Here is an annotated copy and refutation
of CERisE's "treatise" Everything About Religion, I Learned From Counting
(But Don't Count On It!). The title and introduction are brilliant.
Want a nutshell statement about God's relationship to you? Try clicking
the following
Back to the Front
Get your own Free Home Page